Dynasty Start Up League (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

Funny how people percieve things differently. I have 1.06 in my initial draft Bush is not even on my radar. I am thinking Maroney depending on Dillon. But the way you guys talk, Bush will be gone already. I would think the first three picks would be LT, LJ and SJax. Bush may go 4 or 5.

Maroney at 1.06 is the kind of pick that I really don't like in a dynasty. What has he done to justify that selection? He had a decent year, but he didn't distinguish himself as being a whole lot better than Dillon (who hasn't been considered a top 10 pick in several years). He was atrocious in the playoffs. I like Maroney because he was a pretty good prospect and he's in a great situation to succeed, but there's no way I would consider taking him in the first round. I've said it many times before, but people tend to give players too much credit for decent rookie years. Ron Dayne and Ladell Betts finished out the year in monster fashion. Neither guy will be a top 50 pick in most dynasty leagues next year. Bush, Drew, Addai, D-Will, and Maroney will all be top 50 picks.Look at the list of recent RBs who were high picks after their rookie seasons:Ronnie BrownCadillac WilliamsSteven JacksonKevin JonesJulius JonesWillis McGaheeDomanick DavisWilliam GreenClinton PortisLaDainian TomlinsonMichael BennettAnthony Thomas How many of those guys have really lived up to expectations. Most of these guys have been moderately productive, but only Tomlinson, Portis, and Jackson have truly reached stud status. A-Train, Bennett, and Green have been complete flops. All of the other guys fall somewhere in the middle. That's 25% studs, 25% busts, and 50% mediocre. I don't like those odds at 1.06 in a dynasty, where you really need to secure a reliable producer. The fault in the typical analysis of rookies is that we seem to assume that a string of good games represents a reliable pattern that will persist for the forseeable future. Essentially, we're too quick to assume that a rookie who performs well over a brief stretch will sustain that production in the long haul. We don't get excited by good games from Betts and Dayne because we've come to expect mediocrity from them. But when we get a good game from Maroney or Addai? Boy are we quick to bump them up into our dynasty top 10 lists. I disagree with this kind of thinking. I like Maroney and I think he has a good chance to become a pretty solid producer. But I also suspect that people who take him in the top 10 run a serious risk of repeatedly slamming their heads into walls five years from now while lamenting what could have been if they had gone with someone like Chad Johnson or Antonio Gates.I think the trick in dynasty is not to beat yourself. There's no reason to gamble on a Maroney or Addai when you can bank a sure thing. RBs can always be had in the later rounds and are always entering the league with each fresh draft crop. They're not THAT hard to acquire.

 

[ravnzfan]

Thanks for the feedback EBF

Regarding format.......in my case WR get 1PPR, TE get 2 PPR....and RB's get nada

I would guess that Bush would fall in the mid 2nd round in a league where RBs get 0 (I happen to be in an exact league like that myself). I think the allure is that if Duece gets less of a role (and there is no reason he should) or if he gets hurt, then Bush would be a monster. People will draft on that fact alone and in a start up Dynasty, those that take risks and chances may be rewarded in the long run. I probably would not take him until the 3rd/4th round in a non ppr but thats just me and thats why I started this thread

I have no doubt that Bush will be drafted in the 1st round of an initial startup draft this season with this scoring system (0 PPR for RB's). Most likely top 10. Mock out the first round w/ 14 picks and he will be off the board early.

we're all talking about the same thing here guys, and no, Bush won't fall to the mid-2nd in any of our drafts---I don't think I'm giving anything away here, as last years drafts are available for those so inclinedPM me if you can't find a link to HP1-3 from last yr

 

[Driver]

Funny how people percieve things differently. I have 1.06 in my initial draft Bush is not even on my radar. I am thinking Maroney depending on Dillon. But the way you guys talk, Bush will be gone already. I would think the first three picks would be LT, LJ and SJax. Bush may go 4 or 5.

Maroney at 1.06 is the kind of pick that I really don't like in a dynasty. What has he done to justify that selection? He had a decent year, but he didn't distinguish himself as being a whole lot better than Dillon (who hasn't been considered a top 10 pick in several years). He was atrocious in the playoffs.

I like Maroney because he was a pretty good prospect and he's in a great situation to succeed, but there's no way I would consider taking him in the first round.

I've said it many times before, but people tend to give players too much credit for decent rookie years. Ron Dayne and Ladell Betts finished out the year in monster fashion. Neither guy will be a top 50 pick in most dynasty leagues next year. Bush, Drew, Addai, D-Will, and Maroney will all be top 50 picks.

Look at the list of recent RBs who were high picks after their rookie seasons:

Ronnie Brown

Cadillac Williams

Steven Jackson

Kevin Jones

Julius Jones

Willis McGahee

Domanick Davis

William Green

Clinton Portis

LaDainian Tomlinson

Michael Bennett

Anthony Thomas

How many of those guys have really lived up to expectations.

Most of these guys have been moderately productive, but only Tomlinson, Portis, and Jackson have truly reached stud status. A-Train, Bennett, and Green have been complete flops. All of the other guys fall somewhere in the middle. That's 25% studs, 25% busts, and 50% mediocre.

I don't like those odds at 1.06 in a dynasty, where you really need to secure a reliable producer.

The fault in the typical analysis of rookies is that we seem to assume that a string of good games represents a reliable pattern that will persist for the forseeable future. Essentially, we're too quick to assume that a rookie who performs well over a brief stretch will sustain that production in the long haul.

We don't get excited by good games from Betts and Dayne because we've come to expect mediocrity from them. But when we get a good game from Maroney or Addai? Boy are we quick to bump them up into our dynasty top 10 lists.

I disagree with this kind of thinking.

I like Maroney and I think he has a good chance to become a pretty solid producer. But I also suspect that people who take him in the top 10 run a serious risk of repeatedly slamming their heads into walls five years from now while lamenting what could have been if they had gone with someone like Chad Johnson or Antonio Gates.

I think the trick in dynasty is not to beat yourself. There's no reason to gamble on a Maroney or Addai when you can bank a sure thing. RBs can always be had in the later rounds and are always entering the league with each fresh draft crop. They're not THAT hard to acquire.

Just came across this thread and thought this post had some great points -- some of which I agree with and some I disagree with -- but all very informative and thought provoking. (Note post above over a month old.) I'll play devil's advocate ...I agree that it's risky to project future performance based on RBs having decent rookie years. As noted above, Bush, Addai, Maroney, MJD, and DWilliams will all be top-50 picks in initial dynasty drafts for next season. Current dynasty rankings have these players around the following:

Bush - RB6

Maroney - RB11

MJD - RB15

Addai - RB15

DWilliams - RB15

So Bush is around mid-1st round, Maroney is end of 1st round, and the others (MJD, Addai, DWilliams) are all early-to-mid 2nd round.

I guess I disagree with the bolded statement above which implies that these players are "overvalued" in a dynasty format with the above ADPs. I think all except Bush are actually undervalued at their current rankings (and I think Bush is neutrally valued because of his potential, especially in ppr leagues, not overvalued).

If we exclude LT, LJ, SJAX, Gore and Bush, then IMO we're left with a large tier that includes:

SA

Portis

Westbrook

Parker

RBrown

RudiJ

McGahee

----------

MJD

Addai

DWilliams

If I had the #12/13 turn picks in a 12-team league, I'd be more than happy to take Addai and MJD if Maroney was gone. If I were drafting in the 10th slot, I'd be happy to take Maroney with 1.10 and either MJD, Addai or DWilliams with 2.03. Just my $.02.

Regarding "There's no reason to gamble on a Maroney or Addai when you can bank a sure thing" I guess the implication is that the other players above (SA, Portis, Westbrook, Parker, RBrown RudiJ, McGahee) are "safer" or "more of a sure thing that you can bank on" than Maroney, Addai, MJD or DWilliams. Except for RBrown, all of these players have demonstrated records of performance at high levels. Of course, they're also older and much closer to the end of their careers than MJD, Addai, etc. -- not to mention an increased risk of injury and the accumulated wear and tear during an RB's relatively short career.

Most RBs have 4 or less "prime years" of top-10 performance (with a very few exceptions). Bush, Maroney, Addai, MJD and DWilliams have these years ahead of them. Not all of these players will achieve 4 prime years. But the older players above definitely will not have 4 more prime seasons (except possibly RBrown).

Dynasty is complicated because it combines short-term performance (next 1-2 years) and future performance (years 3-5). I guess where I disagree most is the degree of difficulty in replacing a starting RB on a FF team. Yes, it's possible but the odds are not good, even with a top-6 rookie draft pick. If you draft one of the older RBs, then you're going to be faced with replacing a starting RB in about 2 years or possibly 3 years.

In 12-team leagues requiring 2 RB starters, a common characteristic of the bottom 6 teams is the lack of a good 2nd RB starter. Conversely, a common characteristic of the top-6 teams is a strong RB1/RB2 combo. And if you have extra RBs that are decent or young, it's a lot easier to trade for a good QB or WR than the other way around.

But a lot of this depends on whether your approach is "win now" versus "draft with potential as a key factor."

 

[junk17]

If you're a FBG subscriber (and you should be!) there are always updated dynasty ranking posted.

http://64.73.31.121/2006/home/25989/

Where do You find updated Dynasty rankings.... I am probably missing something, forgive me if I am...

 

[EBF]

Current dynasty rankings have these players around the following:Bush - RB6Maroney - RB11MJD - RB15Addai - RB15DWilliams - RB15So Bush is around mid-1st round, Maroney is end of 1st round, and the others (MJD, Addai, DWilliams) are all early-to-mid 2nd round.I guess I disagree with the bolded statement above which implies that these players are "overvalued" in a dynasty format with the above ADPs. I think all except Bush are actually undervalued at their current rankings (and I think Bush is neutrally valued because of his potential, especially in ppr leagues, not overvalued).

I can't say that I agree. This is an abnormal group in that most of them are actually on pretty good teams, but I still think they're rather overrated as consensus top 20 dynasty picks. Obviously certain formats favor RB hoarding in general, but I think you can get a comparable player at a discounted price. I'd rather have Thomas Jones than D-Will or MJD. I know a lot of people will disagree with me here. I acknowledge that the younger guys potentially have a longer shelf life, but I think that benefit is offset by their higher probability of busting. We know TJ can carry the load. The sophomores? Maybe. Maybe not.

Regarding "There's no reason to gamble on a Maroney or Addai when you can bank a sure thing" I guess the implication is that the other players above (SA, Portis, Westbrook, Parker, RBrown RudiJ, McGahee) are "safer" or "more of a sure thing that you can bank on" than Maroney, Addai, MJD or DWilliams.

Who said I was talking about RBs? A guy like Gates or Fitzgerald is more what I was suggesting. Once you get out of the first tier, I agree that virtually all of the RBs carry some risk.

I guess where I disagree most is the degree of difficulty in replacing a starting RB on a FF team. Yes, it's possible but the odds are not good, even with a top-6 rookie draft pick. If you draft one of the older RBs, then you're going to be faced with replacing a starting RB in about 2 years or possibly 3 years.

Good owners find a way to get it done. It just requires some creativity. Here are some things to consider:- If you make your picks count, you'll have a surplus of veteran talent and you'll able to draw upon that WR/QB/TE depth to help pull off a deal for a RB if the need arises. - You can generally trade for future first round picks at a discounted rate. I've seen a lot of great dynasty teams acquire early draft picks by trading for future first round picks from teams that then go on to have bad seasons. This is one way for good teams to get into the early part of the rookie draft, where most of the top RBs are found. - You don't need to find a RB in the rookie draft. You can use your pick on players at other positions. Once these players pan out, you can then trade them for RBs or for high picks. - A fair amount of RBs slip through the cracks. Domanick Davis, Rudi Johnson, Brian Westbrook, and Maurice Drew are a few recent examples of relatively unheralded backs who went on to make a major impact. The odds are against any given 3rd-4th round RB becoming a solid NFL starter, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. - If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved.

 

[Driver]

- If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I was just referring to the relative degree of difficulty in succeeding in getting a new top-15 RB to serve as a starting RB. The contention is that: "If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved." To analyze what I contend is a high degree of difficulty of success and you contend is no problem, let's assume you get an early rookie pick and can select among the top 3 drafted rookie RBs that year. Consider the 1st 3 RBs drafted in each NFL draft for the past 10 years (excluding last 2 years since it's too early to tell):2004 - SJAX, CPerry, KJones2003 - McGahee, LJohnson, Musa Smith2002 - WGreen, TJ Duckett, DFoster2001 - Tomlinson, McAllister, Michael Bennett2000 - JLewis, TJones, Ron Dayne1999 - Edge, Ricky Williams, James Johnson1998 - Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor, Robert Edwards1997 - Warrick Dunn, Antowain Smith, Tiki Barber1996 - Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Eddie George1995 - Ki-Jana Carter, Wheatley, Napoleon KaufmanOf those 30 players, I'd say 7 would be considered studs (George, Barber, Taylor, Edge, LT, LJ, and SJAX), and an additional 6 would be considered solid starting RBs for at least 3 years (McGahee, JLewis, Dunn, McAllister, TJones and RWilliams). So that's 13 out of 30, or 43%. The remainder are either average, marginal or total busts and this group includes 4 of the #1 picks (Ki-Jana Carter, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, and WGreen).But the probability of success is much lower than that because the % of these stud and solid RBs that had top-15 seasons in their 1st and 2nd seasons is significantly below 50%. Most of the stud and solid RBs had their best seasons in years 3-6 of their careers. But there are a couple exceptions like LT who has been top-10 every year, and Edge who had 2 huge years, followed by 2 non top-15 years when he was recovering from ACL, and then returned to top-10 form.And then there are the RBs like Barber and TJones who had several years of non-top-15 performance before they hit their prime which reduces the probability of success. And then there are the RBs like Fred Taylor who lost 2 or more years to injuries which reduces the probability of success even more. Rather than 43%, I think the success rate is less than 10% in their 1st (rookie) season and slightly higher in later seasons, but not more than 20% in any season.Even if you consider only the #1 picks, there are only 3 studs (SJAX, Edge and LT) and 3 other solid starters (McGahee, JLewis and Dunn) but only Edge and LT were top-15 RBs in their 1st season. Again, I agree with most of your insightful comments and observations, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Super King]

Dont, i repeat, dont give up on young WRs drafted in the first day. to this day, i still regret trading Chad Johnson after his rookie season. i used him as filler in a trade.

 

[JohnnyU]

If the initial draft includes the current year's rookies, try to trade your next year's #1 to move up into the 3rd or 4th rd of the initial dynasty draft. There is only one veteran draft in a dynasty league and having 2 3rds or 2 4th rd picks is a huge advantage IMO. It helps your next year's pick not be in the top 5 (injuries notwithstanding). I just traded the 6.10 and my 2008 1st rd pick for the 4.06 and his 2008 4th rd pick. The draft is in may. Some don't like to take risks not knowing what their team will look like or what that 2008 1st rd pick will be, but I'm a risk taker. Snoozers and non-risk takers don't build dynasty teams.

 

[Biabreakable]

- If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I was just referring to the relative degree of difficulty in succeeding in getting a new top-15 RB to serve as a starting RB. The contention is that: "If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved." To analyze what I contend is a high degree of difficulty of success and you contend is no problem, let's assume you get an early rookie pick and can select among the top 3 drafted rookie RBs that year. Consider the 1st 3 RBs drafted in each NFL draft for the past 10 years (excluding last 2 years since it's too early to tell):2004 - SJAX, CPerry, KJones2003 - McGahee, LJohnson, Musa Smith2002 - WGreen, TJ Duckett, DFoster2001 - Tomlinson, McAllister, Michael Bennett2000 - JLewis, TJones, Ron Dayne1999 - Edge, Ricky Williams, James Johnson1998 - Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor, Robert Edwards1997 - Warrick Dunn, Antowain Smith, Tiki Barber1996 - Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Eddie George1995 - Ki-Jana Carter, Wheatley, Napoleon KaufmanOf those 30 players, I'd say 7 would be considered studs (George, Barber, Taylor, Edge, LT, LJ, and SJAX), and an additional 6 would be considered solid starting RBs for at least 3 years (McGahee, JLewis, Dunn, McAllister, TJones and RWilliams). So that's 13 out of 30, or 43%. The remainder are either average, marginal or total busts and this group includes 4 of the #1 picks (Ki-Jana Carter, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, and WGreen).But the probability of success is much lower than that because the % of these stud and solid RBs that had top-15 seasons in their 1st and 2nd seasons is significantly below 50%. Most of the stud and solid RBs had their best seasons in years 3-6 of their careers. But there are a couple exceptions like LT who has been top-10 every year, and Edge who had 2 huge years, followed by 2 non top-15 years when he was recovering from ACL, and then returned to top-10 form.And then there are the RBs like Barber and TJones who had several years of non-top-15 performance before they hit their prime which reduces the probability of success. And then there are the RBs like Fred Taylor who lost 2 or more years to injuries which reduces the probability of success even more. Rather than 43%, I think the success rate is less than 10% in their 1st (rookie) season and slightly higher in later seasons, but not more than 20% in any season.Even if you consider only the #1 picks, there are only 3 studs (SJAX, Edge and LT) and 3 other solid starters (McGahee, JLewis and Dunn) but only Edge and LT were top-15 RBs in their 1st season. Again, I agree with most of your insightful comments and observations, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I know we were talking about this before a month or so ago. Honestly a full blown study really needs to be done. A study that will lay out all the facts once and for all and can then be repeatedly refered to and updated.Finding a dominant Rb is easier said than done. That is true. However what you have laid out also supports the high bust rate of Rbs that EBF is refering to as well.Maybe the 2006 Rb class will be an exception of what we have seen historicly. But more likely than not the 2006 Rbs will have bumps in thier careers and not meet the optimisic expectations that people drafting them in the 1st few rounds of initial dynasty drafts just as other Rb classes have failed to before them.Now securing more than one of the elite Rb performers in a initial dynasty draft is a key to prolonged success for a team in the league from the outset and in following years. They are not as easily replaceable as I think EBF suggests and as your looking at the past shows. But at the same time there will be later than 1st round rookie Rbs that will suprise and move into elite performance at least for one season while some will be able to repeat this. For example Clinton Portis, Rudi Johnson and Domanic Davis(Williams). There will also be Rbs taken in the veteran draft that end up performing at a higher level than expected such as Travis Henry, Lamont Jordan and Thomas Jones have.As I initialy said I think a more comprehensive study is long overdue. But for this instance I think you and EBF are seeing the same things but just looking at them in different ways.

 

[EBF]

- If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I was just referring to the relative degree of difficulty in succeeding in getting a new top-15 RB to serve as a starting RB. The contention is that: "If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved." To analyze what I contend is a high degree of difficulty of success and you contend is no problem, let's assume you get an early rookie pick and can select among the top 3 drafted rookie RBs that year. Consider the 1st 3 RBs drafted in each NFL draft for the past 10 years (excluding last 2 years since it's too early to tell):2004 - SJAX, CPerry, KJones2003 - McGahee, LJohnson, Musa Smith2002 - WGreen, TJ Duckett, DFoster2001 - Tomlinson, McAllister, Michael Bennett2000 - JLewis, TJones, Ron Dayne1999 - Edge, Ricky Williams, James Johnson1998 - Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor, Robert Edwards1997 - Warrick Dunn, Antowain Smith, Tiki Barber1996 - Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Eddie George1995 - Ki-Jana Carter, Wheatley, Napoleon KaufmanOf those 30 players, I'd say 7 would be considered studs (George, Barber, Taylor, Edge, LT, LJ, and SJAX), and an additional 6 would be considered solid starting RBs for at least 3 years (McGahee, JLewis, Dunn, McAllister, TJones and RWilliams). So that's 13 out of 30, or 43%. The remainder are either average, marginal or total busts and this group includes 4 of the #1 picks (Ki-Jana Carter, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, and WGreen).But the probability of success is much lower than that because the % of these stud and solid RBs that had top-15 seasons in their 1st and 2nd seasons is significantly below 50%. Most of the stud and solid RBs had their best seasons in years 3-6 of their careers. But there are a couple exceptions like LT who has been top-10 every year, and Edge who had 2 huge years, followed by 2 non top-15 years when he was recovering from ACL, and then returned to top-10 form.And then there are the RBs like Barber and TJones who had several years of non-top-15 performance before they hit their prime which reduces the probability of success. And then there are the RBs like Fred Taylor who lost 2 or more years to injuries which reduces the probability of success even more. Rather than 43%, I think the success rate is less than 10% in their 1st (rookie) season and slightly higher in later seasons, but not more than 20% in any season.Even if you consider only the #1 picks, there are only 3 studs (SJAX, Edge and LT) and 3 other solid starters (McGahee, JLewis and Dunn) but only Edge and LT were top-15 RBs in their 1st season. Again, I agree with most of your insightful comments and observations, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I agree that a lot of the hyped up RB prospects will bust. That was my initial point. However, many of them retain major trade value early in their careers. William Green and Michael Bennett look like busts right now. After their rookie seasons? Top 15-20 dynasty picks. A savvy owner could've dealt them then. Although few of the RBs you listed became stars, many of them held pretty good trade value at one point or another. Robert Edwards and Anthony Thomas had monster rookie years. Antowain Smith was a multi-1,000 yard rusher. Foster held good value at this time last year. Even Ty Wheatley and Napoleon Kaufman had their day in the sun. In fact, very few of the guys you listed were unmitigated disasters. The whole point I was making about Maroney/Addai/D-Will/Norwood/Bush is that a pretty decent percentage of highly-touted rookies show flashes of greatness, but far fewer of them go on to achieve consistent FF stardom. I think you can make a pretty good argument that most of last year's rookie RBs are in "sell high" territory right now. That's not to say that I don't think they're good players. But Addai and Maroney are top 10 dynasty picks right now. There's relatively little chance of them increasing in trade value, but a pretty significant risk that they'll disappoint and depreciate in value. To a lesser extent, the same applies to Norwood, DeAngelo, and now LenDale (although there's more upside because they're not drafted as high right now).

 

[coolnerd]

 

[Buckna]

One thing I learned the hard way this past year is that if you are drafting to compete in future years in an initial draft, you have to be careful to make sure to be bad those first few years. The last thing you want to do is end up with a mediocre team getting mid-range draft picks with mid-range talent/opportunity. I believe it begets a continuous cycle of being mediocre that is difficult to break.

I'd much rather be very bad then just okay as those top rookie picks are the major ammunition to reload.

 

[Driver]

- If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I was just referring to the relative degree of difficulty in succeeding in getting a new top-15 RB to serve as a starting RB. The contention is that: "If your team stinks, you get an early rookie pick. Draft a RB. Problem solved." To analyze what I contend is a high degree of difficulty of success and you contend is no problem, let's assume you get an early rookie pick and can select among the top 3 drafted rookie RBs that year. Consider the 1st 3 RBs drafted in each NFL draft for the past 10 years (excluding last 2 years since it's too early to tell):2004 - SJAX, CPerry, KJones2003 - McGahee, LJohnson, Musa Smith2002 - WGreen, TJ Duckett, DFoster2001 - Tomlinson, McAllister, Michael Bennett2000 - JLewis, TJones, Ron Dayne1999 - Edge, Ricky Williams, James Johnson1998 - Curtis Enis, Fred Taylor, Robert Edwards1997 - Warrick Dunn, Antowain Smith, Tiki Barber1996 - Lawrence Phillips, Tim Biakabutuka, Eddie George1995 - Ki-Jana Carter, Wheatley, Napoleon KaufmanOf those 30 players, I'd say 7 would be considered studs (George, Barber, Taylor, Edge, LT, LJ, and SJAX), and an additional 6 would be considered solid starting RBs for at least 3 years (McGahee, JLewis, Dunn, McAllister, TJones and RWilliams). So that's 13 out of 30, or 43%. The remainder are either average, marginal or total busts and this group includes 4 of the #1 picks (Ki-Jana Carter, Lawrence Phillips, Curtis Enis, and WGreen).But the probability of success is much lower than that because the % of these stud and solid RBs that had top-15 seasons in their 1st and 2nd seasons is significantly below 50%. Most of the stud and solid RBs had their best seasons in years 3-6 of their careers. But there are a couple exceptions like LT who has been top-10 every year, and Edge who had 2 huge years, followed by 2 non top-15 years when he was recovering from ACL, and then returned to top-10 form.And then there are the RBs like Barber and TJones who had several years of non-top-15 performance before they hit their prime which reduces the probability of success. And then there are the RBs like Fred Taylor who lost 2 or more years to injuries which reduces the probability of success even more. Rather than 43%, I think the success rate is less than 10% in their 1st (rookie) season and slightly higher in later seasons, but not more than 20% in any season.Even if you consider only the #1 picks, there are only 3 studs (SJAX, Edge and LT) and 3 other solid starters (McGahee, JLewis and Dunn) but only Edge and LT were top-15 RBs in their 1st season. Again, I agree with most of your insightful comments and observations, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I know we were talking about this before a month or so ago. Honestly a full blown study really needs to be done. A study that will lay out all the facts once and for all and can then be repeatedly refered to and updated.Finding a dominant Rb is easier said than done. That is true. However what you have laid out also supports the high bust rate of Rbs that EBF is refering to as well.Maybe the 2006 Rb class will be an exception of what we have seen historicly. But more likely than not the 2006 Rbs will have bumps in thier careers and not meet the optimisic expectations that people drafting them in the 1st few rounds of initial dynasty drafts just as other Rb classes have failed to before them.Now securing more than one of the elite Rb performers in a initial dynasty draft is a key to prolonged success for a team in the league from the outset and in following years. They are not as easily replaceable as I think EBF suggests and as your looking at the past shows. But at the same time there will be later than 1st round rookie Rbs that will suprise and move into elite performance at least for one season while some will be able to repeat this. For example Clinton Portis, Rudi Johnson and Domanic Davis(Williams). There will also be Rbs taken in the veteran draft that end up performing at a higher level than expected such as Travis Henry, Lamont Jordan and Thomas Jones have.As I initialy said I think a more comprehensive study is long overdue. But for this instance I think you and EBF are seeing the same things but just looking at them in different ways.

Excellent points. I think what we're talking about is risk and uncertainty because we're trying to predict the future where there are many conflicting patterns and random events. With hindsight, it's easy to say that LT was a no-brainer #1 RB rookie pick in 2001. But what about WGreen in 2002? If anything, I think Green had more rookie hype than LT. Was the guy that picked LT brilliant, and the poor sucker that used his 1.01 rookie dynasty pick on Green dumb? No, it's just how risk and uncertainty play out. When drafting in FF, you're forced to make decisions with incomplete information, and there are a lot of random factors that can occur after the fact that either help or hurt your team. Just look at everything that's occurred over the past 2 weeks that have affected the fate of dynasty teams owning Henry, TJones, LWhite, Benson, Rhodes, Bennett, McGahee, etc., etc.And there are many different flavors of risk and uncertainty. Although certain players seem more injury-prone early in their careers, sometimes it's related to adjusting to playing a full season in the NFL, and they become (relatively) injury-free later in their careers (Isaac Bruce). Other players just keep getting dinged up or suffering one injury after another (FTaylor). But in general I think injuries are mostly unpredictable, and there's a huge random factor in what players get career-ending injuries. If so, how do you predict that? You can't and luck plays a significant role in FF success for any given season.I also think that EBF and I are basically discussing the various aspects of risk and uncertainty. Last year RBrown and Caddy were in basically the same position that Maroney, Addai, DWilliams and MJD are in this year. And I think the jury is still out on all 6 of them. But I'd say that the odds are that 2 of the 6 will become studs and that another 2 will be solid starting RBs (over the next 4-5 years) and that 2 will be either marginal or busts or suffer an ACL or a career-ending injury. But there's only one outcome for each player. So maybe there will be 3 stars and 3 busts. Lots of possible variation.But the majority of the next round of stud RBs will most likely come from that group of 6 players. Although I think that is what keeps their value high, there are no sure things. I think the high value is derserved, in part, because of the relatively short careers of most RBs and the fact that few RBs have more than 4 years of high performance (top-15), and the prime years for most RBs are seasons 3-6 (although there are occasional late bloomers like Barber and PHolmes and TJones).Some RBs like LT and SA and Edge do have great extended careers, but they're very rare, especially when you consider the total universe of all RBs that get drafted. People have a tendency to remember the stars and the exception, but like Biabreakable says, you need to understand the full picture with all the relevant patterns and the probabilities of certain outcomes occurring.And will Norwood become the Gore of 2007? Who knows? But every year there are many surprises and relatively unheralded players become stars. Another aspect of risk and uncertainty. Just my $.02.

 

[Driver]

I'd rather have Thomas Jones than D-Will or MJD. I know a lot of people will disagree with me here. I acknowledge that the younger guys potentially have a longer shelf life, but I think that benefit is offset by their higher probability of busting. We know TJ can carry the load. The sophomores? Maybe. Maybe not.

Interesting. I can't disagree with your logic of the value of a proven track record. TJones will be 29 years old at the beginning of next season. The following RBs are close to his age:LJ - 27.8RudiJ - 27.9ChTaylor - 28.0Westbrook - 28.0JLewis - 28.0LT - 28.2McAllister - 28.7LJordan - 28.8THenry - 28.8Droughns - 29.0Edge - 29.1SA - 30.0AGreen - 30.5For estimating "shelf life," accumulated wear and tear is another key factor in addition to age. Some people use 1800 touches as a "danger threshold." LT, LJ, Edge, SA and AGreen are above 1800 touches, whereas the others are below. Of the above Jordan has the least # touches. For an initial dynasty draft, I'd be interested in where you would rank the above players with ADP (Westbrook - RB6, etc.).My own ranking is:LT - RB2 (behind SJAX only because of accumulated wear and tear)LJ - RB3Westbrook - RB8Rudi - RB13SA - RB14 (this low only because of age over 30 and wear and tear)ChTaylor - RB19McAllister - RB21Henry - RB22TJones - RB25Edge - RB27AGreen - RB31Jordan - RB36JLewis - RB38Droughns - RB45Regarding shelf life, I think you can count on LT, LJ, Westbrook, Rudi and Taylor for 3 years of good production -- maybe more, maybe less, especially in the 3rd year (2009).I think SA, McAllister, Henry and Jones all have 2 solid years left -- maybe more, maybe less -- but I don't feel comfortable in projecting more than 2 years out for them.Edge and Green I worry about both age and accumulated wear and tear. I think they have one solid year left, but I can't go more than that.

 

[Driver]

The whole point I was making about Maroney/Addai/D-Will/Norwood/Bush is that a pretty decent percentage of highly-touted rookies show flashes of greatness, but far fewer of them go on to achieve consistent FF stardom. I think you can make a pretty good argument that most of last year's rookie RBs are in "sell high" territory right now. That's not to say that I don't think they're good players. But Addai and Maroney are top 10 dynasty picks right now. There's relatively little chance of them increasing in trade value, but a pretty significant risk that they'll disappoint and depreciate in value. To a lesser extent, the same applies to Norwood, DeAngelo, and now LenDale (although there's more upside because they're not drafted as high right now).

Using Wall Street jargon, rather than being overvalued and in "sell high" territory, I regard Bush, Maroney and Addai as solid growth stocks at the beginning of their career. You're right that they may bust. But I prefer to evaluate the "fundamentals" of talent, team, opportunity, and demonstrated performance to date.Microsoft in 1987 was a risky proposition, too. And granted, plenty of young, promising growth stocks never reach their expected potential. But RBs with one year under their belt like Bush, Maroney and Addai -- and in the situation that they're in -- have the best potential IMO to become the next generation of stud RBs.If you have a 5-year time horizon like a dynasty team, who else are you going to invest in?The next generation of stud RBs will also include one or more from the group of RBrown, Caddy, MJD, DWilliams, LWhite, Norwood, Benson, etc. If you could diversify, I'd place 20% of my money on Bush, 20% on Maroney, 15% on Addai, 15% on Brown, 7.5% on DWilliams, 7.5% on MJD, 5% on Caddy, 5% on White, 2.5% on Benson, and 2.5% on Norwood.Unfortunately, we can't diversify. We have to make our own decisions on who to draft based on who's still available (and we're stuck with them). Of course, if you're lucky enough to make good selections, it's like a buy-and-hold strategy.

 

[Driver]

I agree that a lot of the hyped up RB prospects will bust. That was my initial point. However, many of them retain major trade value early in their careers. William Green and Michael Bennett look like busts right now. After their rookie seasons? Top 15-20 dynasty picks. A savvy owner could've dealt them then. Although few of the RBs you listed became stars, many of them held pretty good trade value at one point or another. Robert Edwards and Anthony Thomas had monster rookie years. Antowain Smith was a multi-1,000 yard rusher. Foster held good value at this time last year. Even Ty Wheatley and Napoleon Kaufman had their day in the sun. In fact, very few of the guys you listed were unmitigated disasters.

Yeah, I kind of went overboard in trying to make a point. You're right that there were more solid years for some of the players than I listed. Having said that, my main point is that if you look at all of the RBs drafted through the years (nfl.com has a nice list), I'm always struck by how few players become solid RBs. It's almost like a lottery. And I don't think a lot of people realize how high the annual mortality rate is for RBs, especially with their short careers. I've posted some statistics in another thread.I've also been struck by how much a league's format affects the value of different categories of players by position. It's basically a matter of economics and demand/supply considerations that cause either (1) great scarcity at certain positions, or (2) relative abundance at other positions. I find myself spending more and more time analyzing each league's requirements and trying to gear my draft and later team management to achieve certain objectives, that usually vary widely for different leagues.Coming back to your points above, you seem to be saying that a more conservative approach to drafting RBs is preferable -- don't invest high draft choices in an initial dynasty league on RBs with less than 3 years of experience and who don't have a demonstrated track record. And it's wiser to focus on more "value-type" RBs who can be drafted in later rounds.I don't disagree with this approach in general. However, the value RBs have usually fallen for a good reason, and the probability of drafting a player who becomes a stud is low. The odds of one becoming a solid RB10-20 is higher but still a gamble. In addition, the bust probability of value RBs is significantly higher than highly-ranked RBs.Again, if you can diversify and draft a bunch of them, then the odds increase significantly that one or more of them will be successful. I think what we're talking about is the "success rate" compared to the "asking price" using ADP as a crude proxy measure. I think there's a direct negative relationship between the 2 variables (the higher the ADP, the lower the success rate), but I just don't know the slope of the curve. If the slope is relatively flat, you're correct and your approach works best. Another problem for Biabreakable -- to determine the slope of that curve.

 

[renesauz]

If the initial draft includes the current year's rookies, try to trade your next year's #1 to move up into the 3rd or 4th rd of the initial dynasty draft. There is only one veteran draft in a dynasty league and having 2 3rds or 2 4th rd picks is a huge advantage IMO. It helps your next year's pick not be in the top 5 (injuries notwithstanding). I just traded the 6.10 and my 2008 1st rd pick for the 4.06 and his 2008 4th rd pick. The draft is in may. Some don't like to take risks not knowing what their team will look like or what that 2008 1st rd pick will be, but I'm a risk taker. Snoozers and non-risk takers don't build dynasty teams.

I've been trying to follow this thread since I'm also a newcomer to the dynasty format. Been interested in it for years, but was hesitant to do it on-line, and had no real life opportunities.I'm the "sucker" who made this trade with Johnny, but had surprisingly similar reasoning.I've had tremendous success in redraft leagues year after year, finishing in the playoffs 90% of the time. Even in the best and most competitive leagues, there's ALWAYS a few players hanging out in the 5-7th rounds that I can't believe are still there and I think will post round 3-4 type numbers. Dropping from mid fourth to mid sixth round is no big deal to me.Where I am concerned is that I have always avoided rookies, and generally avoided year 2 players, so I've NEVER really tried my hand at evaluating rookie talent.My thought was to try to parlay my extra first, and my own first, from next years rookie draft to also move up in this years draft, but I am targetting trying to convert round 10-14 picks into round 6-7 picks. I figured if it doesn't work, I still lost little to nothing this year, and get to practice my "rookie evaluations" a little extra next year.For the dynasty vets out there, is this an unworkable plan or a giant mistake?

 

[DevilDog919]

If the initial draft includes the current year's rookies, try to trade your next year's #1 to move up into the 3rd or 4th rd of the initial dynasty draft. There is only one veteran draft in a dynasty league and having 2 3rds or 2 4th rd picks is a huge advantage IMO. It helps your next year's pick not be in the top 5 (injuries notwithstanding). I just traded the 6.10 and my 2008 1st rd pick for the 4.06 and his 2008 4th rd pick. The draft is in may. Some don't like to take risks not knowing what their team will look like or what that 2008 1st rd pick will be, but I'm a risk taker. Snoozers and non-risk takers don't build dynasty teams.

I've been trying to follow this thread since I'm also a newcomer to the dynasty format. Been interested in it for years, but was hesitant to do it on-line, and had no real life opportunities.I'm the "sucker" who made this trade with Johnny, but had surprisingly similar reasoning.I've had tremendous success in redraft leagues year after year, finishing in the playoffs 90% of the time. Even in the best and most competitive leagues, there's ALWAYS a few players hanging out in the 5-7th rounds that I can't believe are still there and I think will post round 3-4 type numbers. Dropping from mid fourth to mid sixth round is no big deal to me.Where I am concerned is that I have always avoided rookies, and generally avoided year 2 players, so I've NEVER really tried my hand at evaluating rookie talent.My thought was to try to parlay my extra first, and my own first, from next years rookie draft to also move up in this years draft, but I am targetting trying to convert round 10-14 picks into round 6-7 picks. I figured if it doesn't work, I still lost little to nothing this year, and get to practice my "rookie evaluations" a little extra next year.For the dynasty vets out there, is this an unworkable plan or a giant mistake?

I wouldnt do it. Rookie picks are well valued usually. Adrian Peterson this year, and Bush last year...would be drafted late 1st, early 2nd in an initial dynasty draft. If you trade a 1st next year, and it turns out to be a top 3 pick, for a 6th rounder then you lose imo. Basically, simple guidelines is. 1.01=late 1st in initial draft, 1.02=late 2nd, and so on...Usually how it works at least.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If you're a FBG subscriber (and you should be!) there are always updated dynasty ranking posted.

http://64.73.31.121/2006/home/25989/

Where do You find updated Dynasty rankings.... I am probably missing something, forgive me if I am...

Check my sig for the direct link.

 

[Biabreakable]

If the initial draft includes the current year's rookies, try to trade your next year's #1 to move up into the 3rd or 4th rd of the initial dynasty draft. There is only one veteran draft in a dynasty league and having 2 3rds or 2 4th rd picks is a huge advantage IMO. It helps your next year's pick not be in the top 5 (injuries notwithstanding). I just traded the 6.10 and my 2008 1st rd pick for the 4.06 and his 2008 4th rd pick. The draft is in may. Some don't like to take risks not knowing what their team will look like or what that 2008 1st rd pick will be, but I'm a risk taker. Snoozers and non-risk takers don't build dynasty teams.

I've been trying to follow this thread since I'm also a newcomer to the dynasty format. Been interested in it for years, but was hesitant to do it on-line, and had no real life opportunities.I'm the "sucker" who made this trade with Johnny, but had surprisingly similar reasoning.I've had tremendous success in redraft leagues year after year, finishing in the playoffs 90% of the time. Even in the best and most competitive leagues, there's ALWAYS a few players hanging out in the 5-7th rounds that I can't believe are still there and I think will post round 3-4 type numbers. Dropping from mid fourth to mid sixth round is no big deal to me.Where I am concerned is that I have always avoided rookies, and generally avoided year 2 players, so I've NEVER really tried my hand at evaluating rookie talent.My thought was to try to parlay my extra first, and my own first, from next years rookie draft to also move up in this years draft, but I am targetting trying to convert round 10-14 picks into round 6-7 picks. I figured if it doesn't work, I still lost little to nothing this year, and get to practice my "rookie evaluations" a little extra next year.For the dynasty vets out there, is this an unworkable plan or a giant mistake?

It is a very workable plan and I do not consider it to be a mistake at all. You netted an extra pick in this trade by gaining an extra 1st round rookie pick in 2008. That pick will not help you in the 2007 season unless you later trade it for a player that helps you in 2007 but that pick still has value. How much value the pick has depends on the number of teams and where that pick ends up being slotted. However I am a proponent of making trades that give me more picks in Dynasty. I discussed this some in the recent FBG 16 team dynasty draft thread. Reasoning works like this. Most people will tell you that when trading you want to get the best player in the deal. So trading quantity for quality is a trade you should be looking to do. However in dynasty you can aproach player value based on players gaining value over time like a stock. And high priced players may lose value over time like a stock as well. Sell high/buy low. By making a trade down in picks you can trade a high value pick for 2 or more lower value picks but then use those picks on players that will gain value to possibly match the value of the player/pick you traded them for. You end up ahead with 2 similarly valuable players for one as long as you have some paitence and the players you select with those picks do not end up busting.You take on some additional risk perhaps but all players have risks. It really just depends on which players you select later and how they develop to determine who ends up winning such a trade. You having 2 picks for one can mitigate the risk of bust/low performance somewhat also because you have slightly better odds of at least one of those 2 players panning out than you have with just one player. Personaly I prefer to diversify my assets. If things do not go well for you in year one then you increase the value of your own rookie picks in 2008 as well while your other player values are maturing.The key to me with this type of strategy is to draft players that are able to grow. As long as you do that then you increase your chances of the trade eventualy evening out in value with some chance to outgain what you gave up as well.One other benifit you get by aquiring additional rookie picks is in terms of roster management. You have a limited number of roster slots available based on your league rules. I consider rookie picks to be like additional roster slots for your team. So by having more than your normal ammount of rookie picks increases the total usable assets you have available to you. While some teams may have 40 roster slots + 5 rookie picks on average (or whatever the number may be) you can add value to your total roster by having 40 + 7 rookie picks (or whatever the number may be) and you have more usable resources available than other teams by doing this. This adds more value to your total roster management when you consider that rookie picks are always usable commodities that can be traded and the roster slots free'd up by trading can be filled with other player prospects that you would not be able to roster otherwise.