Draft exercise (1 Viewer)

[Riflemen]

Yeah I know it is really early for draft what ifs, but I think this year is a horrible year to be owning the first pick in dynasty/keeper leagues. I've always drafted based on talent first and then opportunity but given the immediate payouts rookie RB's seem to deliver if put in the right situation and the perceived talent of the 2007 draft class I believe the first pick will be incredibly tough to pick and/or trade. What's the concencus given these scenarios?

 

[Fullback Fro]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=377482

 

[Jersey35]

I voted Stewart in HOU. I'm not completely sold that MCFadden will be anything like ADP anyway, and McFadden in OAK just does not seem very appetizing to me. OAK, imho, is still a mess - and a long way from climbing out. There's no guarantee that JRuss can draw any pressure off of whatever RB is carrying the ball in the near future, their coaching situation now seems murky, and he seems more likely to be in an early RBBC situation there then Stewart would be in HOU.

The fact is, if I had the #1 pick in my rookie draft, I'd be looking to trade down.

 

[Riflemen]

Missed that one Fro, but the exercise here is the impact of team/situation on player choice. I'd vote for Peterson regardless of situation but in this poll I'm leaning to Stewart.

 

[Warpig]

It would come down to who has the better O-line to run behind. Ask Larry Johnson or any other highly touted RB to come out of college that may not have lived up to expectations due to the fact he was in a situation where the O-line was terrible but may have started coming around once the O-line gelled or got better due to FA or the draft.

With that in mind, I'd say it goes in this order from what you have listed:

1) McFadden

2) Stewart

3) Jones

4) Rice

5) Mendenhall

 

[Jersey35]

I think the point of this was what people thought of the individuals put in those specific situations, i.e. RunDMC in OAK and Stewart in Houston, and how that would affect their fantasy outlook.

 

[Riflemen]

No Michael Bush fear in Oak? That's what scared me away to Stewart who I think would have no competition for carries and improving O line and a solid D forcing a balanced offensive attack. It'll be interesting to see if Stewarts combine numbers and the effect it has on his draft position for fantasy.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I'm really wondering where all the Oakland running game hate is coming from. LaMont Jordan and Justin Fargas are pretty terrible.

They combined for 1558 yards rushing, 435 yards receiving and 7 touchdowns. 241.3 points puts the Oakland group at RB3 this year.

 

[Jersey35]

I'm really wondering where all the Oakland running game hate is coming from. LaMont Jordan and Justin Fargas are pretty terrible.They combined for 1558 yards rushing, 435 yards receiving and 7 touchdowns. 241.3 points puts the Oakland group at RB3 this year.

In 2007, their running game was quite effective. What's going to happen in 2008, however? Coaching issues concern me, as does Jamarcus Russell at QB (or any rookie QB, which is what he essentially will be). In addition, the fact that Fargas DID play quite well, and Rhodes hanging around - not to mention Michael Bush in the wings - makes the OAK backfield a little more crowded than HOU.Imho, Stewart is close enough to McFadden on my board to overcome McF if he goes to HOU and McF goes to OAK.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I'm really wondering where all the Oakland running game hate is coming from. LaMont Jordan and Justin Fargas are pretty terrible.They combined for 1558 yards rushing, 435 yards receiving and 7 touchdowns. 241.3 points puts the Oakland group at RB3 this year.

In 2007, their running game was quite effective. What's going to happen in 2008, however? Coaching issues concern me, as does Jamarcus Russell at QB (or any rookie QB, which is what he essentially will be). In addition, the fact that Fargas DID play quite well, and Rhodes hanging around - not to mention Michael Bush in the wings - makes the OAK backfield a little more crowded than HOU.Imho, Stewart is close enough to McFadden on my board to overcome McF if he goes to HOU and McF goes to OAK.

Wait, so your central argument is QB play out of Oakland? Their two QBs this year had passer ratings of 58.1 and 58.4 (albeit a flawed stat, but good enough for this argument). JaMarcus, despite being absolutely terrible this year, had a rating of 54.5.First of all, I'm not so sure QB play affects the running game as much as people like to think (for example, Rivers last year was a huge downgrade from Brees, and LT still did fine), but even if you assume that it has a major effect, it's still not there in this case.And coaching issues? Again, can't get much worse than this year.

 

[FUBAR]

No Michael Bush fear in Oak? That's what scared me away to Stewart who I think would have no competition for carries and improving O line and a solid D forcing a balanced offensive attack. It'll be interesting to see if Stewarts combine numbers and the effect it has on his draft position for fantasy.

One factor I do not use to evaluate, but many do, is "competition" on the team. This changes way too often and the talent rises. I do use "locked in starter" as criteria, but neither Oakland or Houston have this situation. Put it this way - If Philly and Denver both draft a comparable RB, Westbrook makes me lower the Philly RB, but Young/Henry do not affect the Denver back's ranking. Bush is far from a lock, so to me, he's a non-factor.

 

[Jersey35]

I'm really wondering where all the Oakland running game hate is coming from. LaMont Jordan and Justin Fargas are pretty terrible.

They combined for 1558 yards rushing, 435 yards receiving and 7 touchdowns. 241.3 points puts the Oakland group at RB3 this year.

In 2007, their running game was quite effective. What's going to happen in 2008, however? Coaching issues concern me, as does Jamarcus Russell at QB (or any rookie QB, which is what he essentially will be). In addition, the fact that Fargas DID play quite well, and Rhodes hanging around - not to mention Michael Bush in the wings - makes the OAK backfield a little more crowded than HOU.Imho, Stewart is close enough to McFadden on my board to overcome McF if he goes to HOU and McF goes to OAK.

Wait, so your central argument is QB play out of Oakland? Their two QBs this year had passer ratings of 58.1 and 58.4 (albeit a flawed stat, but good enough for this argument). JaMarcus, despite being absolutely terrible this year, had a rating of 54.5.First of all, I'm not so sure QB play affects the running game as much as people like to think (for example, Rivers last year was a huge downgrade from Brees, and LT still did fine), but even if you assume that it has a major effect, it's still not there in this case.

And coaching issues? Again, can't get much worse than this year.

I wouldn't (and didn't) say that QB play is my central concern. The point I'm trying to make is that as a rookie RB, landing in OAK poses more risk due to various factors, including competition at the position, coaching uncertainty (rumors swirling now that HC might be available again), and yes, QB play, make OAK possibly a riskier place to look for 2008 production from Darren McFadden.Whether or not the QB play or coaching issues this season were or will be comparable to those they experience in 2008, the success they had running the ball in 2007 does not guarantee that those same issues next year will not or can not impact the running game in 2008. I'm just saying the higher level of risk (coupled with D-Mac's apparent risk/reward-type hype) would lead me to trade out of the #1 pick let someone else take him, get Stewart at #2 and additional value elsewhere.

I didn't hate on the OAK running game. I've only said that I would prefer Stewart in HOU (a seemingly up-and-coming offense, with more stability, and more opportunity at the position) than McFadden in OAK.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I'm really wondering where all the Oakland running game hate is coming from. LaMont Jordan and Justin Fargas are pretty terrible.

They combined for 1558 yards rushing, 435 yards receiving and 7 touchdowns. 241.3 points puts the Oakland group at RB3 this year.

In 2007, their running game was quite effective. What's going to happen in 2008, however? Coaching issues concern me, as does Jamarcus Russell at QB (or any rookie QB, which is what he essentially will be). In addition, the fact that Fargas DID play quite well, and Rhodes hanging around - not to mention Michael Bush in the wings - makes the OAK backfield a little more crowded than HOU.Imho, Stewart is close enough to McFadden on my board to overcome McF if he goes to HOU and McF goes to OAK.

Wait, so your central argument is QB play out of Oakland? Their two QBs this year had passer ratings of 58.1 and 58.4 (albeit a flawed stat, but good enough for this argument). JaMarcus, despite being absolutely terrible this year, had a rating of 54.5.First of all, I'm not so sure QB play affects the running game as much as people like to think (for example, Rivers last year was a huge downgrade from Brees, and LT still did fine), but even if you assume that it has a major effect, it's still not there in this case.

And coaching issues? Again, can't get much worse than this year.

I wouldn't (and didn't) say that QB play is my central concern. The point I'm trying to make is that as a rookie RB, landing in OAK poses more risk due to various factors, including competition at the position, coaching uncertainty (rumors swirling now that HC might be available again), and yes, QB play, make OAK possibly a riskier place to look for 2008 production from Darren McFadden.Whether or not the QB play or coaching issues this season were or will be comparable to those they experience in 2008, the success they had running the ball in 2007 does not guarantee that those same issues next year will not or can not impact the running game in 2008. I'm just saying the higher level of risk (coupled with D-Mac's apparent risk/reward-type hype) would lead me to trade out of the #1 pick let someone else take him, get Stewart at #2 and additional value elsewhere.

I didn't hate on the OAK running game. I've only said that I would prefer Stewart in HOU (a seemingly up-and-coming offense, with more stability, and more opportunity at the position) than McFadden in OAK.

I'm stuck on the QB play, which makes me dismiss the rest of your argument. You're completely wrong there. It's not going to get much worse than it did this year.The fact that you won't drop that argument makes me skip the rest of it, because you're not dealing with logic.

 

[Jersey35]

I'm really wondering where all the Oakland running game hate is coming from. LaMont Jordan and Justin Fargas are pretty terrible.

They combined for 1558 yards rushing, 435 yards receiving and 7 touchdowns. 241.3 points puts the Oakland group at RB3 this year.

In 2007, their running game was quite effective. What's going to happen in 2008, however? Coaching issues concern me, as does Jamarcus Russell at QB (or any rookie QB, which is what he essentially will be). In addition, the fact that Fargas DID play quite well, and Rhodes hanging around - not to mention Michael Bush in the wings - makes the OAK backfield a little more crowded than HOU.Imho, Stewart is close enough to McFadden on my board to overcome McF if he goes to HOU and McF goes to OAK.

Wait, so your central argument is QB play out of Oakland? Their two QBs this year had passer ratings of 58.1 and 58.4 (albeit a flawed stat, but good enough for this argument). JaMarcus, despite being absolutely terrible this year, had a rating of 54.5.First of all, I'm not so sure QB play affects the running game as much as people like to think (for example, Rivers last year was a huge downgrade from Brees, and LT still did fine), but even if you assume that it has a major effect, it's still not there in this case.

And coaching issues? Again, can't get much worse than this year.

I wouldn't (and didn't) say that QB play is my central concern. The point I'm trying to make is that as a rookie RB, landing in OAK poses more risk due to various factors, including competition at the position, coaching uncertainty (rumors swirling now that HC might be available again), and yes, QB play, make OAK possibly a riskier place to look for 2008 production from Darren McFadden.Whether or not the QB play or coaching issues this season were or will be comparable to those they experience in 2008, the success they had running the ball in 2007 does not guarantee that those same issues next year will not or can not impact the running game in 2008. I'm just saying the higher level of risk (coupled with D-Mac's apparent risk/reward-type hype) would lead me to trade out of the #1 pick let someone else take him, get Stewart at #2 and additional value elsewhere.

I didn't hate on the OAK running game. I've only said that I would prefer Stewart in HOU (a seemingly up-and-coming offense, with more stability, and more opportunity at the position) than McFadden in OAK.

I'm stuck on the QB play, which makes me dismiss the rest of your argument. You're completely wrong there. It's not going to get much worse than it did this year.The fact that you won't drop that argument makes me skip the rest of it, because you're not dealing with logic.

The argument that I've been making is that there are a number of reasons that OAK seems a murkier place to land for a RB than HOU in 2008 - the possibility of Jamarcus Russell at QB is only one of them. I've illustrated the reasons that I feel that is the case. If you think one of my reasons is incorrect, you are completely entitled to your opinion. Why you think I'm illogical is hard to fathom.Although, why you wish to argue with me about my (defensible) opinion is even further beyond logic. If you have an opinion about Stewart in HOU vs Darren McFadden in OAK, please feel free to post it in this thread. I won't be in any rush to tell you that you are wrong simply because I might or might not agree.

 

[Riflemen]

Although this is a small sample it is what I thought it would be. No concensus for the #1 pick. I'm hoping McFadden lands in a good opportunity making the #1 pick easier.

 

[Mr. Peterson]

I'm not. (owner of the #2 pick and not the #1)

I'm really suprised to see McFadden behind here. I know it's close, but didn't think he would be losing.

 

[Riflemen]

I'm very surprised by Mendenhall trailing the field. Is Atlanta's situation that bad? I thought he'd get at least equal votes to Felix Jones. I wonder what would happen if I swapped Stewart and Mendenhall? Is the Houston situation and lack of perceived competition driving this outcome?

 

[Zoomanji]

I'm not. (owner of the #2 pick and not the #1)I'm really suprised to see McFadden behind here. I know it's close, but didn't think he would be losing.

I didn't vote for McFadden.Mainly because the poll is flawed IMO.Oak will not take McFadden but I do think who ever ends up in Hou will have the best situation besides Seattle.Best playersMcFaddenStewartFelixBest SituationsHouSeaDallasAnd I don't see many of the other other places as viable options for a rookie to step-in and start. Denver is sitting on Henry, Young and Hall. Unless they use a 1st or 2nd on a RB, its the usual mess there. Atl and Oak are both log-jammed at RB with Dunn/ Nowood and Fargas/Rhodes/Bush/Jordan. I doubt either of the teams invest a 1st or 2nd at RB.More likely is Dallas takes a RB in the first.