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.
Actually, I think 2004 is a more realistic comparision than 2003. 2003 was one of the weakest rookie drafts that I can remember in my 12 years of dynasty drafts, especially at the RB position. Thats the only year that I can remember where WR's went 1-2 in most rookie drafts.
Honestly, I think each year need to judges on its own merit. The original post in this thread gives a baseline. IMO, you move the value based on the rookie talent in the draft. Every draft has strengths and weakness, some more than others. Sidenote:
I wouldnt say most, LJ and Mcgahee went 1.1 and 1.2 in most the Zealots leagues i saw in 2003.Also, as of right now, the 2003 draft is not that weak at all, including at the RB position, LJ, Mcgahee, Suggs, Chris Brown, Dominick Davis and OSmith are all starting RB's going into next year.
Pretty much any depth chart you look at right now will have them listed as the starters. How many other draft classes can say the same(5 starting backs)?edited to add with the exception of LJ
2001 has at least five (Tomlinson, McAlister, Jordan, Barlow, Rudi Johnson) maybe seven if you include Henry and Bennett.2004 looks like it will have four - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones and Tatum Bell. 2002 will have four - Foster, Duckett, Portis and Westbrook (five if Gordon starts for Miami.)
I too have been trying to stay ahead of the game in trading for future rookie picks. People just have no way to value future draft picks, don't know where they are picking (although everyone thinks they'll have a winning season and therefore a bad 1st round rookie pick) and see instant help as being very tempting. I've currently got 4 first round picks for the 2006 rookie draft... placement TBD. The obvious downside to this practice is you are giving away value to get the future picks and therefore its not going to be helping your team win this year.
Right after a previous draft can be bad timing, as owners see what they could have had this year, and project the same talent there last year, but sometimes they don't see this, and just go for that year.Early in the season, or in August, pre-season camps, is a great time to trade for picks, especially if you're lucky enough to have good PR come out about your backups.
I did two initial dynasty drafts in the Misfits leagues this year and they were opposite ends of the spectrum. Draft #1: I had the 13th pick out of 14, Draft #2: I had the 1st overall pick out of 14. Both teams look completely different, but I much prefer the 1st team as I have DDavis, Rudi and the #2 rookie pick along with some very good receivers.Team #2 does have LT, McNabb and some decent WR's, but I am lacking a longterm, viable RB2 (I have Fred Taylor.) I have been trying to trade for another RB, but the prices are either too high or some players are simply untradeable.
I have different recollections on where Larry Johnson was going in dynasty rookie drafts. In the half dozen I was involved in, he went first or second in all of them. (He would have gone second in all of them, but that's the year McGahee had blown out his knee in the bowl game when he would have gone first in every rookie draft.)
Interesting theory. Had to read it twice before I realized you weren't smoking crack.I'd thought you were comparing apples (rookie 1.01, dynasty) to oranges (overall 1.01, dynasty), as the OP was. But you were comparing apples (rookie 1.01, dynasty) to blancmanges (overall 1.01, redraft).
Here's some one-year info. Top 23 rookies in Zealots in 05 and where they were taken in the 06 vet drafts:RAv VAv
I agree, the 2.4 vet. for the #1 rookie sounds about right.I personally could not justify going higher than that.
I'll compile the last 2 years of rook drafts and probably bring in IDP for my next iteration.Jeff Pasquino kind of took this a step further with his Dynasty calculator. I also like this
This is a great example of how these rookie drafts play out 2 or 3 years down the road.
Thanks!... you're actually the first that mentioned this freelance article I was fortuante enough to have published... This thread - and your analysis - is one of my favorites!
I want to stress that my values are based on the average rookie draft. I looked at my rookie drafts back to '99 and then tracked the fantasy value of each of the picks up to the present. The '06 rookie draft was extremely deep and the 1.8 pick was worth a lot more than the average (and 1.9-1.12 for that matter). The relative strength of a class is what you want to estimate every year.But yes, you have the gist of what I was trying to get across.
Another example of how a projection based ranking system with point values assigned to players may be more useful.
I am still curious how people would value rookie picks for following years?What is a 1st round pick in 2008 worth compared to a 1.06 pick in 2007 for example?
A 2008 first is a bit unpredictable, no? The team owner could win the league, rendering it the worst first (1.12, 1.14 or 1.16, depending) or they could be terrible (or suffer a rash of injuries) and be at 1.01.The best thing to do in my opinion is to take an assessment of their team and decide what portion of the draft they are likely to be in, using the present / most recent year as a foundation. As a rule of thumb, most would agree that a "year removed is a year subtracted". That is, a 2008 first is worth a 2007 second, and a 2009 first is worth a 2007 third or a 2008 2nd.Another example of how a projection based ranking system with point values assigned to players may be more useful.I am still curious how people would value rookie picks for following years?What is a 1st round pick in 2008 worth compared to a 1.06 pick in 2007 for example?
Glad to know I am not totaly offbase in believing that "a year removed in a year subtracted". I honestly wasn't sure if other people thought this way or if it was just me or not.The unpredictability of where the pick may fall when it is another year removed leaves me to just consider it as an average 1.06-1.07 that could go either way as so much could happen with that teams roster between now and then. When you are trading for a pick that is next year it is easier (although no exact science at all) to predict and the player you are trading that team is easier to guage as far as what impact that player may have on thier current roster as well. You look at that another year removed and it is much more difficult to judge.For example in 2005 I traded Thomas Jones in a package that included a 1st round rookie pick in 2007 to a winning team looking for another Rb to help with thier playoff surge. There was no way of knowing at that time if Jones would still be the starter for the Bears in 2006 or if he would give way to Benson. The team being a winning team caused his rookie pick in 2007 to be more attractive to me than his 2006 pick as there was greater chance that it would be higher than the 2006 pick would be.A 2008 first is a bit unpredictable, no? The team owner could win the league, rendering it the worst first (1.12, 1.14 or 1.16, depending) or they could be terrible (or suffer a rash of injuries) and be at 1.01.The best thing to do in my opinion is to take an assessment of their team and decide what portion of the draft they are likely to be in, using the present / most recent year as a foundation. As a rule of thumb, most would agree that a "year removed is a year subtracted". That is, a 2008 first is worth a 2007 second, and a 2009 first is worth a 2007 third or a 2008 2nd.Another example of how a projection based ranking system with point values assigned to players may be more useful.I am still curious how people would value rookie picks for following years?What is a 1st round pick in 2008 worth compared to a 1.06 pick in 2007 for example?
At least wannabee did this in March?
ETA: Great post Beto
