Dynasty Debate (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

In dynasty leagues, which position should ultimately be valued more given the burn out rate of a player position?

For example, a stud RB might have 3 to 5 years of solid production. A stud WR could theoretically produce for 10 years. So why are RBs continually valued and reached for in dynasty leagues over WRs?

Case in point, in PPR dynasty leagues, it seems like Mark Ingram is head and shoulders being taken over A.J. Green on a consistent basis. Is this rational? Ingram will have a more immediate impact this year, but what about the long run?

And more importantly, if you are lucky to have the 1.1 in a dynasty league, which pick will maximize the long term value of your selection? It is not often that you might have the 1.1, so wouldn't an A.J. Green pay larger dividends for a longer period of time (and thus would be money better spent) than a Mark Ingram?

If you had 1.1 in a PPR dynasty league, who would you take and why?

WR (A.J. Green) lovers unite! RB (Mark Ingram) lovers react!

Thoughts?

 

[Sabertooth]

In dynasty leagues, which position should ultimately be valued more given the burn out rate of a player position?

For example, a stud RB might have 3 to 5 years of solid production. A stud WR could theoretically produce for 10 years. So why are RBs continually valued and reached for in dynasty leagues over WRs?

Case in point, in PPR dynasty leagues, it seems like Mark Ingram is head and shoulders being taken over A.J. Green on a consistent basis. Is this rational? Ingram will have a more immediate impact this year, but what about the long run?

And more importantly, if you are lucky to have the 1.1 in a dynasty league, which pick will maximize the long term value of your selection? It is not often that you might have the 1.1, so wouldn't an A.J. Green pay larger dividends for a longer period of time (and thus would be money better spent) than a Mark Ingram?

If you had 1.1 in a PPR dynasty league, who would you take and why?

WR (A.J. Green) lovers unite! RB (Mark Ingram) lovers react!

Thoughts?

I think you hit on it right there. Owners draft players who can help them now and in the future. Not everybody has the patience to wait for three years after picking a player for him to develop. So you take running backs. Why? Well, for one reason they have the potential for Fred Taylor or Edgerrin James type rookies seasons. Secondly, they get old quick so you constantly have guys teetering near the edge like Steven Jackson and Michael Turner. You just know they are going to hit the wall at some point soon.

Just my opinion. You also have a bit of the scarcity and VBD principles playing into it.

 

[Hobbes]

RB, RB, and more RB. WR's come and go...RB's even if they only play for a brief period of time are GOLD.

 

[valhallan]

Stud WRs and QBs are dynasty pillars, without question. However, stud RBs are scarce and you usually need at least one.

The reason Ingram is going 1st without fail is that he's about as "can't miss" and you can get.

 

[adrenaline]

Because RBs score more points.

 

[Hobbes]

Note: I might change my opinion in your league if you have a VERY deep roster...

The whole team is important if you want the trophy...but if you want to win over time I would draft nothing but RB's and the occasional QB at the top of the draft. In the lowest rounds of your draft you can draft for necessity elsewhere...People always drop WR's 2 or 3 years after drafting them because they "don't pan out." It is less rare that top RB's are floating on waivers.

 

[SSOG]

I'm a big fan of stud WRs in dynasty- I say get a couple of them and spend the next 8 years filling out the rest of the roster around them. With that said... There is no more valuable dynasty asset than a true high-end stud RB not quite into his prime. Period, full-stop, end of story. Tomlinson and Faulk were more valuable than Moss and Harrison by a pretty substantial margin. That's why the top 3-4 picks in dynasty startup drafts should almost always be RBs- specifically, proven RBs age 25 or younger.

The reason I like stud WRs is because after you get past that (very small) top tier of RBs, people keep going RB crazy. They grab a lot of guys who might have a chance of joining that top tier... but who probably won't. They're leaving proven long-term production at WR on the board while they chase the RB dream when the reality is, the tier-1 RBs 3 years from now probably aren't even in the league yet today. If a back is not potentially the next Faulk, Tomlinson, Barry Sanders, or Emmitt Smith, then I'm going to focus on young, proven WRs who can be franchise cornerstones for the lion's share of the next decade. Even guys like Aaron Rodgers are better investments. If you get a TE who is 26 and a proven difference maker (and my definition of "difference maker" at TE is strict- it basically means "Gonzalez or Gates"), I'd even rather take him high than some of the RBs that people gamble on in dynasty startups.

As for rookie drafts... unless a WR is Calvin Johnson or Dez Bryant, you're better off going with RBs at the top. First off, RBs offer immediate returns. More than that, though, RBs offer immediate chances to be evaluated. It was obvious after just one season of Knowshon Moreno that he lacked elite talent, so savvy owners could sell him and move on. Guys like Darren McFadden are the exception, whereas for a WR it's pretty much a rule that you have to wait until after year 3 or year 4 before you'll know your guy doesn't have the goods. Second off, RBs seem to be safer bets than WRs (i.e. they have a lower bust rate, imo). Third off, RBs retain their value well (which goes well with point #1 to mean that if you decide to sell an RB, odds are the market for them will still be strong even after one or two disappointing seasons).

So... lower bust rate, more immediate returns (and opportunities for evaluation), and a very stable market value even when underperforming. Oh, yeah, and it's easier to acquire quality WRs through alternate methods (such as targeting underperforming rookies or sophomores), whereas at RB you either have to draft them or pay a premium.

If you think A.J. Green is a Dez Bryant or Calvin Johnson, then take him #1 overall. If you think that Mark Ingram is a bum (say, the next Knowshon Moreno), then pass on him at #1 overall. Otherwise, Ingram over Green is the smart choice.

 

[Sabertooth]

SSOG, do you put Ryan Williams in that group with Igram, or any other back this year?

 

[pghrob]

Count me as one who took AJ Green as #1 overall over Ingram in this year's rookie draft. That is because I had Foster, Charles, DeAngelo, Knowshon, and T. Choice. My best WR's were Mike Wallace and TB Mike Williams. If I had takers, I would have been glad to trade #1 overall away if I somehow could have turned it into picks 2&3 to nab both Ingram and Julio. But without takers, Green was the guy. Ingram went second and Julio went 5th. The guy who drafted Ingram needed a RB. The guy who drafted Julio got him in the 5th! It just so happened that he also had the 4th pick and drafted Ryan Williams. He was not interested in trading picks 4 & 5 for #1. So he did well getting Williams and Jones.

 

[comfortably numb]

In my my 16 team dynasty PPR leagues

Ingram was taken after AJ Green in all 3 rookie drafts and after AJ Green in an initial start up.

 

[FUBAR]

Generally, I want as many difference makers as possible and let the rest sort themselves out later. So I'll always take elite players at any position over the lesser players. Including TEs like Gates/Finley/Witten over 2nd rate RBs. Or QBs like Aaron Rodgers over RBs like Turner. It's pretty simple - get core players first.

In IDP leagues I'll even value the elite LBs and DEs over RB2 types.

After the core WRs, QBs and TEs are gone, I'll take more fliers at RB than the other positions.

 

[Clifford]

Generally, I want as many difference makers as possible and let the rest sort themselves out later. So I'll always take elite players at any position over the lesser players. Including TEs like Gates/Finley/Witten over 2nd rate RBs. Or QBs like Aaron Rodgers over RBs like Turner. It's pretty simple - get core players first. In IDP leagues I'll even value the elite LBs and DEs over RB2 types. After the core WRs, QBs and TEs are gone, I'll take more fliers at RB than the other positions.

agree with this wholeheartedly. BPA. Just so happens that the top3-5 RBs are usually always BPA.

 

[DrapedInVelvet]

Without looking at stats, I'd say WRs have a lower success rate that RBs. RBS are more plug and play and tend to work out right away if they are going to work out at all. WRs can take years and then may not be what we thought they were going to be.

[Please forgive me for potentially pissing in the SP but can anyone point me to a thread or articles on a first year dynasty draft advice]

 

[Sabertooth]

Without looking at stats, I'd say WRs have a lower success rate that RBs. RBS are more plug and play and tend to work out right away if they are going to work out at all. WRs can take years and then may not be what we thought they were going to be. [Please forgive me for potentially pissing in the SP but can anyone point me to a thread or articles on a first year dynasty draft advice]

In the paid section, Wood's article on drafting for the 2nd year is fantastic. I missed that championship by "THIS MUCH" in the second year after dominating the regular season.Also, just immerse yourself in the dyansty thread on here. It's free and there are some very good players contributing to it.

 

[kardplayer]

You should always draft "best available" in the first round. ALWAYS. And at the top of the draft, you should be looking for a stud RB. You can convince someone to trade you for a receiver during their second year much easier than you can a back.

If you are stacked at RB and you have 1.01, then trade down to 1.02 - even if the extra value you get is small. In my dynasty league (12 teams, 30 player roster, 8 man dev squad), 1.01 would probably go for 1.02 and a third round pick.

When you are drafting "needs based" (vs. best available), then you should be trading to the spot where the best available player is also the player that best fits your needs. You won't win every trade, but you'll have enough chips on the table where you should net out the winner in the end.

 

[Sabertooth]

You should always draft "best available" in the first round. ALWAYS. And at the top of the draft, you should be looking for a stud RB. You can convince someone to trade you for a receiver during their second year much easier than you can a back.

If you are stacked at RB and you have 1.01, then trade down to 1.02 - even if the extra value you get is small. In my dynasty league (12 teams, 30 player roster, 8 man dev squad), 1.01 would probably go for 1.02 and a third round pick.

When you are drafting "needs based" (vs. best available), then you should be trading to the spot where the best available player is also the player that best fits your needs. You won't win every trade, but you'll have enough chips on the table where you should net out the winner in the end.

Isn't this contradicting? Either you look for BPA or you look for running backs. By definition you can't do both.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I am one who enjoys building around WRs versus RBs. The general consensus is that RBs have a shorter shelf life. What if we were to take a look at prime production years? Would they be comparable? It usually takes a rookie WR 2-4 years to get a good grasp on the NFL game and produce at a high level. Running backs typically pay quicker dividends but can be run into the ground faster. If comparing prime production years (and I understand it is not a perfect generalization) would there be too much of a difference in valuable years?

 

[bigmarc27]

If you have a stud QB and 2 stud WRs, that's the basis for a title. After that you can get lucky with an Arian Foster type situation and easily win it all.

I've won a couple of dynasty titles and the last time I did, Ron Dayne was the RB anchor in the playoffs.

 

[DoubleG]

I am a believer in the "Stud WR" dynasty strategy - especially if your league starts 1QB, 2RB, 3WR...

If you stockpile WRs, you might be starting something like:

R. Wayne

R. White

D. Jackson

While your opponent trots out Driver, Maclin and Roy Williams. (These are actual lineups from my league)

Now, if you have even decent production at RB (guys like Moreno, Benson, etc.) - the amount you outscore your opponents at the 3 WR spots will surpass the amount you are outscored at the 2 RB spots.

One thing that makes this even easier is that many people still value (sometimes too highly) decent RBs. As such, in a "partial dynasty" league (one where you have to trim your rosters and handcuff RBs and young/injured players get cut and are available in the draft) - you can usually pick up WRs who haven't sprung yet (Roddy White early in his career is a perfect example), as many will be picking up the Mike Bell's and LT2 hoping they have a little left in the tank - meanwhile you're snagging Danario Alexander and Demarius Thomas (once again, these are real examples from my league's draft from last year).

While it's true that a true stud RB is gold - the fact is they just don't exsist in large quantity anymore. Sometimes, even teams that seem to have one, don't use them that way (i.e. there's a lot of RBBC and "3rd down backs" and "short yardage backs" that steal touches away from a primary ball carrier.)

The shelf life and consistency of a stud WR makes them more valuable (imho) than many RBs. Especially in league's where you start more WRs than RBs.

 

[kardplayer]

You should always draft "best available" in the first round. ALWAYS. And at the top of the draft, you should be looking for a stud RB. You can convince someone to trade you for a receiver during their second year much easier than you can a back.

If you are stacked at RB and you have 1.01, then trade down to 1.02 - even if the extra value you get is small. In my dynasty league (12 teams, 30 player roster, 8 man dev squad), 1.01 would probably go for 1.02 and a third round pick.

When you are drafting "needs based" (vs. best available), then you should be trading to the spot where the best available player is also the player that best fits your needs. You won't win every trade, but you'll have enough chips on the table where you should net out the winner in the end.

Isn't this contradicting? Either you look for BPA or you look for running backs. By definition you can't do both.

I could have said that better. At the top of the draft, the RB gets extra points on the best available scale. So if I have to choose between Ingram (potentially stud RB) and Green (potentially stud WR), I'm taking the RB.

 

[Sabertooth]

I am a believer in the "Stud WR" dynasty strategy - especially if your league starts 1QB, 2RB, 3WR...

If you stockpile WRs, you might be starting something like:

R. Wayne

R. White

D. Jackson

While your opponent trots out Driver, Maclin and Roy Williams. (These are actual lineups from my league)

Now, if you have even decent production at RB (guys like Moreno, Benson, etc.) - the amount you outscore your opponents at the 3 WR spots will surpass the amount you are outscored at the 2 RB spots.

One thing that makes this even easier is that many people still value (sometimes too highly) decent RBs. As such, in a "partial dynasty" league (one where you have to trim your rosters and handcuff RBs and young/injured players get cut and are available in the draft) - you can usually pick up WRs who haven't sprung yet (Roddy White early in his career is a perfect example), as many will be picking up the Mike Bell's and LT2 hoping they have a little left in the tank - meanwhile you're snagging Danario Alexander and Demarius Thomas (once again, these are real examples from my league's draft from last year).

While it's true that a true stud RB is gold - the fact is they just don't exsist in large quantity anymore. Sometimes, even teams that seem to have one, don't use them that way (i.e. there's a lot of RBBC and "3rd down backs" and "short yardage backs" that steal touches away from a primary ball carrier.)

The shelf life and consistency of a stud WR makes them more valuable (imho) than many RBs. Especially in league's where you start more WRs than RBs.

How would starting 2 quarterbacks influence this. I'd think they'd supercede all because A. The top guys tend to be high draft picks

B. They have the longest shelf life of any position.

C. They do not platoon or play situationally like a 3rd down back or goaline back type of thing.

 

[Restricted]

I think that RBs are taken more frequently than WRs in the early parts of dynasty "rook only" drafts for two reasons. One as stated above, their life span is a shorter window and thus need replacement more. Secondly, they are more of a quick fix and the teams drafting earlier are drafting earlier for a reason most of the time, because they are losing. A starting RB is a nice new band-aid that should be able to give points out the gate. Though the trend has seemed to been bucked recently, WRs had been a huge gamble with a TON of busts and not as safe, and even if safe, you would have to wait a few seasons to get them into the line-up.

 

[Buclove]

I am a believer in the "Stud WR" dynasty strategy - especially if your league starts 1QB, 2RB, 3WR...

If you stockpile WRs, you might be starting something like:

R. Wayne

R. White

D. Jackson

While your opponent trots out Driver, Maclin and Roy Williams. (These are actual lineups from my league)

Now, if you have even decent production at RB (guys like Moreno, Benson, etc.) - the amount you outscore your opponents at the 3 WR spots will surpass the amount you are outscored at the 2 RB spots.

One thing that makes this even easier is that many people still value (sometimes too highly) decent RBs. As such, in a "partial dynasty" league (one where you have to trim your rosters and handcuff RBs and young/injured players get cut and are available in the draft) - you can usually pick up WRs who haven't sprung yet (Roddy White early in his career is a perfect example), as many will be picking up the Mike Bell's and LT2 hoping they have a little left in the tank - meanwhile you're snagging Danario Alexander and Demarius Thomas (once again, these are real examples from my league's draft from last year).

While it's true that a true stud RB is gold - the fact is they just don't exsist in large quantity anymore. Sometimes, even teams that seem to have one, don't use them that way (i.e. there's a lot of RBBC and "3rd down backs" and "short yardage backs" that steal touches away from a primary ball carrier.)

The shelf life and consistency of a stud WR makes them more valuable (imho) than many RBs. Especially in league's where you start more WRs than RBs.

You are right on the money. In the pass happy and RBBC league today, you gotta have WRs.

 

[DoubleG]

I am a believer in the "Stud WR" dynasty strategy - especially if your league starts 1QB, 2RB, 3WR...

If you stockpile WRs, you might be starting something like:

R. Wayne

R. White

D. Jackson

While your opponent trots out Driver, Maclin and Roy Williams. (These are actual lineups from my league)

Now, if you have even decent production at RB (guys like Moreno, Benson, etc.) - the amount you outscore your opponents at the 3 WR spots will surpass the amount you are outscored at the 2 RB spots.

One thing that makes this even easier is that many people still value (sometimes too highly) decent RBs. As such, in a "partial dynasty" league (one where you have to trim your rosters and handcuff RBs and young/injured players get cut and are available in the draft) - you can usually pick up WRs who haven't sprung yet (Roddy White early in his career is a perfect example), as many will be picking up the Mike Bell's and LT2 hoping they have a little left in the tank - meanwhile you're snagging Danario Alexander and Demarius Thomas (once again, these are real examples from my league's draft from last year).

While it's true that a true stud RB is gold - the fact is they just don't exsist in large quantity anymore. Sometimes, even teams that seem to have one, don't use them that way (i.e. there's a lot of RBBC and "3rd down backs" and "short yardage backs" that steal touches away from a primary ball carrier.)

The shelf life and consistency of a stud WR makes them more valuable (imho) than many RBs. Especially in league's where you start more WRs than RBs.

How would starting 2 quarterbacks influence this. I'd think they'd supercede all because A. The top guys tend to be high draft picks

B. They have the longest shelf life of any position.

C. They do not platoon or play situationally like a 3rd down back or goaline back type of thing.

I imagine all of the above are true - I've never played in a start 2 QB league though, so I have nothing on which to base that. Even in regular (1QB) dynasty, a guy that has Manning/Rodgers/Brees has an advantage. That is, while other guys are drafting QBs (or scouring the WW to find QBs with good matchups, or when there mediocre vet is replaced by a rookie in the later part of the season, etc.) the stud QB owner can be picking up some of the afore mentioned young WRs, seeing which one will start to produce. When you have a stud QB, even in a 1 QB scoring system, you only need a bye week filler (at mosst).

Maybe you have a young QB waiting in the wings as the other QB and just hope for the best on the bye. As an example, I had Manning and drafted Matt Ryan his rookie year. Sometimes Ryan has been good on Manning's bye week - sometimes not - but I've never had more than 2 QBs rostered. Now, by most people's ratings, I hold 2 QB1s. This allowed me to load up on rookie WRs and stash them until they developed.

Stud QBs and stud WRs are a key to winning in dynasty, imho. RBs have a short shelf life. TEs are pretty much plug and play (once you get past the Gates' of the world.)

And, as SSOG has said in countless places, draft talent over situation. Talent will always rise to the top, regardless as to situation.

 

[Shutout]

1.Supply and demand

2.Always draft the Best Player available

3.WR OR RB?

If you understand where your league stands at #1, and you can do #2, then you have a major advantage when the decision comes down to #3.

When I have been able to correctly do these things, the result has been huge. I drafted Larry Fitzgerald when he came out and passed on taking Tatum Bell even though I "needed" a RB. Doing that not only gave me Larry Fitzgerald, but also allowed me to lock down that one position for a decade or more and focus all my resources on building the other areas of the team. I believe strongly in that aspect of eliminating "need" areas and being able to improve in other areas because you 1)fill a need, 2)have more resources to fill less needs, and 3)improve your team in two ways vs. one.

The 1st year I drafted Fitz was a growing period, but I have now been to the playoffs, winning my division for the last 4-5 years and have won the league a few times.

It may be coincidence, but my experience in large dynasty leagues has been that I have, with one exception, won my league titles with strong WR corps and usually a very good QB, while having "serviceable" RBs. Also, I have defeated teams with amazing RB corps along the way. The one exception was the year Terrell Davis had his 2000 yard season. Other than that, I have lost with the Arian Fosters and Jamal Lewis and Brian Westbrook types a lot and won with the Moreno, Jacobs, and Mcgahee types.