1.01 Rookie Pick Sankey or Watkins or other? Discuss (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

In PPR:

With Bishop Sankey that some, including posters on this board have dubbed the #1 rookie RB, landing in perhaps the best spot for a rookie RB available is it possible that Sankey is now a legitimate contender for the 1.01 rookie pick over Watkins and possibly Evans (or other WR) in PPR?

Whisenhunt had two RBs in top 15 last year and few if any would contend that the Shonn Greene of 2013 was even close to the Ryan Matthews of 2013, certainly not in terms of burst and production, so it would seem that the Sankey role would/could be larger that Matthews or indeed Woodheads.

Is that enough to propel Sankey to the #1 spot over your favorite WR?

Can the weapons in BUF keep Watkins from being double teamed? And can he deliver a WR1 season with EJ Manuel as QB this year and probably next

Evans is unlikely to see double teams in TB, is he then the new #1?

 

[duaneok66]

In the longterm, talent > opportunity.

Go with Watkins (or Evans).

Sankey is #3.

 

[DAG]

I agree with that calculation: long term talent over situation.

So, I'd also place Watkins and Evans over Sankey and I'd probably also have some of the other WRs above him as well (at least Beckham, Cooks, maybe Jordan Matthews). But that's where I am on RBs in dynasty. I'm not prioritizing a RB over a WR unless that RB is a special talent who clearly has the ability to hold down a significant role over the long term. I like Sankey but I don't see him as meeting that standard.

 

[Bucky86]

I agree with that calculation: long term talent over situation.

So, I'd also place Watkins and Evans over Sankey and I'd probably also have some of the other WRs above him as well (at least Beckham, Cooks, maybe Jordan Matthews). But that's where I am on RBs in dynasty. I'm not prioritizing a RB over a WR unless that RB is a special talent who clearly has the ability to hold down a significant role over the long term. I like Sankey but I don't see him as meeting that standard.

This.

NFL teams don't even value RB's anymore. They're constantly bringing in cheaper/younger talent every year via the draft. Too risky to use a top 3 pick on a RB that is just going to be semi-replaced in 2 years.

 

[Gandalf]

Depends entirely on team needs. If you need a RB you have to go Sankey at this point. If you don't, I'd prefer Watkins. Everything else being equal, I'd prefer Watkins.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

 

[Donsmith753]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

Good for you

 

[Archer]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

 

[Donsmith753]

Depends entirely on team needs. If you need a RB you have to go Sankey at this point. If you don't, I'd prefer Watkins. Everything else being equal, I'd prefer Watkins.

Itd take more than need for me to pass on a Watkins/Evans or even OBJ/cooks for a back like Sankey

 

[lod01]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

That's a little over the top. Yes, he has no QB yes he has a high % chance of playing in one of the worst conditions during FF playoffs. Yeah Buffalo sucks but if they get a real QB, he can be solid. They could even move to better weather or a dome.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

Not interested in a better Stevie Johnson

 

[msommer]

The short term rewards would seem significantly greater by going Sankey over a WR, regardless of talent.

Evans will change QBs in the next two years, and EJ may never pan out and could be replaced within two years as well, which should devalue at least those two

situations. Few rookie WRs sniff FF relevance, even AJ Green and Julio Jones were spot starts IMHO

Without unlimited benches and dynasty view, is the short term gain not worthy of consideration. If you think RBs are so replaceable, then you can always trade them to a needy team...

 

[ShaHBucks]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

That's a little over the top. Yes, he has no QB yes he has a high % chance of playing in one of the worst conditions during FF playoffs. Yeah Buffalo sucks but if they get a real QB, he can be solid. They could even move to better weather or a dome.

Snow + AFC East + EJ Manual = No thanks

 

[duaneok66]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

okay.

 

[ffgiant]

This year fantasy rookie draft looks like the NFL draft. I don't think there will be consensus top picks. It will highly depends on your league structure and your team goal. I will have to digest all the information, my ranking will be out in a week.

At the moment, I figure Sankey, Evans and Watkins will be the top 3.

 

[werdnoynek]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

 

[Andrew74]

Watkins is my 1.01 still. Talent > situation and I don't have an immediate RB need.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The idea of taking an RB drafted at 54th over a WR drafted at 4th makes my skin crawl. I anchor very heavily to draft position when creating rookie rankings, and while I'm still early in the process, there's a good chance that Sankey doesn't even wind up in my top 6.

 

[Donsmith753]

The idea of taking an RB drafted at 54th over a WR drafted at 4th makes my skin crawl. I anchor very heavily to draft position when creating rookie rankings, and while I'm still early in the process, there's a good chance that Sankey doesn't even wind up in my top 6.

Adam, do you have a link to the stuff you did on draft position vs fantasy success?

 

[False Start]

Watkins is my 1.01 still. Talent > situation and I don't have an immediate RB need.

Manual is not a special QB, and the Bills are still a bad team with very little in fantasy production. I am in the group that thinks Watkins is highly overrated. Not out of my Top 10, but out of my Top 5, yes. I want no part of a Bills WR quite honestly, call me bias against Bills players.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The idea of taking an RB drafted at 54th over a WR drafted at 4th makes my skin crawl. I anchor very heavily to draft position when creating rookie rankings, and while I'm still early in the process, there's a good chance that Sankey doesn't even wind up in my top 6.

Adam, do you have a link to the stuff you did on draft position vs fantasy success?

I'm assuming you're referring to my "Efficient Market Hypothesis" series. Here's part 1, here's part 2, and here's part 3. They were pretty popular last year, so I'll probably be updating the series again this season. In addition, Neil Paine of FiveThirtyEight recently wrote another piece examining the NFL draft in light of the Efficient Market Hypothesis.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Watkins is my 1.01 still. Talent > situation and I don't have an immediate RB need.

Manual is not a special QB, and the Bills are still a bad team with very little in fantasy production. I am in the group that thinks Watkins is highly overrated. Not out of my Top 10, but out of my Top 5, yes. I want no part of a Bills WR quite honestly, call me bias against Bills players.

I actually used this exact line of reasoning in 2011 to avoid drafting A.J. Green. The Bengals had been such a joke for so long, had the cheapest scouting department in the league, had a spendthrift owner, and had just gone through the "Carson Palmer wants out so badly he's planning on retiring" saga.

Chad Parsons mentioned that he did a study and found that initial situation had little correlation with long-term success at WR, which intuitively makes sense to me. So many WRs break out in terrible situations, and since WRs typically take longer to develop, their situations usually change pretty dramatically before they're at full speed, anyway.

 

[JohnnyU]

Sankey went 1.07 in Hyperactive 1 Hyper Conference and hasn't been taken yet in the Active Conference and we're at 1.10

PPR league MIN RB = 1 / MAX RB = 4.

 

[Donsmith753]

The idea of taking an RB drafted at 54th over a WR drafted at 4th makes my skin crawl. I anchor very heavily to draft position when creating rookie rankings, and while I'm still early in the process, there's a good chance that Sankey doesn't even wind up in my top 6.

Adam, do you have a link to the stuff you did on draft position vs fantasy success?

I'm assuming you're referring to my "Efficient Market Hypothesis" series. Here's part 1, here's part 2, and here's part 3. They were pretty popular last year, so I'll probably be updating the series again this season. In addition, Neil Paine of FiveThirtyEight recently wrote another piece examining the NFL draft in light of the Efficient Market Hypothesis.

Thanks Adam

 

[bostonfred]

Talent:

Watkins: The consensus most talented receiver in a draft that's been hailed as possibly the best receiver draft in history. Might not be a huge TD threat, but he should be a stud nonetheless.

Sankey: Arguably the best running back in a draft that set a record for the latest ever to have a running back drafted.

Job security - Will this guy still have a job in two years if he doesn't hit the ground running?

Watkins: Unequivocally yes. There's almost no scenario where a team moves up to #4 overall and dumps him after a slow start.

Sankey: Probably, but this is dicier. As the first running back taken in this year's draft, Sankey has a little more pedigree than the average "54th player selected". And it's hard to picture Shonn Greene taking too many touches. But if he sucks, the recent NFL market shows that just about any running back is replaceable.

Surrounding cast:

Watkins: The problem isn't that EJ Manuel sucks. It's that he might not suck enough to lose the job, but might not be a good enough passer to make Watkins elite. If he ends up having a great career as a running QB who can throw fairly well, then Watkins' talent may be squandered.

Sankey: The offensive line is stocked with young studs. The quarterback has good receivers but will need help from the running game. This is the kind of situation where a running back can put up elite numbers right away.

Weather:

Watkins: Buffalo isn't exactly a hot bed of elite NFL wide receivers. In fact, most cold weather, outdoor stadium teams don't have stud WRs. Maybe that's a self fulfilling prophecy, as GMs tend to draft based on their biases. But it's hard to imagine an elite WR emerging on his own in a city like Buffalo. But wait, you say. What about Andre Reed? Or Randy Moss, who set NFL records in his first season playing outdoors in New England? Or Sharpe, Brooks, Freeman, Driver, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, and Jones? That's different... they all played with HoF quarterbacks. Maybe Watkins helps Manuel emerge as an elite passer, but the scary scenario is the one where Manuel isn't good enough to help Watkins emerge as an elite fantasy receiver, but is good enough to keep the job.

Sankey: Not an issue.

Longevity:

Watkins: One of the main arguments for taking a WR over a RB is that WRs play longer. But if Watkins has to live through several years of below average QB play - and maybe I'm being unfair to Manuel here but he doesn't seem like an above average pocket passer to me - then you won't get as many years of elite performance from Watkins, and it won't be as soon.

Scarcity:

Watkins: The WR position is getting oversaturated with "elite talent". Just about every team in your league right now probably feels like they've got several "elite" receivers. The guys with DeAndre Hopkins and Dobson, or Blackmon and Gordon, or Kendall Wright and Hunter, or the umpteen "stud" receivers in this year's draft... there's dozens of "top 10 receivers". If you don't take Watkins, you can still pick up a solid receiver later. And the Roddy White and Andre Johnson owners will probably sell cheaper than the ADP and Marshawn Lynch owners. It's getting easier to find quality talent at wide receiver.

Sankey: Despite the unusual success of last years' class, there really aren't many young stud RBs right now. The opportunity to lock up a potential stud could be enormous. And while you can often find quality RBs to piece together in free agency, in most leagues it's difficult to add those guys when you have a competitive team. And there are very few feature backs out there. The possibility that Sankey is one of them is just that - a possibility - but if he is, he's a fantasy gold mine. It's getting harder to find quality talent at running back.

Add it up, and you can make a strong argument for either one, but I think the argument for Sankey is a little stronger than the argument for Watkins. If you're 100% sold on Watkins' talent, there's nothing wrong with taking him 1.1. Same thing if you're not sold on Sankey's talent. And certainly your league scoring rules and lineup requirements, and your own team's composition can impact this quite a bit, too. If you only have to start one RB, then Sankey's nowhere near as valuable. If you've got a "win now" team, Sankey's more likely to give you high level play the next three years than Watkins. If you're rebuilding, and you'll still be a couple players short no matter which guy you take, then Watkins lets you have your cake and eat it too with a quality player who won't keep you from getting a good draft pick next year.

I don't think there's a slam dunk answer either way, personally.

 

[FUBAR]

I think Manuel develops into a capable qb. He'll never be Peyton but he doesn't have to be.

I'm a Titans fan but take Watkins in dynasty.

 

[Zdravko]

EJ Manuel will probably never be a good QB, but Watkins will get a ton of touches from Day 1, including lots of short throws.

Also, if history is any indication, other highly drafted rookie WRs that went to bad spots recently fared quite well despite questionable QBs. AJ Green turned out fine and a drunk Blackmon posted excellent stats with Henne / Gabbert / my grandma.


So in standard leagues, you can argue Sankey over Watkins or Evans. In PPR, however, Watkins remains the better dynasty pick by a good margin.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Here's every receiver drafted in the top 10 between 1990 and 2010. There are 28 receivers in the sample.

16 were starters for at least 5 years

23 were starters for at least 3 years

10 surpassed 50 career AV

19 surpassed 30 career AV

12 made at least one pro bowl

6 made at least one first-team AP All Pro squad

In total, they have made 39 pro bowls and counting (1.4 per player)

In total, they have made 11 All Pro teams and counting (0.4 per player)

Here's every RB drafted from pick 49 to pick 59 between 1990 and 2010. There are 20 RBs in the sample.

3 were starters for at least 5 years

6 were starters for at least 3 years

2 surpassed 50 career AV

6 surpassed 30 career AV

4 made at least one pro bowl

only 1 was ever named first-team AP All Pro

In total, they have made 7 career pro bowls and counting (0.35 per player)

In total, they have made 2 All Pro teams and counting (0.1 per player)

It's true that the league has changed, but I would think that the league changes would only further favor the wide receivers.

 

[duaneok66]

This excellent post won't change anything - people will think that they have found "the exception".

 

[Adam Harstad]

The idea of taking an RB drafted at 54th over a WR drafted at 4th makes my skin crawl. I anchor very heavily to draft position when creating rookie rankings, and while I'm still early in the process, there's a good chance that Sankey doesn't even wind up in my top 6.

Adam, do you have a link to the stuff you did on draft position vs fantasy success?

I'm assuming you're referring to my "Efficient Market Hypothesis" series. Here's part 1, here's part 2, and here's part 3. They were pretty popular last year, so I'll probably be updating the series again this season. In addition, Neil Paine of FiveThirtyEight recently wrote another piece examining the NFL draft in light of the Efficient Market Hypothesis.

Thanks Adam

You're welcome. And it occurs to me that I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the phenomenal ZWK has also produced this chart of how much VBD each position generally scores by draft position. WRs taken around where Sammy Watkins went typically average 172 VBD for their entire careers (248 in PPR scoring). RBs drafted around where Bishop Sankey went typically average 81 VBD for their entire careers (95 in PPR).

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

I like Sankey better. Only RB that I believe will be a full time starter. Watkins is great but so are about 8 other wr in this draft.

Supply and demand.

I remember Leasean McCoy being doubted much like Sankey here.

 

[bostonfred]

It's true that the league has changed, but I would think that the league changes would only further favor the wide receivers.

I think the opposite. Rerun your analysis, but this time, instead of "RBs picked between 49 and 59", say "the first running back drafted". The market hasn't just changed a little. The top free agent running backs didn't get paid squat. The first running back didn't go until the late second. That may be an indication of the talent available, or it may be an indication of the market. The flaw in your analysis is that using draft slot heavily biases the analysis with the assumption that it's an indication of the talent available.

Moreover, just because Watkins is an elite WR prospect, who cares? If you polled their current owners, you'd find out that there are dozens of top ten dynasty receivers. Watkins might belong in that pack - he might even be at the head of that pack - but he's in a crappy situation. Name the cold weather receivers in the modern era who put up elite fantasy seasons without a HoF quarterback. It's a pretty short list. AJ Green counts, I suppose. So does Braylon Edwards. I'm not sure if that's good or bad news for Watkins. But the point remains that looking ONLY at the draft position of a wide receiver to determine future success without considering their QB or weather situations is flawed.

And while I fully understand that teams can change quickly in the NFL, my concern is that Manuel is good enough to keep that job, but not good enough to make Watkins a contender as the #1 receiver in FF. And that's my real issue. He might flirt with top ten, but lots of guys can lay claim to that over the next few years. I don't know if that's good enough to command the 1.1 pick.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I like Sankey better. Only RB that I believe will be a full time starter. Watkins is great but so are about 8 other wr in this draft.

Supply and demand.

I remember Leasean McCoy being doubted much like Sankey here.

There are four good RBs who were drafted within +/- 5 picks of Sankey. LeSean McCoy, Ray Rice, Clinton Portis, and Travis Henry. That's it in more than two decades. The fifth best back taken in that range was... LaMont Jordan. Seriously. If you want to be very generous, you can also include Shane Vereen and Montee Ball, though I'd put them firmly in the "jury's still out" category".

Receivers drafted within +/- 5 picks of Watkins include potential Hall of Famers Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, and Torry Holt, current untouchable assets A.J. Green and Julio Jones, pro bowlers Keyshawn Johnson, Herman Moore, and Terry Glenn, plus "jury's still out" players Michael Crabtree and Tavon Austin.

In other words, people who have systematically doubted top-10 receivers have looked a lot sillier over the years than people who have systematically doubted late-2nd-round RBs.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I remember Leasean McCoy being doubted much like Sankey here.

I remember Isaiah Pead being doubted much like Sankey here.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If you don't like Watkins or Buffalo trade the pick for almost any other RB in the NFL.

 

[Moonlight]

It's true that the league has changed, but I would think that the league changes would only further favor the wide receivers.

I think the opposite. Rerun your analysis, but this time, instead of "RBs picked between 49 and 59", say "the first running back drafted". The market hasn't just changed a little. The top free agent running backs didn't get paid squat. The first running back didn't go until the late second. That may be an indication of the talent available, or it may be an indication of the market. The flaw in your analysis is that using draft slot heavily biases the analysis with the assumption that it's an indication of the talent available.

Moreover, just because Watkins is an elite WR prospect, who cares? If you polled their current owners, you'd find out that there are dozens of top ten dynasty receivers. Watkins might belong in that pack - he might even be at the head of that pack - but he's in a crappy situation. Name the cold weather receivers in the modern era who put up elite fantasy seasons without a HoF quarterback. It's a pretty short list. AJ Green counts, I suppose. So does Braylon Edwards. I'm not sure if that's good or bad news for Watkins. But the point remains that looking ONLY at the draft position of a wide receiver to determine future success without considering their QB or weather situations is flawed.

And while I fully understand that teams can change quickly in the NFL, my concern is that Manuel is good enough to keep that job, but not good enough to make Watkins a contender as the #1 receiver in FF. And that's my real issue. He might flirt with top ten, but lots of guys can lay claim to that over the next few years. I don't know if that's good enough to command the 1.1 pick.

Agree with Fred here. Appreciate the stats Adam but times have changed. Making a comparison of VDB with the first running back taken is a better context IMO.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's true that the league has changed, but I would think that the league changes would only further favor the wide receivers.

I think the opposite. Rerun your analysis, but this time, instead of "RBs picked between 49 and 59", say "the first running back drafted". The market hasn't just changed a little. The top free agent running backs didn't get paid squat. The first running back didn't go until the late second. That may be an indication of the talent available, or it may be an indication of the market. The flaw in your analysis is that using draft slot heavily biases the analysis with the assumption that it's an indication of the talent available.

Moreover, just because Watkins is an elite WR prospect, who cares? If you polled their current owners, you'd find out that there are dozens of top ten dynasty receivers. Watkins might belong in that pack - he might even be at the head of that pack - but he's in a crappy situation. Name the cold weather receivers in the modern era who put up elite fantasy seasons without a HoF quarterback. It's a pretty short list. AJ Green counts, I suppose. So does Braylon Edwards. I'm not sure if that's good or bad news for Watkins. But the point remains that looking ONLY at the draft position of a wide receiver to determine future success without considering their QB or weather situations is flawed.

And while I fully understand that teams can change quickly in the NFL, my concern is that Manuel is good enough to keep that job, but not good enough to make Watkins a contender as the #1 receiver in FF. And that's my real issue. He might flirt with top ten, but lots of guys can lay claim to that over the next few years. I don't know if that's good enough to command the 1.1 pick.

People are quick to blame the devaluation of RBs on "the market". Personally, I think it's just more a matter that RBs entering the league recently have sucked, comparatively speaking. The only phenomenal prospect in recent years, Trent Richardson, still commanded a top-10 pick *AND* another first a year later.

Three years ago, if you weighted RBs by production, the average back in the NFL was about 2.5 years younger than he is today. You know what that tells me? The guys who have entered the league in the last three years have been spectacularly unproductive relative to the guys who entered the league more than 3 years ago. Are RBs less valuable today? Maybe a little, but more than that, we've just had a dearth of really quality prospects entering the league. Just witness what happened after the 2008 NFL draft and arguably the most talented RB crop the league has ever seen.

Anyway, I think emphasizing situation SO MUCH over talent in the rookie draft is a losing recipe. Situation changes, especially over the timescale we're looking at when it comes to rookie development. Who knows what the league will look like 3 years from now, when these guys are becoming fantasy cornerstones for the teams that drafted them.

As for your "how many receivers have elite seasons in cold locations without HoF quarterbacks", well, that's necessarily going to be a pretty small number because you added so many qualifiers to the list. I mean, how many cold weather teams are there? Green Bay, Chicago, the Jets, the Giants, the Pats, Denver, the Eagles, the Steelers, and the Bills are the ones that come to mind. Immediately remove everyone from the Giants, Packers, Pats, Steelers, and recent Broncos teams because of the "HoF QB" requirement, and you're looking at maybe 15% of the receivers in the league that would qualify. But, to answer it anyway: Terrell Owens, Braylon Edwards, Brandon Marshall, Alshon Jeffery, A.J. Green, Santana Moss, Chad Ochocinco, DeSean Jackson, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Percy Harvin, Lee Evans, Rod Smith, Eddie McCaffrey, Javon Walker, Amani Toomer, probably some others I'm overlooking. And the entire question creates a false dilemma- even if you like Sammy Watkins, the default solution is not necessarily "draft Sankey, instead". There are a lot of other choices at #1 that don't involve reaching on a late-2nd-round RB.

 

[duaneok66]

This has been exhausted in other threads, but EBF (and others) have repeatedly mentioned that this year's RB prospects are a mediocre lot. Why must the top RB get elevated just because he is the first one taken??

 

[bostonfred]

If you don't like Watkins or Buffalo trade the pick for almost any other RB in the NFL.

Out of curiosity, which backs would you want? Here's the dynasty startup ADP from before the NFL draft: http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/rankings/adp-april-2014/I don't think you're getting McCoy, Charles or Lacy. Peterson, Forte and Lynch are all getting old. Spiller's 27 and just when it looked like Fred Jackson was finally going to stop, they get Brown. You could probably get Montee Ball, and I'm as high on Ball as anyone, but there's an expiration date on his awesome situation, and it could come as soon as this year. Zac Stacy was in the conversation, but his value just tanked.

That leaves Bernard, Doug Martin, LeVeon Bell and DeMarco Murray. And I'm not sure you could get them. Before Watkins ended up in Buffalo, which is arguably one of the worst possible spots he could have landed, he was going after all of them but Murray. And I'm not sure I like any of those guys that much more than Sankey right now. Even if we use the draft position theory, all of those guys except Martin were drafted in the second round or later.

So seriously, if you had the 1.1 pick, who would you trade it for? It's not as easy a question as it sounds.

Good young RBs are scarce. Young RBs who were the first player taken at their position are understandably even more scarce. Young RBs who were the first backs taken in their draft class, have very little competition for carries, and are joining a team that has invested their last two drafts to improve their offensive line are named "Bishop Sankey".

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's true that the league has changed, but I would think that the league changes would only further favor the wide receivers.

I think the opposite. Rerun your analysis, but this time, instead of "RBs picked between 49 and 59", say "the first running back drafted". The market hasn't just changed a little. The top free agent running backs didn't get paid squat. The first running back didn't go until the late second. That may be an indication of the talent available, or it may be an indication of the market. The flaw in your analysis is that using draft slot heavily biases the analysis with the assumption that it's an indication of the talent available.

Moreover, just because Watkins is an elite WR prospect, who cares? If you polled their current owners, you'd find out that there are dozens of top ten dynasty receivers. Watkins might belong in that pack - he might even be at the head of that pack - but he's in a crappy situation. Name the cold weather receivers in the modern era who put up elite fantasy seasons without a HoF quarterback. It's a pretty short list. AJ Green counts, I suppose. So does Braylon Edwards. I'm not sure if that's good or bad news for Watkins. But the point remains that looking ONLY at the draft position of a wide receiver to determine future success without considering their QB or weather situations is flawed.

And while I fully understand that teams can change quickly in the NFL, my concern is that Manuel is good enough to keep that job, but not good enough to make Watkins a contender as the #1 receiver in FF. And that's my real issue. He might flirt with top ten, but lots of guys can lay claim to that over the next few years. I don't know if that's good enough to command the 1.1 pick.

Agree with Fred here. Appreciate the stats Adam but times have changed. Making a comparison of VDB with the first running back taken is a better context IMO.

Why would that be a better context? Rahim Moore was the first safety taken in his class in 2011 (taken 45th overall). Do you think he was as good of a prospect as Eric Berry and Earl Thomas, the top two safeties in the 2010 draft (taken 5th and 14th overall)?

 

[thriftyrocker]

We'll see next year, assuming Gurley and Gordon stay healthy, how much the NFL really devalued the position.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Watkins might not even be in my top-10

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

This guy had Latavius Murray as a top prospect last year. I'm not saying that to disparage him but to put it out there that he has a history of ranking things how he sees them regardless of consensus. For better or worse.

 

[Adam Harstad]

We'll see next year, assuming Gurley and Gordon stay healthy, how much the NFL really devalued the position.

Right. Or the second an RB hits the market who isn't either past his prime, coming off an injury, a career backup, or a past-his-prime career backup who is coming off an injury.

 

[LongDuckDong]

I think in most leagues the real question is at #3 - Sankey, Matthews, Cooks, Lee, Ebron.

Not that it's the subject matter here but Watkins and Evans are going 1-2 almost every time.

 

[werdnoynek]

This has been exhausted in other threads, but EBF (and others) have repeatedly mentioned that this year's RB prospects are a mediocre lot. Why must the top RB get elevated just because he is the first one taken??

Exactly, post draft people seem to at time completely throw talent evaluation out the window!

 

[thriftyrocker]

If you don't like Watkins or Buffalo trade the pick for almost any other RB in the NFL.

Out of curiosity, which backs would you want? Here's the dynasty startup ADP from before the NFL draft:

You mentioned a lot of the names. Spiller+Fred, Bell+Blount, and Ball+Anderson are all possible. I think Gio is more possible today then he was on Thursday. I think Lynch+Michael is possible and very appealing. I think Stacy+mid 1st to get Tre Mason is possible. Enough to get all 3 RB in NYG is possible.

What was the highest finish by a Whizz RB during his tenure in ARI? Edge's 1st year he was a low RB1. Wells had a RB2 year. I think that's it.

 

[bostonfred]

This has been exhausted in other threads, but EBF (and others) have repeatedly mentioned that this year's RB prospects are a mediocre lot. Why must the top RB get elevated just because he is the first one taken??

It's a fair question. I don't claim to know much about Sankey's talent. I read the same stuff you did. There were people who loved him and people who hated him, and just about everyone thought this class was below average. The thing is, last year's class was below average, too. And the year before that wasn't supposed to be below average, with Trent Richardson and Doug Martin headlining the group, but it's not looking good now. The year before that was another weak draft class, headlined by Mark Ingram (28th), Ryan Williams (38th), Shane Vereen (56th), Mikel Leshoure (57th) and Daniel Thomas (62nd). One late first round RB and four second round backs, and not one of them has put up a full season of fantasy relevance. 2010 wasn't much better. Despite having three backs taken in the first round, CJ Spiller, Ryan Mathews and Jahvid Best have just three good fantasy seasons between them.This isn't the first year that the RB class sucked. It's been several years in a row. That's why the elite guys are so valuable. There just aren't many of them any more.

Maybe that's a knock on Sankey. It's certainly a risk to consider him at 1.1. But it's really hard to find a decent RB in a good situation. Which brings us back to last year's class. Which was universally declared below average. And while this year's class broke the record for latest RB selected as the first at their position, they broke the record which was set LAST year. Yet last year's class produced several highly sought after fantasy players: Lacy, Gio, Bell, Stacy, Ball and Ellington. Was it their talent that made those guys so highly sought after? Maybe for Lacy. Gio was considered talented, and was the first back taken, but the consensus was that he was a complimentary back, which was backed up by the Bengals drafting one of the first backs in this year's class. Opinions were split on Bell and Ball, but they weren't considered studs until they landed in Pittsburgh and Denver. Nobody thought Stacy and Ellington were elite talents going into last year. It was all about their situation.

The NFL RB landscape has changed, but part of that change is that running backs are viewed as expendable commodities, and teams are willing to run them hard until the wheels fall off. That makes situation much more important than it is for other positions. You can legitimately predict that Lacy will play with Rodgers for the next three years. You can predict that Sankey will play with Lewan, Warmack, Levitre and co for the next three years. And after that three year window, you can predict that all of them will still be young enough to continue playing in the NFL. That's about as good as it gets right now, until or unless another Adrian Peterson comes into the NFL. It's just a totally different landscape, because elite players don't want to play the running back position anymore.

The old mantra of talent > opportunity no longer applies. Now the emphasis is on fitting the scheme, and being good enough to keep your team from adding help next year, and better enough than your competition for carries that you can put up numbers.

 

[bostonfred]

If you don't like Watkins or Buffalo trade the pick for almost any other RB in the NFL.

Out of curiosity, which backs would you want? Here's the dynasty startup ADP from before the NFL draft:

You mentioned a lot of the names. Spiller+Fred, Bell+Blount, and Ball+Anderson are all possible. I think Gio is more possible today then he was on Thursday. I think Lynch+Michael is possible and very appealing. I think Stacy+mid 1st to get Tre Mason is possible. Enough to get all 3 RB in NYG is possible.

What was the highest finish by a Whizz RB during his tenure in ARI? Edge's 1st year he was a low RB1. Wells had a RB2 year. I think that's it.

Arizona's offensive line sucked. Very few teams in the NFL have invested as heavily at offensive line as the Titans over the last two years.Ball/Anderson ought to be better until Manning retires. Then it's anybody's guess. Spiller/FJax isn't as attractive because Brown's there now, too. Bell and Blount are a situation play, and I'd be more freaked out about Blount hurting Bell than I am about Shonn Greene hurting Sankey. Stacy and Mason would be more attractive if I knew one of them was going to get the lion's share of carries, but there's no indication either way yet. The Giants trio of Wilson, Rashad Jennings and a mid round rookie looks like a muddled mess right now. Sankey is in a much better situation than any of the guys you mentioned.

That leaves Gio and Lynch/Michael. Which makes a good case for why neither owner should be willing to trade their guys for the 1.1 in this draft.

 

[duaneok66]

Hey bostonfred, good post. I think that overall sets have peaks and valleys in value. I still can't endorse Sankey as a top pick when I am not sure that he is any good. I prefer taking the better talent (Watkins, Evans) with the (relative) assurance that he will be more likely to be producing in 3-5 years. Who knows where Sankey will be in 3-5 years??

Some people think that Watkins will be a top 10 NFL WR in a few years. That's debatable, but no one is saying that Sankey will be a top 10 RB.

 

[metoo]

Watkins for me. I remember drafting JJ Arrington on situation.