[DYNASTY] 1st Round Rookie pick value (2 Viewers)

[EBF]

A few things:

- It's dangerous to try to project how a team will perform. This is true when you're trading for a team's pick and when you're trading your own pick. A lot can happen during a 3-4 month season. The teams that end up doing well aren't always the teams that you'd expect.

- I disagree with the notion that a 2008 pick is worth less than a 2007 pick. I think a 2008 1st has the same value as a 2007 1st. I think the only time it makes sense to deal a 1st for a 2nd is when you have your eye on a specific player and he's available at the pick you're trading for. Otherwise, it's a bad value play to give up a top 24 pick for a top 12 pick. The extra year makes no difference.

- I agree with whoever said that trading down from the middle of round one into the early part of round two is often a good idea. This year is a perfect year to pull that maneuver. There is literally almost no difference between 1.06 and 2.01 this year. At 1.06 you're probably looking at guys like Ginn, Rice, Pittman, Bush, Russell, and Quinn. At 2.01 you're probably looking at guys like Meachem and Bowe, who stand a very good chance of ultimately becoming more valuable than all of the guys that I just listed for 1.06.

 

[Biabreakable]

I figured not everyone would agree with the idea that a rookie pick a extra year away is worth less than a rookie pick this year. Once the time has passed a 1st round pick in 2008 will grow in value.

The reasoning behind the downgrade of one round is because the pick will have zero value for the current season of play. So if your projecting 3 years as I do this is going to be a kind of abstract example of what I mean:

2007 rookie pick 2007 100pts 2008 140pts 2009 135pts

2008 rookie pick 2007 0pts 2008 100pts 2009 140pts

Downgrading the pick one round is pretty simplistic way of looking at it actualy and not in line with beto's study. I brought the issue up to see if anyone had other methods of evaluating the value of picks an additional year out or not that is taking into account that the pick will have zero value for the current season.

 

[EBF]

I figured not everyone would agree with the idea that a rookie pick a extra year away is worth less than a rookie pick this year. Once the time has passed a 1st round pick in 2008 will grow in value.The reasoning behind the downgrade of one round is because the pick will have zero value for the current season of play. So if your projecting 3 years as I do this is going to be a kind of abstract example of what I mean:2007 rookie pick 2007 100pts 2008 140pts 2009 135pts2008 rookie pick 2007 0pts 2008 100pts 2009 140ptsDowngrading the pick one round is pretty simplistic way of looking at it actualy and not in line with beto's study. I brought the issue up to see if anyone had other methods of evaluating the value of picks an additional year out or not that is taking into account that the pick will have zero value for the current season.

Sometimes the pick does have value in year one. I just traded Hines Ward for a 2008 1st in one of my leagues. The trade hurts me in year one, but that actually makes the expected value of my own 2008 draft picks higher because my team will have a tougher time contending (and should therefore get a higher pick). Also, draft picks carry constant trade value and free up roster space. So while I lost Ward, I was able to pick up Matt Cassel (who could have some value down the line) and I can always trade the pick again for an active player. In the end, a draft pick is a draft pick. I would almost always trade a current second round pick for a future first unless it was 2.01 or 2.02 and/or I projected a very good player to be available.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

Bump. With all of the threads on rookie picks, this thread is a "MUST READ", imo. A big thanks to Beto and his hard work.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Bump. With all of the threads on rookie picks, this thread is a "MUST READ", imo. A big thanks to Beto and his hard work.

Agreed.Looks like I may have to dust off the Dynasty Thread from 2007 and pin it until the 2008 version gets up and running.Until then, just see the signature.

 

[crazy gadget]

First time I have seen this thread...

EXCELLENT READ!

Curious how the depth of the RB class causes tweaks to the system.

 

[redman]

Great stuff Beto!

I've got the 1.05 pick in a rookie draft this year and I figure I'll get something like:

4th RB, 1st or 2nd WR, or 1st QB.

I'm comfortable with those players, although I can see that 1.05 is the spot where people start to reach.

1.05 is not a reach this year.any of brown, caddy, benson, edwards or mike williams could end being a fantasy superstud, and all project to be above average fantasy starters at worst. i hate to say "cant miss", but these 5 have earned the label. honestly the 1.05 is not worth that much less than the 1.01 this year if you dont specifically need an RB.

I'm not picking on you, Bloom, but three years later I think this is a great illustration of the risk that Beto was talking about.

 

[Buckna]

This is a great thread.

One thing that really strikes me is that new dynasty leagues should never draft, then hold a second draft for Rookies.  The value of the top few rookie picks is just too high.  Rookies should be included in the initial draft. 

I remember in 2001 people were able to get Terrell Owens and Ahman Green at the 1st/2rd round turn then follow it up with LT in the rookie draft.    This year looks the same way.  You could get Moss and Rudi or D Davis etc. then follow it up with Ronnie Brown in the rookie draft?  That is ridiculous.

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.

In hindsight, I think including rookies in the initial draft is the best way to go. Otherwise I think you are overcompensating guys picking at the tailend of the draft by basically giving them the equivalent of another 2nd or 3rd pick.

What a difference time can make. Both of these teams had interesting lifespans over the last 3 years. Both had excellent 1st years coming in 2nd in their respective leagues.Team 1 fell apart in year 2 as Dom Davis never came back from injury and my WR's bombed. I sold off Rudi before year 3 and come in last place. However, Rudi was traded for the rights to draft Adrian Peterson and now I'll be adding a top Rb with the 1.1 and will be on my way towards rebuilding.

Team 2 has made the playoffs every year, but has been carried by LT. Lack of a viable RB 2 is still an issue even now and my efforts to obtain one has led to some shortsighted trades that have really hurt in the long run. Bad luck has played a part as well, trading for Dom Davis really hurt. Had it been Westbrook or someone else, who knows. Now my team is middle of the pack and hanging on only because of LT.

 

[stp-d]

how come i never saw this b4? nice thread

 

[Jedimaster21]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

 

[EBF]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage. Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

 

[Jedimaster21]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage. Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

 

[EBF]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage. Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

Depends on the format. I like to play PPR, which decreases the RB madness and makes the draft less top heavy. Even in a non-PPR league though, I don't think the advantage of the top 3-4 is as big as you might expect though. Plenty of those guys disappoint and there's always value to be had later in the first round. There are probably something like 30-40 elite players in FF at any given time. So everyone in the first round has a fair chance to get one of those guys. But there are typically only 3-4 elite rookies in a rookie draft, so only the teams with the top few picks have a fair chance at one of those guys.

 

[Zowned]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

I've run 3 dynasties and 1 more this year. The first one we had two separate drafts but that wasn't fair and the next 2 dynasty leagues we put all players into one. Is it going to benefit the guy who gets to draw 1.1 to get AP? Sure, but he also isn't picking again until 2.1. Having two separate drafts is not the answer to solve that as that just worsens the situation as all teams should have the same chance at everyone in the initial year's draft including rookies. If you really want to create a fair environment start the dynasty league with an auction where every team has a chance at every player. These teams are owning these guy's for good so it would be the most fair to let them build their team as they see bit. Choice 1a. Auction off playersChoice 1b. Serpentine with all playersChoice x. Two separate drafts

 

[Buckna]

After 6 different leagues over the years, I'm convinced an auction including rookies is the best way to go for an initial draft. Let everyone have a shot at all players and let them decide how much they are willing to pay for a guy they really covet.

Part of the fun of a dynasty team is owning the players you like. I think an auction would result in owners liking their team a little more (and thereby staying in when things go south) if they had a few of the players they are individual fans of in the league. I could grab a WR I really like with my auction money instead of the next best guy on my list I'm abivalent about once the player I covet is gone.

 

[redman]

Last year we did a veteran serpentine in a deep dynasty (IDP, PPR, 45-man rosters) draft around this time of the year, and then did a rookie draft in May or so with the reverse serpentine order.

I didn't get the feeling that anyone was shortchanged, and just so you know I picked first in the veteran draft order and therefore picked last in the rookie draft order.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Last year we did a veteran serpentine in a deep dynasty (IDP, PPR, 45-man rosters) draft around this time of the year, and then did a rookie draft in May or so with the reverse serpentine order. I didn't get the feeling that anyone was shortchanged, and just so you know I picked first in the veteran draft order and therefore picked last in the rookie draft order.

Thanks for the fresh viewpoint. Do you think it would have been better if you only had one draft with rookies and veterans? How did you come to the decision to have a separate rookie draft...have you done it the other way and deemed it unfair?

 

[redman]

Last year we did a veteran serpentine in a deep dynasty (IDP, PPR, 45-man rosters) draft around this time of the year, and then did a rookie draft in May or so with the reverse serpentine order.

I didn't get the feeling that anyone was shortchanged, and just so you know I picked first in the veteran draft order and therefore picked last in the rookie draft order.

Thanks for the fresh viewpoint. Do you think it would have been better if you only had one draft with rookies and veterans? How did you come to the decision to have a separate rookie draft...have you done it the other way and deemed it unfair?

I've never done it the other way. The truth is that we probably did it this way just for the fun of having two drafts versus just one, and probably also just to get the league off and running and not wanting to wait for the NFL draft in the process (and of course thinking that it's a bit silly to draft rookies before the NFL draft happens).

I don't think it would have been better. It kept things fresh through the offseason, and of course it matches up well with what you'll do every subsequent year, which is draft rookies only.

You're concerned about guys who draft early in the rookie draft getting an unfair advantage because of the way that the (short term, at least) value of rookie picks tends to taper rapidly, but that can be addressed through scoring. Our league heavily weights towards WR's and TE's, and away from RB's, on offense to try to balance out their respective values. As it happens, the first two picks were Johnson and ADP, in that order. In other words, I think your concerns about this can be addressed with scoring adjustments.

 

[aposulli]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12

Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12

Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage.

Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

Depends on the format. I like to play PPR, which decreases the RB madness and makes the draft less top heavy. Even in a non-PPR league though, I don't think the advantage of the top 3-4 is as big as you might expect though. Plenty of those guys disappoint and there's always value to be had later in the first round. There are probably something like 30-40 elite players in FF at any given time. So everyone in the first round has a fair chance to get one of those guys. But there are typically only 3-4 elite rookies in a rookie draft, so only the teams with the top few picks have a fair chance at one of those guys.

This is a good argument, and the whole argument is based on what kind of league it is... starting requiremetns and point-system are huge factors ...and it depends heavily on the player pool in the given year.In a year like last year when there were three consensous STUD Veteran fantasy picks (LT, SJax, LJ...the case could also be made for Reggie Bush in a PPR)... it would seem ideal to have a top Veteran Draft pick, even if there is a seperate Rookie Draft pick in reverse order.

With 3-4 RBs with such high value at the top of a dynasty draft (especially with LT), you'd think 1.1 in a Vet Draft would be much more valuable than 1.12 (in a 12 team league), even given a Rookie Draft in the reverse order.

Of course, last year there was a consensous 1.1 in Rookie Drafts as well. If you ask me, that guy turned out to be pretty valuable in a Dynasty format.

I see what you're saying EBF, that 1.1 in a Rookie Draft generally would be of equal value to a top 30 Veteran player. But it obviously depends on what kind of talent we're talking at Rookie 1.1.

As valuable as L.T. was heading into last season and as valuable as Peterson was heading into Rookie Drafts, I would still have rather taken 1.1 in a Vet Draft and 1.12 in the Rookie draft than Vice-versa. (Assuming both the Vet and Rookie drafts are serpentine)

FWIW, I did just have a startup 12-team IDP Dynasty last year in which we had seperate (Serpentine) Vet and Rookie Drafts which operated just as I mentioned above. Also, it was a PPR league, which gave LT uber-value.

The guy at 1.1 took L.T. and a bunch of busts with the rest of his picks. He actually managed to miss the playoffs, believe it or not. (I don't even remember who his 1.12 Rookie Pick was)

The guy at 1.12 took Brees (and MJD at 2.01), and got Peterson at 1.1 in the Rookie Draft. He ended up making a few other great Vet Draft picks including Housh, MBIII, Romo, Edwards, Witten and Nick Barnett. Needless to say, he dominated the league and I got the pleasure of being slaughtered by his team in the Championship.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Last year we did a veteran serpentine in a deep dynasty (IDP, PPR, 45-man rosters) draft around this time of the year, and then did a rookie draft in May or so with the reverse serpentine order.

I didn't get the feeling that anyone was shortchanged, and just so you know I picked first in the veteran draft order and therefore picked last in the rookie draft order.

Thanks for the fresh viewpoint. Do you think it would have been better if you only had one draft with rookies and veterans? How did you come to the decision to have a separate rookie draft...have you done it the other way and deemed it unfair?

I've never done it the other way. The truth is that we probably did it this way just for the fun of having two drafts versus just one, and probably also just to get the league off and running and not wanting to wait for the NFL draft in the process (and of course thinking that it's a bit silly to draft rookies before the NFL draft happens).

I don't think it would have been better. It kept things fresh through the offseason, and of course it matches up well with what you'll do every subsequent year, which is draft rookies only.

You're concerned about guys who draft early in the rookie draft getting an unfair advantage because of the way that the (short term, at least) value of rookie picks tends to taper rapidly, but that can be addressed through scoring. Our league heavily weights towards WR's and TE's, and away from RB's, on offense to try to balance out their respective values. As it happens, the first two picks were Johnson and ADP, in that order. In other words, I think your concerns about this can be addressed with scoring adjustments.

We are definitely planning to equal out value as much as possible across positions, including PPR at .5 for RB, 1 for WR, and 1.5 for TE. These are good points, but I am still worried about the owners that get the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th picks overall due to the value of their rookie picks in the two draft system. I also agree with the points you made outside of just discussing the fairest way to draft, including keeping things fresh and getting used to the rookie draft system. Still undecided...thanks again for the feedback.

 

[Jedimaster21]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12

Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12

Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage.

Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

Depends on the format. I like to play PPR, which decreases the RB madness and makes the draft less top heavy. Even in a non-PPR league though, I don't think the advantage of the top 3-4 is as big as you might expect though. Plenty of those guys disappoint and there's always value to be had later in the first round. There are probably something like 30-40 elite players in FF at any given time. So everyone in the first round has a fair chance to get one of those guys. But there are typically only 3-4 elite rookies in a rookie draft, so only the teams with the top few picks have a fair chance at one of those guys.

This is a good argument, and the whole argument is based on what kind of league it is... starting requiremetns and point-system are huge factors ...and it depends heavily on the player pool in the given year.In a year like last year when there were three consensous STUD Veteran fantasy picks (LT, SJax, LJ...the case could also be made for Reggie Bush in a PPR)... it would seem ideal to have a top Veteran Draft pick, even if there is a seperate Rookie Draft pick in reverse order.

With 3-4 RBs with such high value at the top of a dynasty draft (especially with LT), you'd think 1.1 in a Vet Draft would be much more valuable than 1.12 (in a 12 team league), even given a Rookie Draft in the reverse order.

Of course, last year there was a consensous 1.1 in Rookie Drafts as well. If you ask me, that guy turned out to be pretty valuable in a Dynasty format.

I see what you're saying EBF, that 1.1 in a Rookie Draft generally would be of equal value to a top 30 Veteran player. But it obviously depends on what kind of talent we're talking at Rookie 1.1.

As valuable as L.T. was heading into last season and as valuable as Peterson was heading into Rookie Drafts, I would still have rather taken 1.1 in a Vet Draft and 1.12 in the Rookie draft than Vice-versa. (Assuming both the Vet and Rookie drafts are serpentine)

FWIW, I did just have a startup 12-team IDP Dynasty last year in which we had seperate (Serpentine) Vet and Rookie Drafts which operated just as I mentioned above. Also, it was a PPR league, which gave LT uber-value.

The guy at 1.1 took L.T. and a bunch of busts with the rest of his picks. He actually managed to miss the playoffs, believe it or not. (I don't even remember who his 1.12 Rookie Pick was)

The guy at 1.12 took Brees (and MJD at 2.01), and got Peterson at 1.1 in the Rookie Draft. He ended up making a few other great Vet Draft picks including Housh, MBIII, Romo, Edwards, Witten and Nick Barnett. Needless to say, he dominated the league and I got the pleasure of being slaughtered by his team in the Championship.

This is exactly what I am worried about. One owner got Brees (which is actually a bad pick IMO), MJD, and Peterson, while the LT owner was stuck with the 24th overall and 12th rookie pick.

 

[aposulli]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12

Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12

Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage.

Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

Depends on the format. I like to play PPR, which decreases the RB madness and makes the draft less top heavy. Even in a non-PPR league though, I don't think the advantage of the top 3-4 is as big as you might expect though. Plenty of those guys disappoint and there's always value to be had later in the first round. There are probably something like 30-40 elite players in FF at any given time. So everyone in the first round has a fair chance to get one of those guys. But there are typically only 3-4 elite rookies in a rookie draft, so only the teams with the top few picks have a fair chance at one of those guys.

This is a good argument, and the whole argument is based on what kind of league it is... starting requiremetns and point-system are huge factors ...and it depends heavily on the player pool in the given year.In a year like last year when there were three consensous STUD Veteran fantasy picks (LT, SJax, LJ...the case could also be made for Reggie Bush in a PPR)... it would seem ideal to have a top Veteran Draft pick, even if there is a seperate Rookie Draft pick in reverse order.

With 3-4 RBs with such high value at the top of a dynasty draft (especially with LT), you'd think 1.1 in a Vet Draft would be much more valuable than 1.12 (in a 12 team league), even given a Rookie Draft in the reverse order.

Of course, last year there was a consensous 1.1 in Rookie Drafts as well. If you ask me, that guy turned out to be pretty valuable in a Dynasty format.

I see what you're saying EBF, that 1.1 in a Rookie Draft generally would be of equal value to a top 30 Veteran player. But it obviously depends on what kind of talent we're talking at Rookie 1.1.

As valuable as L.T. was heading into last season and as valuable as Peterson was heading into Rookie Drafts, I would still have rather taken 1.1 in a Vet Draft and 1.12 in the Rookie draft than Vice-versa. (Assuming both the Vet and Rookie drafts are serpentine)

FWIW, I did just have a startup 12-team IDP Dynasty last year in which we had seperate (Serpentine) Vet and Rookie Drafts which operated just as I mentioned above. Also, it was a PPR league, which gave LT uber-value.

The guy at 1.1 took L.T. and a bunch of busts with the rest of his picks. He actually managed to miss the playoffs, believe it or not. (I don't even remember who his 1.12 Rookie Pick was)

The guy at 1.12 took Brees (and MJD at 2.01), and got Peterson at 1.1 in the Rookie Draft. He ended up making a few other great Vet Draft picks including Housh, MBIII, Romo, Edwards, Witten and Nick Barnett. Needless to say, he dominated the league and I got the pleasure of being slaughtered by his team in the Championship.

This is exactly what I am worried about. One owner got Brees (which is actually a bad pick IMO), MJD, and Peterson, while the LT owner was stuck with the 24th overall and 12th rookie pick.

But he's still got L.T. 24TH overall in a Dynasty isn't horrible. In my two initial Dynasty drafts (both serpentine), I've had the 2nd overall pick and 3rd. The Rookie Draft was also in the reverse order as well.

It would seem then that this is one of the worst spots to pick given the wait until the 2nd Round in the Vet draft, plus the late Rookie picks.

In one of those leagues (16 teams- startup year 2006), I picked LT 2nd overall, Reggie Wayne 31st overall, and Tom Brady 34th overall. Obviously very fortunate. I traded my Rookie Draft picks for Veterans.

In the other leagues (12 teams- startup year 2007), I picked LJ 3rd overall, Carson Palmer 22nd overall, and Roy Williams 27th overall. I picked up Sidney Rice with Rookie pick 1.10.

This doesn't really have anything to do with who I specifically picked, but in a Dynasty League, great value can be found in the 2nd and 3rd Round weather you are looking for young talent on the verge of superstardom or older players who have dropped due to their age. So having the 1st overall in a Serpentine Vet Draft is pretty nice when you are looking at 3 picks in the top 30 (or so).

 

[Jedimaster21]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12

Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12

Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage.

Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

Depends on the format. I like to play PPR, which decreases the RB madness and makes the draft less top heavy. Even in a non-PPR league though, I don't think the advantage of the top 3-4 is as big as you might expect though. Plenty of those guys disappoint and there's always value to be had later in the first round. There are probably something like 30-40 elite players in FF at any given time. So everyone in the first round has a fair chance to get one of those guys. But there are typically only 3-4 elite rookies in a rookie draft, so only the teams with the top few picks have a fair chance at one of those guys.

This is a good argument, and the whole argument is based on what kind of league it is... starting requiremetns and point-system are huge factors ...and it depends heavily on the player pool in the given year.In a year like last year when there were three consensous STUD Veteran fantasy picks (LT, SJax, LJ...the case could also be made for Reggie Bush in a PPR)... it would seem ideal to have a top Veteran Draft pick, even if there is a seperate Rookie Draft pick in reverse order.

With 3-4 RBs with such high value at the top of a dynasty draft (especially with LT), you'd think 1.1 in a Vet Draft would be much more valuable than 1.12 (in a 12 team league), even given a Rookie Draft in the reverse order.

Of course, last year there was a consensous 1.1 in Rookie Drafts as well. If you ask me, that guy turned out to be pretty valuable in a Dynasty format.

I see what you're saying EBF, that 1.1 in a Rookie Draft generally would be of equal value to a top 30 Veteran player. But it obviously depends on what kind of talent we're talking at Rookie 1.1.

As valuable as L.T. was heading into last season and as valuable as Peterson was heading into Rookie Drafts, I would still have rather taken 1.1 in a Vet Draft and 1.12 in the Rookie draft than Vice-versa. (Assuming both the Vet and Rookie drafts are serpentine)

FWIW, I did just have a startup 12-team IDP Dynasty last year in which we had seperate (Serpentine) Vet and Rookie Drafts which operated just as I mentioned above. Also, it was a PPR league, which gave LT uber-value.

The guy at 1.1 took L.T. and a bunch of busts with the rest of his picks. He actually managed to miss the playoffs, believe it or not. (I don't even remember who his 1.12 Rookie Pick was)

The guy at 1.12 took Brees (and MJD at 2.01), and got Peterson at 1.1 in the Rookie Draft. He ended up making a few other great Vet Draft picks including Housh, MBIII, Romo, Edwards, Witten and Nick Barnett. Needless to say, he dominated the league and I got the pleasure of being slaughtered by his team in the Championship.

This is exactly what I am worried about. One owner got Brees (which is actually a bad pick IMO), MJD, and Peterson, while the LT owner was stuck with the 24th overall and 12th rookie pick.

But he's still got L.T. 24TH overall in a Dynasty isn't horrible. In my two initial Dynasty drafts (both serpentine), I've had the 2nd overall pick and 3rd. The Rookie Draft was also in the reverse order as well.

It would seem then that this is one of the worst spots to pick given the wait until the 2nd Round in the Vet draft, plus the late Rookie picks.

In one of those leagues (16 teams- startup year 2006), I picked LT 2nd overall, Reggie Wayne 31st overall, and Tom Brady 34th overall. Obviously very fortunate. I traded my Rookie Draft picks for Veterans.

In the other leagues (12 teams- startup year 2007), I picked LJ 3rd overall, Carson Palmer 22nd overall, and Roy Williams 27th overall. I picked up Sidney Rice with Rookie pick 1.10.

This doesn't really have anything to do with who I specifically picked, but in a Dynasty League, great value can be found in the 2nd and 3rd Round weather you are looking for young talent on the verge of superstardom or older players who have dropped due to their age. So having the 1st overall in a Serpentine Vet Draft is pretty nice when you are looking at 3 picks in the top 30 (or so).

I agree with some of what you are saying, but do you think it evens things out to throw all the rookies into the mix?

 

[aposulli]

I am currently trying to start a new dynasty league, and the we are trying to decide whether to include rookies in the main draft or have a second rookie draft. Some have commented on this topic, but we are concerned that the advantage of having a top pick is too great unless you compensate the other owners with an earlier rookie pick. Personally, I think the fairest way is to include all the rookies and hold one draft, but many disagree. Thoughts?

There is no doubt in my mind that it's better to include the rookies as part of one big draft rather than splitting your league into two separate drafts. A separate draft is incredibly lopsided in favor of the teams picking at the top of the rookie draft. Consider how it usually splits up.Veteran Pick 1.01 + Rookie Pick 1.12

Rookie Pick 1.01 + Veteran Pick 1.12

Sure, the guy with vet 1.01 gets Adrian Peterson, but his rookie pick is pretty worthless. On the flipside, the guy with vet 1.12 gets a top 12 overall player and the 1.01 rookie pick, which is worth roughly a late 2nd round pick. So he basically gets an extra top 30 player for free. That's a huge advantage.

Putting all the players in the draft pools gives everyone a fair shot to get their guys. I think it's the best system.

Don't you think that the advantage of the 1.1-1.4 is huge compared to someone picking at the end of the first? Getting that stud RB makes a huge difference in a dynasty league. I am not fully convinced that a serpentine evens it out in an initial dynasty draft.

Depends on the format. I like to play PPR, which decreases the RB madness and makes the draft less top heavy. Even in a non-PPR league though, I don't think the advantage of the top 3-4 is as big as you might expect though. Plenty of those guys disappoint and there's always value to be had later in the first round. There are probably something like 30-40 elite players in FF at any given time. So everyone in the first round has a fair chance to get one of those guys. But there are typically only 3-4 elite rookies in a rookie draft, so only the teams with the top few picks have a fair chance at one of those guys.

This is a good argument, and the whole argument is based on what kind of league it is... starting requiremetns and point-system are huge factors ...and it depends heavily on the player pool in the given year.In a year like last year when there were three consensous STUD Veteran fantasy picks (LT, SJax, LJ...the case could also be made for Reggie Bush in a PPR)... it would seem ideal to have a top Veteran Draft pick, even if there is a seperate Rookie Draft pick in reverse order.

With 3-4 RBs with such high value at the top of a dynasty draft (especially with LT), you'd think 1.1 in a Vet Draft would be much more valuable than 1.12 (in a 12 team league), even given a Rookie Draft in the reverse order.

Of course, last year there was a consensous 1.1 in Rookie Drafts as well. If you ask me, that guy turned out to be pretty valuable in a Dynasty format.

I see what you're saying EBF, that 1.1 in a Rookie Draft generally would be of equal value to a top 30 Veteran player. But it obviously depends on what kind of talent we're talking at Rookie 1.1.

As valuable as L.T. was heading into last season and as valuable as Peterson was heading into Rookie Drafts, I would still have rather taken 1.1 in a Vet Draft and 1.12 in the Rookie draft than Vice-versa. (Assuming both the Vet and Rookie drafts are serpentine)

FWIW, I did just have a startup 12-team IDP Dynasty last year in which we had seperate (Serpentine) Vet and Rookie Drafts which operated just as I mentioned above. Also, it was a PPR league, which gave LT uber-value.

The guy at 1.1 took L.T. and a bunch of busts with the rest of his picks. He actually managed to miss the playoffs, believe it or not. (I don't even remember who his 1.12 Rookie Pick was)

The guy at 1.12 took Brees (and MJD at 2.01), and got Peterson at 1.1 in the Rookie Draft. He ended up making a few other great Vet Draft picks including Housh, MBIII, Romo, Edwards, Witten and Nick Barnett. Needless to say, he dominated the league and I got the pleasure of being slaughtered by his team in the Championship.

This is exactly what I am worried about. One owner got Brees (which is actually a bad pick IMO), MJD, and Peterson, while the LT owner was stuck with the 24th overall and 12th rookie pick.

But he's still got L.T. 24TH overall in a Dynasty isn't horrible. In my two initial Dynasty drafts (both serpentine), I've had the 2nd overall pick and 3rd. The Rookie Draft was also in the reverse order as well.

It would seem then that this is one of the worst spots to pick given the wait until the 2nd Round in the Vet draft, plus the late Rookie picks.

In one of those leagues (16 teams- startup year 2006), I picked LT 2nd overall, Reggie Wayne 31st overall, and Tom Brady 34th overall. Obviously very fortunate. I traded my Rookie Draft picks for Veterans.

In the other leagues (12 teams- startup year 2007), I picked LJ 3rd overall, Carson Palmer 22nd overall, and Roy Williams 27th overall. I picked up Sidney Rice with Rookie pick 1.10.

This doesn't really have anything to do with who I specifically picked, but in a Dynasty League, great value can be found in the 2nd and 3rd Round weather you are looking for young talent on the verge of superstardom or older players who have dropped due to their age. So having the 1st overall in a Serpentine Vet Draft is pretty nice when you are looking at 3 picks in the top 30 (or so).

I agree with some of what you are saying, but do you think it evens things out to throw all the rookies into the mix?

Well the only true way to "even things out" is to do an Auction.Neither way seems that much better than the other, but I think we would all agree that by having a seperate Rookie Draft, you are artificially increasing the value of certain draft slots, namely the last few of the Vet Draft. With just one draft, including rookies, the later you pick, the less advantageous you are, I think, no matter if it is serpentine.

 

[Jedimaster21]

I would love to do an auction, but it is impossible due to the owners of our league being all over the country. I am definitely leaning towards having only one draft.

 

[redman]

Last year we did a veteran serpentine in a deep dynasty (IDP, PPR, 45-man rosters) draft around this time of the year, and then did a rookie draft in May or so with the reverse serpentine order.

I didn't get the feeling that anyone was shortchanged, and just so you know I picked first in the veteran draft order and therefore picked last in the rookie draft order.

Thanks for the fresh viewpoint. Do you think it would have been better if you only had one draft with rookies and veterans? How did you come to the decision to have a separate rookie draft...have you done it the other way and deemed it unfair?

I've never done it the other way. The truth is that we probably did it this way just for the fun of having two drafts versus just one, and probably also just to get the league off and running and not wanting to wait for the NFL draft in the process (and of course thinking that it's a bit silly to draft rookies before the NFL draft happens).

I don't think it would have been better. It kept things fresh through the offseason, and of course it matches up well with what you'll do every subsequent year, which is draft rookies only.

You're concerned about guys who draft early in the rookie draft getting an unfair advantage because of the way that the (short term, at least) value of rookie picks tends to taper rapidly, but that can be addressed through scoring. Our league heavily weights towards WR's and TE's, and away from RB's, on offense to try to balance out their respective values. As it happens, the first two picks were Johnson and ADP, in that order. In other words, I think your concerns about this can be addressed with scoring adjustments.

We are definitely planning to equal out value as much as possible across positions, including PPR at .5 for RB, 1 for WR, and 1.5 for TE. These are good points, but I am still worried about the owners that get the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th picks overall due to the value of their rookie picks in the two draft system. I also agree with the points you made outside of just discussing the fairest way to draft, including keeping things fresh and getting used to the rookie draft system. Still undecided...thanks again for the feedback.

FWIW, these are precisely our scoring values for those positions. Also, while we allow one to flex between a RB2 and a TE2, you must start 3 WR's and you cannot substitute any other types of players in that position, including TE's. That really pushes value towards the WR and TE positions, and away from RB. Also, I happen to think that you're overestimating how correctly people judge the top rookie talent. If you go back in time through the last five years or so, in most leagues I'd say you're looking at no better than a 50% hit rate on the true BPA at a given first round spot, with only a slightly better hit rate in the top half of the first round. Look at the first round of the 2004 rookie draft in one of my deep dynasty IDP leagues:

1. Kevin Jones RB DET

2. Steven Jackson RB STL

3. Julius Jones RB DAL

4. Larry Fitzgerald WR ARI

5. Chris Perry RB CIN

6. Tatum Bell RB Denver

7. Ben Roethlisberger QB Pittsburgh

8. Eli Manning - NYG

9. Reggie Williams WR JAX

10. Mike Williams WR USC

11. Kellen Winslow II TE CLE

12. Phillip Rivers QB SD

13. Roy Williams WR DET

14. Rashaun Woods WR SF

By my count 7 of those picks were clear "misses", and they're sprinkled all through that round including the 1.01.

I think you're overthinking this just a tad.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Last year we did a veteran serpentine in a deep dynasty (IDP, PPR, 45-man rosters) draft around this time of the year, and then did a rookie draft in May or so with the reverse serpentine order.

I didn't get the feeling that anyone was shortchanged, and just so you know I picked first in the veteran draft order and therefore picked last in the rookie draft order.

Thanks for the fresh viewpoint. Do you think it would have been better if you only had one draft with rookies and veterans? How did you come to the decision to have a separate rookie draft...have you done it the other way and deemed it unfair?

I've never done it the other way. The truth is that we probably did it this way just for the fun of having two drafts versus just one, and probably also just to get the league off and running and not wanting to wait for the NFL draft in the process (and of course thinking that it's a bit silly to draft rookies before the NFL draft happens).

I don't think it would have been better. It kept things fresh through the offseason, and of course it matches up well with what you'll do every subsequent year, which is draft rookies only.

You're concerned about guys who draft early in the rookie draft getting an unfair advantage because of the way that the (short term, at least) value of rookie picks tends to taper rapidly, but that can be addressed through scoring. Our league heavily weights towards WR's and TE's, and away from RB's, on offense to try to balance out their respective values. As it happens, the first two picks were Johnson and ADP, in that order. In other words, I think your concerns about this can be addressed with scoring adjustments.

We are definitely planning to equal out value as much as possible across positions, including PPR at .5 for RB, 1 for WR, and 1.5 for TE. These are good points, but I am still worried about the owners that get the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th picks overall due to the value of their rookie picks in the two draft system. I also agree with the points you made outside of just discussing the fairest way to draft, including keeping things fresh and getting used to the rookie draft system. Still undecided...thanks again for the feedback.

FWIW, these are precisely our scoring values for those positions. Also, while we allow one to flex between a RB2 and a TE2, you must start 3 WR's and you cannot substitute any other types of players in that position, including TE's. That really pushes value towards the WR and TE positions, and away from RB. Also, I happen to think that you're overestimating how correctly people judge the top rookie talent. If you go back in time through the last five years or so, in most leagues I'd say you're looking at no better than a 50% hit rate on the true BPA at a given first round spot, with only a slightly better hit rate in the top half of the first round. Look at the first round of the 2004 rookie draft in one of my deep dynasty IDP leagues:

1. Kevin Jones RB DET

2. Steven Jackson RB STL

3. Julius Jones RB DAL

4. Larry Fitzgerald WR ARI

5. Chris Perry RB CIN

6. Tatum Bell RB Denver

7. Ben Roethlisberger QB Pittsburgh

8. Eli Manning - NYG

9. Reggie Williams WR JAX

10. Mike Williams WR USC

11. Kellen Winslow II TE CLE

12. Phillip Rivers QB SD

13. Roy Williams WR DET

14. Rashaun Woods WR SF

By my count 7 of those picks were clear "misses", and they're sprinkled all through that round including the 1.01.

I think you're overthinking this just a tad.

I definitely could be overthinking this, but the owners that make up my league know their stuff, so I can't depend on them missing on the picks. I know that everyone misses on picks, and historically there will be about a 50% miss rate, but I still think it is important to plan around the VALUE of the pick, not the results of the pick.

 

[EBF]

Look at what the 1.01 would've netter you in recent seasons:

2007 - Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush

2005 - Carnell Williams/Ronnie Brown

2004 - Kevin Jones/Steven Jackson

2003 - Charles Rogers/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/Michael Bennett

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Thomas Jones

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

With the exception of Charles Rogers and Thomas Jones, every single one of these guys was considered a top 25 overall dynasty player at some point. At least half of these guys have held top 10 dynasty value at one point in their career. So you can see that giving the 1.12 vet pick the 1.01 rookie pick is roughly equivalent to giving that owner an extra top 15 pick.

The same more or less holds true for the 1.02 and 1.03 rookie picks. Those owners get a free top 20-30 type player. That's a tremendous advantage over the rest of the league.

You can use the argument that the guys at the top of the veteran draft still aren't at a disadvantage because they get first dibs on the veterans. I don't buy it. With the exception of LaDainian Tomlinson, there really hasn't been a single RB who has maintained top 3 status over the past 4-5 years. So unless you're lucky enough to get that once-a-decade Faulk or Tomlinson type player, there really isn't a huge advantage in having a high vet pick. The value difference between the vet 1.03 and the vet 1.10 is minimal. And yet the guy with the vet 1.10 will get a free top 30 overall player (his rookie pick) whereas the guy with the 1.03 will get a top 100 type player with his rookie pick. That's lopsided and unfair.

There's no reason not to do a combined draft if possible.

 

[FUBAR]

Look at what the 1.01 would've netter you in recent seasons:2007 - Adrian Peterson2006 - Reggie Bush2005 - Carnell Williams/Ronnie Brown2004 - Kevin Jones/Steven Jackson2003 - Charles Rogers/Larry Johnson2002 - William Green2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/Michael Bennett2000 - Jamal Lewis/Thomas Jones1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin JamesWith the exception of Charles Rogers and Thomas Jones, every single one of these guys was considered a top 25 overall dynasty player at some point. At least half of these guys have held top 10 dynasty value at one point in their career. So you can see that giving the 1.12 vet pick the 1.01 rookie pick is roughly equivalent to giving that owner an extra top 15 pick. The same more or less holds true for the 1.02 and 1.03 rookie picks. Those owners get a free top 20-30 type player. That's a tremendous advantage over the rest of the league. You can use the argument that the guys at the top of the veteran draft still aren't at a disadvantage because they get first dibs on the veterans. I don't buy it. With the exception of LaDainian Tomlinson, there really hasn't been a single RB who has maintained top 3 status over the past 4-5 years. So unless you're lucky enough to get that once-a-decade Faulk or Tomlinson type player, there really isn't a huge advantage in having a high vet pick. The value difference between the vet 1.03 and the vet 1.10 is minimal. And yet the guy with the vet 1.10 will get a free top 30 overall player (his rookie pick) whereas the guy with the 1.03 will get a top 100 type player with his rookie pick. That's lopsided and unfair. There's no reason not to do a combined draft if possible.

I don't know. I mean, if you owned Adrian Peterson, would you trade him along with Chris Johnson for McFadden and Reggie Bush?LT and DeShean Jackson for Stewart and Marion Barber?Jackson and Malcolm Kelly for MJD and Mendenhall?Addai and Steve Slaton for Portis and Felix Jones?Westbrook and Matt Ryan for LJ and Ray Rice?Gore and Kevin Smith for Lynch and Jamal Charles?Off hand, those look about as even as you can make a draft.

 

[Travieso]

 

[t_gunslinger]

:sehorn:

 

[Scooby1974]

Is this data something that could be put into Excel to keep track of year by year? I for one would love it.

 

[Biabreakable]

This thread is pure awesome.

 

[Tick]

There's some historical stuff in my sig that someone could do some work with based on the Zealots leagues. I should get last year's startup draft in there sometime, but my file got corrupted and I just dropped it.

 

[Dutch Kincade]

In general it is probably smarter to trade away rookie picks since there is a good likelihood of receiving in return proven value close to the hoped-for upside of the pick but with much less risk.

Bingo. I don't think I have drafted a player in the top 10 rookie picks in six years or more. Draft picks are for dreamers. It has been my experience that picks and the hope they bring are almost always overvalued and you can get quality proven players in return. Conversely, target the guy who has had a few bad drafts in a row and he can give away his picks cheaper than some others would.Great topic.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

thought I would bump this thread. Great work by Beto with rookie drafts coming up in the next few months.

 

[RustyFA2]

Great thread

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

:X

 

[beto]

Is this data something that could be put into Excel to keep track of year by year? I for one would love it.

That's what I was doing until 2008ish so I have some catching up to do. to the days I could do this stuff at work.

 

[Moonlight]

Is this data something that could be put into Excel to keep track of year by year? I for one would love it.

That's what I was doing until 2008ish so I have some catching up to do. to the days I could do this stuff at work.

Appreciate your work, beto.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

What type of player would it take for you to move this years 1.1? I know obviously players like CJ3, RRice, Calvin, etc are slam dunks. But what would be some players that you would consider to be relatively equal in value to the 1.1 pick? I am new to dynasty format and while I have a good idea on player for player deals I am having a harder time fully grasping the values of draft picks. Thanks

 

[Mr Two Cents]

What type of player would it take for you to move this years 1.1? I know obviously players like CJ3, RRice, Calvin, etc are slam dunks. But what would be some players that you would consider to be relatively equal in value to the 1.1 pick? I am new to dynasty format and while I have a good idea on player for player deals I am having a harder time fully grasping the values of draft picks. Thanks

For the 1.01 and the 4.06 the owner wants Santonio Holmes, Mike Wallace (RB) and Jon BeasonI dont think Dez or the top RB is worth that much

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

What type of player would it take for you to move this years 1.1? I know obviously players like CJ3, RRice, Calvin, etc are slam dunks. But what would be some players that you would consider to be relatively equal in value to the 1.1 pick? I am new to dynasty format and while I have a good idea on player for player deals I am having a harder time fully grasping the values of draft picks. Thanks

For the 1.01 and the 4.06 the owner wants Santonio Holmes, Mike Wallace (RB) and Jon BeasonI dont think Dez or the top RB is worth that much

Hmm. I would make that move in a second for that pick. Holmes doesn't excite me all that much. I would rather take the more risk/reward with the pick.

 

[HenryMuto]

Bennett over Tomlinson

I did this. Because of that when I won the draft lottery last year and was picking 1.1 I was really worried about it. I was afraid I would mess it up again. Grabbed KJones. JJones wouldn't have been a bad pick either but that Bennett thing really bit me in the ###.....

Looks like the KJones pick was right on par with the Bennett pick.Personally I took LT over Bennett and S-Jackson over KJones the year those 2 came out. I guess that is why I have 6 championships!Sometimes what seems close at the time is so far away in reality a few years later.

 

[HenryMuto]

I looked back at my initial dynasty draft last year that was held in late August. It was a single draft that included 2004 rookies.1st rookie K Jones - Pick 2.03. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 2.04. 2nd rookie Jackson- Pick 3.11. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 2.08. 3rd rookie J Jones - Pick 4.02. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 3.02. 4th rookie Winslow - Pick 4.03. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 3.11. 5th rookie Fitzgerald - Pick 5.08. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 5.05. 6th rookie Bell - Pick 6.12. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 5.08. 7th rookie Roy Williams - Pick 7.02. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 7.02. 8th rookie Manning - Pick 8.07. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 9.01. 9th rookie Perry - Pick 8.10. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 11.01. 10th rookie Watts - Pick 9.01. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 12.06 11th rookie Reggie Williams - Pick 9.03. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 13.06 12th rookie Evans - Pick 9.04. Compared to Beto's equivalent value of 15.01.This is just a single sample but compared to Beto's value he is right on for the 1st pick, a little high for picks 2 & 3, close for 4 & 5, high for 6, close for 7& 8, and too low for 9 - 12.This sample does show a big drop around the 6th pick.

This is a great example of how these rookie drafts play out 2 or 3 years down the road.

How in the world did you guys have Fitz ranked so low as a rookie ? I had S-Jackson and Fitz rated 1/2 way ahead of all other rookies in 2004. Those 2 were in my top tier. I drafted Jackson because I had 2nd pick the guy with 1st pick took Fitz. Had I had 1st pick I would have had to consider Fitz but RB was a need so I would have went Jackson most likely anyway.Hard to believe so many missed on Fitz. Fitz was like the next Randy Moss coming out that year. He had it all and proved it in college.Kevin Jones ouch for those who went #1 overall for him.

 

[HenryMuto]

I have been running a dynasty league since 1997. In that year we did 2 seperate drafts. In retrospect it was not the right thing to do. You should combine the drafts. I am starting up a new dyasnty league this year finally after 14 years later from my 1st one. I will do a combined draft this time. What I might do is when a team wants to pick a rookie at say pick 2.04 or whatever they can pick "rookie pick 1.01" as their pick. Then we can still have 2 seperate drafts but the teams are using their vet pick spots to select their rookie slots. 1 team might have 5 rookies another might have only 2. Was 1 way of doing it.

I went back in all my drafts from 1997-2009 and it looks like exactly 50% of the top 2 picks were busts.

13 panned out to be good/great players

13 ended up being complete busts/not so good players

It can be a crapshoot.

 

[beto]

How in the world did you guys have Fitz ranked so low as a rookie ? I had S-Jackson and Fitz rated 1/2 way ahead of all other rookies in 2004. Those 2 were in my top tier. I drafted Jackson because I had 2nd pick the guy with 1st pick took Fitz. Had I had 1st pick I would have had to consider Fitz but RB was a need so I would have went Jackson most likely anyway.Hard to believe so many missed on Fitz. Fitz was like the next Randy Moss coming out that year. He had it all and proved it in college.Kevin Jones ouch for those who went #1 overall for him.

We were pretty RB crazy around these parts back then. I have been guilty of it myself with guys like Kevin Jones and Laurence Maroney. As you have seen, if you nail these rookie picks you can dominate dynasty leagues.Your dynasty snake draft idea of letting guys take a rookie is another good way of running the initial draft. I've seen other leagues do this (including redrafts).

 

[Tick]

What type of player would it take for you to move this years 1.1? I know obviously players like CJ3, RRice, Calvin, etc are slam dunks. But what would be some players that you would consider to be relatively equal in value to the 1.1 pick? I am new to dynasty format and while I have a good idea on player for player deals I am having a harder time fully grasping the values of draft picks. Thanks

I traded 1.01 after the NFL draft for Mendenhall. I think it's a fair exchange.

 

[_lurker_]

I guess that is why I have 6 championships!

Yes, but in fairness, you're in 172 leagues.

 

[Lash]

What type of player would it take for you to move this years 1.1? I know obviously players like CJ3, RRice, Calvin, etc are slam dunks. But what would be some players that you would consider to be relatively equal in value to the 1.1 pick? I am new to dynasty format and while I have a good idea on player for player deals I am having a harder time fully grasping the values of draft picks. Thanks

I traded 1.01 after the NFL draft for Mendenhall. I think it's a fair exchange.

a pretty astute owner in my league offered ADP and either Mendy or Pierre for 1.01/AJohnson (weighted scoring in favor of WR and only have to start 1 RB, can start up to 5 WR)but still thought it was too much to offer for AJ/Mathewsnow is the time to dangle the top 4 selections