Dynasty League IDP Question (1 Viewer)

[The Vision]

Probably a stupid question but I can't decide on taking Barnett or Hawk in our initial dynasty league draft. I know he (Barnett) is ranked higher on the lists but I can't help wondering if he will be moving to another position. Also, I saw that Barnett had some type of knee injury that they said wasn't serious....should that be a factor for me? I don't want to make a mistake at this key position.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Probably a stupid question but I can't decide on taking Barnett or Hawk in our initial dynasty league draft.  I know he (Barnett)  is ranked higher on the lists but I can't help wondering if he will be moving to another position.  Also, I saw that Barnett had some type of knee injury that they said wasn't serious....should that be a factor for me?  I don't want to make a mistake at this key position. 

Thanks for your help.

Barnett.I'm betting I'm going to be the minority on this, but I'm not a fan of paying big for AJ Hawk in a dynasty league. And if Barnett is still on the board, you're probably in the 7-12th LB to be selected range. I don't think Hawk is good value there.

IMO, the MLB is the bellcow in this defense. We're talking about the Jimmy Johnson/Dave Wannstedt/Jim Bates scheme here. The University of Miami defense that highlighted Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, Jonathan Vilma, among others in college and the pros, including Barnett himself. In the pro game, the WLB in this scheme has had marginal value.

Sure, Hawk could be an exception if he's a big play guy, but I'm not seeing the 90-95 plus solo tackles needed to become a top ten backer in most leagues.

The rub is that Barnett could be moved to SLB to get Hodge in the lineup. That is pretty unlikely to happen this year unless Ben Taylor is a complete failure. Early camp reports suggest Taylor is doing well.

If you're playing to win in 2006, take Barnett. If you're drafting for the future, Hawk is a nice player, but I think there's better value elsewhere and later. Unless you think Hawk is a perennial lock for 4-5 sacks and 3-4 INT, then he has excellent value here and should be your pick.

Like I said, I expect to be in the minority here, but I don't think Hawk is in the best scheme to live up to his lofty draft status in many dynasty leagues.

ETA: I don't think Barnett's knee injury is an issue. No surgery that I'm aware of - just no reason to push things in camp with so many new backers around to get snaps they probably need more than Barnett.

 

[The Vision]

Probably a stupid question but I can't decide on taking Barnett or Hawk in our initial dynasty league draft. I know he (Barnett) is ranked higher on the lists but I can't help wondering if he will be moving to another position. Also, I saw that Barnett had some type of knee injury that they said wasn't serious....should that be a factor for me? I don't want to make a mistake at this key position.

Thanks for your help.

Barnett.I'm betting I'm going to be the minority on this, but I'm not a fan of paying big for AJ Hawk in a dynasty league. And if Barnett is still on the board, you're probably in the 7-12th LB to be selected range. I don't think Hawk is good value there.

IMO, the MLB is the bellcow in this defense. We're talking about the Jimmy Johnson/Dave Wannstedt/Jim Bates scheme here. The University of Miami defense that highlighted Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, Jonathan Vilma, among others in college and the pros, including Barnett himself. In the pro game, the WLB in this scheme has had marginal value.

Sure, Hawk could be an exception if he's a big play guy, but I'm not seeing the 90-95 plus solo tackles needed to become a top ten backer in most leagues.

The rub is that Barnett could be moved to SLB to get Hodge in the lineup. That is pretty unlikely to happen this year unless Ben Taylor is a complete failure. Early camp reports suggest Taylor is doing well.

If you're playing to win in 2006, take Barnett. If you're drafting for the future, Hawk is a nice player, but I think there's better value elsewhere and later. Unless you think Hawk is a perennial lock for 4-5 sacks and 3-4 INT, then he has excellent value here and should be your pick.

Like I said, I expect to be in the minority here, but I don't think Hawk is in the best scheme to live up to his lofty draft status in many dynasty leagues.

ETA: I don't think Barnett's knee injury is an issue. No surgery that I'm aware of - just no reason to push things in camp with so many new backers around to get snaps they probably need more than Barnett.

Many thanks for the reply. I did go with Hawk even though I think I would have been more comfortable with Barnett. This league has an unusual concept as we drafted an entire team (both offense and defense) and I had chosen the Steelers. We then have a "normal" draft of the remaining available players. Needless to say this leaves many holes in parts of your line-up with bye weeks and position weaknesses. Given the LB's the Steelers have I figured younger was better at this point.Thanks again!

 

[Jene Bramel]

Given the LB's the Steelers have I figured younger was better at this point.

Maybe. But you got the Goo now. He could be a real interesting player for you in 2007.

 

[Rozelle]

I would have went with Hawk also. Hawk is special ... he reminds me of Chris Speilman, only faster. I don't see Barnett putting up the numbers he did in the past with Hawk there.

 

[The Vision]

Maybe. But you got the Goo now. He could be a real interesting player for you in 2007.

Your joking right?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Maybe. But you got the Goo now. He could be a real interesting player for you in 2007.

Your joking right?

Maybe a little, but that guy could have the inside track on the Farrior's job next year. Unless you only get the starting rosters from the team you draft, in which case, just enjoy the picture in the link...

 

[smegma]

I'd stick with Barnett, he's a natural MLB. Hawk can play any of the LB positions, which means that they could eventually move him to the strong side. In this position, I take the safer route.

 

[The Vision]

No we do keep the entire roster (if you wanted to) but I did cut a few players although he wasnt one of them. I really had no idea he played anything other than ST's.

) Thanks for the pic's.