We agree on the obvious, the only question is how can we see totally different things with one player. We agree much more than we disagree on young potential studs.
Agreed. To be honest, I have Nicks and Sims-Walker higher because... well, someone has to be higher, right? I can't just rank them all 25th and be done with it. Once you get past Tier 4 in my rankings, almost everyone on the list is more likely than not to leave his owners crying.
Did a lot of people whiff on Reggie Bush? Yes. Does that mean you shouldn't pick rookies high without seeing them play first? No. That's the very definition of outcome-centric thinking.
There's a big difference in whiffing on the first pick of a rookie draft and whiffing on one or both of your top two picks in a start-up dynasty. In a rookie draft, they're all gambles and you haven't seen any of them play. In a dynasty start-up, you've seen most of the guys play. Although I would have picked Reggie first in a rookie draft, I wouldn't have burned more than a fourth rounder at best in a dynasty start-up, let alone a first rounder.
Once again, refusing to use a premium pick in startups on rookies because Reggie Bush busted is the very definition of outcome-centric thinking. I mean that quite literally- it's a textbook case of outcome-centric thinking. And outcome-centric thinking is bad. If you don't want to draft rookies in the 3rd in startups, that's fine, but find a better reason for it than "Reggie Bush was a bum".Personally, I'd like to see a list of all once-in-a-generation talents, those rookies who people have seriously considered drafting in the 3rd or 4th of a startup. Off the top of my head, you've got Bush, McFadden, Peterson, Calvin, Fitzgerald, Charles Rodgers, possibly Jonathan Stewart, Bryant, possibly Andre Johnson. I'm sure there have been some more. Now, are there a lot of really, really ugly names on that list? Are there a lot of guys who would have made their owners look like grade A morons on that list? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't mean anything in a vacuum, though- in order to say that list shows it's a bad idea to draft rookies in the 3rd round of startups, you'd have to compare that list to all the non-rookies who have gone in the 3rd round of startups. While the rookies look bad, it's possible the vets have fared even worse. Hell, you know what the latter half of the first round looked like in startup drafts in 2006? Cadillac Williams, Ronnie Brown, Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush, Lamont Jordan, and Rudi Johnson. Tell me you wouldn't rather take your chances on Peterson/Bush/McFadden/Stewart than Jackson/Bush/Jordan/Johnson- and this is comparing rookies being considered in the 3rd or 4th rounds vs. veterans who were going in the FIRST ROUND.
I'd take Bush even with the age difference. McFadden will never be successful in OAK where the forward lateral is considered innovative. McF needs an OC that can get creative. Plus, he's an injury waiting to happen (which I think most OAK players privately wish for). Bush isn't exactly durable and has spent time in the coaches doghouse, but is a far superior true RB and should have more value for the next 2 years. Considering that I think McF hasn't got much of a chance to be FF relevant any time soon, I'd go with Bush even at a shorter career.
The forward lateral is considered innovative in Oakland? What? I don't mean to be
that guy (the guy who views everything as an opportunity for a history lesson), but Oakland did view the "forward lateral" as innovative... back in the '60s when Al Davis was the
coach of the Raiders and the "forward lateral" actually
was innovative and the Raiders (along with the rest of the AFL) were on the cutting edge of the innovation.LaMont Jordan had 70 receptions for the Raiders in '05. Charlie Garner had 91 (for 942 yards) back in '02. They're well aware of what this "forward lateral" thing is out in Oakland, and they don't need anyone to inform them that the current rule book allows for targeting them at RBs.
On the long list of reasons why McFadden might fail, I don't buy that "lack of organizational creativity" is one of them.