DYNASTY - Top 1-10 Overall Fantasy Players (1 Viewer)

[aaronr28]

Good dynasty owners arent sheep. They dont just follow the pack. This even applies to redrafts. Allthough you can do better in redrafts by following the pack. Why would people agree? Because you post more replies than anyone else? That doesnt win an arguement. The majority of dynasty owners arent going to copy your rankings.David Carr is lucky to still be alive playing behind the O-line he has had.

I don't expect us all to agree completely, and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me just because of my post count. I would, however, expect at least a reasonable degree of consensus around the top-10 or at least the top-5 most valuable dynasty players.I think the positional rankings are useful b/c there was quite a bit of consenus on which players belonged in which tier(s), even if we didn't all rank them in the same order. BUT, I think it is very obvious that we all have vastly different opinions of the value placed on different positions. When these rankings are combined, what will the point be? Will this overall ranking actually be useful to anyone?As for David Carr, he got outplayed by Tony Banks in 2003. He doesn't belong in a top-10 list of QBs, much less a top-10 overall list. BTW, his sacks were way down in 2003, plus they added A.Johnson and D.Davis, and he still threw a WHOPPING 9 TDs. He has a lot to prove before he can be compared to Peyton Manning.

 

[EastBayFunk]

1. LaDainian Tomlinson2. Deuce McAllister3. Clinton Portis - Change of scenery troubles me4. Randy Moss 5. Peyton Manning 6. Daunte Culpepper 7. Ahman Green8. Kevan Barlow9. Chad Johnson - I'm not a big Palmer fan, but he excelled despite Kitna10. Torry HoltAlthough this is how I rank these guys, this does not represent the order in which I would draft. I would draft RB's early because it's difficult to compete in year one without going RB early. I would also draft a guy like Chad Johnson over Daunte Culepper because I find it easier to obtain a decent QB as opposed to a decent WR.

 

[John 14:6]

As for David Carr, he got outplayed by Tony Banks in 2003. He doesn't belong in a top-10 list of QBs, much less a top-10 overall list. BTW, his sacks were way down in 2003, plus they added A.Johnson and D.Davis, and he still threw a WHOPPING 9 TDs. He has a lot to prove before he can be compared to Peyton Manning.

David Carr's still a young player and the list is for a dynasty league. It takes a while for certain players to develop. Look at Peyton Manning and Brett Favre, for example. I don't necessarily agree with the ranking, but all things considered I don't think it's outlandish. How many people picked Ahman Green and Chad Johnson to be this good before they started performing, for another example? The top 10 lists change every year.

 

[tommy300]

David Carr in any top 10 overall dynasty list is a downright joke.Vick/CPep should be the only possible QB's and they would barely make the top 10.......

 

[aaronr28]

David Carr's still a young player and the list is for a dynasty league. It takes a while for certain players to develop. Look at Peyton Manning and Brett Favre, for example. I don't necessarily agree with the ranking, but all things considered I don't think it's outlandish. How many people picked Ahman Green and Chad Johnson to be this good before they started performing, for another example? The top 10 lists change every year.

I would argue that Carr's upside right now in that offense is more like Troy Aikman than Peyton Manning. He'll likely be a good NFL QB, but is not likely to be a fantasy stud. Things can most certainly change and everyone is completely welcome to their own opinion, but if someone drafted David Carr in the top-10 picks of a dynasty draft, I think his fellow owners would laugh him right out of the league.For the record, here is what Peyton did in his first 2 years:1998 326/575, 56.7%, 3739yds, 26TDs, 28INT1999 331/533, 62.1%, 4135yds, 26TDs, 15INTHere's David Carr's 1st 2 years:2002: 233/444, 52.5%, 2592yds, 9TDs, 15INT 2003: 167/295, 56.6%, 2013yds, 9TDs, 13INT I think comparing the 2 is being overly optimistic and probably unrealistic at this point.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

9. QB - David Carr/Texans: I think he can be just as good as P. Manning, or close to it. He already has 1 stud wr in Andre Johnson, Gaffney & Bradford are ok, but he'll need a better 2nd wr. He has a good young rb that can catch too. He's only 24 and they're going to mainly be a pass first offense.

10. WR - Andre Johnson/Texans: Ok, let's have it, I'm sure I'll get a lot of "What the ****? Are you crazy?" This is my theory, just I said above, I think Carr can be just as good as P. Manning, or close to it. In my Johnson will be his Marvin Harrison so what would you of ranked Harrison when he was 23? Also, I think the Texans will be a pass first offense.

The Shark Pool is in trouble. Save the Sharks.

 

[UnknownCoach]

9. QB - David Carr/Texans: I think he can be just as good as P. Manning, or close to it. He already has 1 stud wr in Andre Johnson, Gaffney & Bradford are ok, but he'll need a better 2nd wr. He has a good young rb that can catch too. He's only 24 and they're going to mainly be a pass first offense.

10. WR - Andre Johnson/Texans: Ok, let's have it, I'm sure I'll get a lot of "What the ****? Are you crazy?" This is my theory, just I said above, I think Carr can be just as good as P. Manning, or close to it. In my Johnson will be his Marvin Harrison so what would you of ranked Harrison when he was 23? Also, I think the Texans will be a pass first offense.

The Shark Pool is in trouble. Save the Sharks.

Looks like a simple case of homerism. Allthough both players rightfully made a lot of top ten lists at their respective positions.

 

[smlevin]

It was interesting reading the last two pages and seeing the divergent styles, but lacking in support on either side. I believe I have witnessed three BASIC philosophies:1) draft good RBs b/c average QBs and WRs can still win.2) don't need good RBs in an initial dynasty, all positions can be built.3) draft YOUNG players who will emerge down the line (thus representing the guy who put both Carr and AJohn in his top-10)I think in a new dynasty league, drafting based on position is foolish - these players are locked up, and you need SOME impact players each year to consistenty win. Therefore, IMO, the goal is to project the impact players for the next three years and draft with an eye to which will possibly continue to be around after that. Generally (at least the past couple of years) that means ranking your top players by going with the top 8 or so RBs, top 3 or 4 WRs, and then the top 2 or 3 QBs - after that comes a plethora of RB options and young WR options, with about 7 or 8 QBs of the Pennie/Leftwich mold peppered in.One simple thing stands out to me about QBs and WRs - the top few tend to hold value over the years, and they stick around a lot longer than RBs. Drafting one of them early is building for the future. Drafting RB early and ignoring a pick of the top few at the QB/WR position is a "win now" philosophy which will find you without the studs at those other positions within a few years - but your mates will be able to build around their QB/WR studs over time easier than you can build around a couple RBs b/c you MUST change over those RBs - even the top ones - within a few years, but those top QB/WR guys will be anchors for up to a decade.I really think it is a mistake to rank your top 10 overall players without an eye towards mixing up the positions. Oh, and anyone who fails to rank LT #1 is an idiot.

 

[aaronr28]

Drafting RB early and ignoring a pick of the top few at the QB/WR position is a "win now" philosophy which will find you without the studs at those other positions within a few years - but your mates will be able to build around their QB/WR studs over time easier than you can build around a couple RBs b/c you MUST change over those RBs - even the top ones - within a few years, but those top QB/WR guys will be anchors for up to a decade.I really think it is a mistake to rank your top 10 overall players without an eye towards mixing up the positions. Oh, and anyone who fails to rank LT #1 is an idiot.

I disagree. It is not THAT difficult to find WR studs in the later rounds. Personally, I picked up Chad Johnson in round 5 of an inaugural dynasty draft last year, and now he's in everybody's top 3 for WRs. Sure, there's a little bit of luck involved, but I am much more confident in my ability to find WRs (with top-10 potential) in rounds 3-8 of a draft than I would be finding potential top-10 RBs. You have to factor in what everyone else will do, and since everybody else is going to go RB-crazy in most drafts, if you wait too long you are screwed. It would not be until the end of round 1 or sometime in round 2 that I'd consider taking players such as Culpepper, Manning, Holt, C.Johnson, M.Harrison, etc. b/c at that point you are comparing them to RBs like Domanick Davis and Rudi Johnson.But, passing up on guys like LT2 and Deuce (as people seem to be suggesting) for a QB like Michael Vick is just pure madness, IMHO.

 

[Rush]

Although this is how I rank these guys, this does not represent the order in which I would draft. I would draft RB's early because it's difficult to compete in year one without going RB early. I would also draft a guy like Chad Johnson over Daunte Culepper because I find it easier to obtain a decent QB as opposed to a decent WR.

I think this is the problem. It seems that people are rating players according to Dynasty value rather than where they would draft them. I mean would anyone actually pick D Carr with their #9 overall pick? I certainly hope not!All you have to do is look at the recent dynasty drafts to see a minimum of 9 RB's going in the 1st round of a 12 team league (probably 8 in a 10 team league). Randy Moss is the only non-RB on my 1st round list.

 

[waiver wire]

i think the problem for rating the top over all players is everyone is using a different scoring system and starting requirments and the amount of owners in a leagueeveryone one of htese factors drastical alters the overall rankingsexamplesay a 16 man league that requires 2rb to start each weekthis puts thier value through the roofthis is my take after reading 4 pages

 

[UnknownCoach]

i think the problem for rating the top over all players is everyone is using a different scoring system and starting requirments and the amount of owners in a leagueeveryone one of htese factors drastical alters the overall rankingsexamplesay a 16 man league that requires 2rb to start each weekthis puts thier value through the roofthis is my take after reading 4 pages

Like I said scoring rules (including starting requirements) affect rankings more than anything else. I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to draft. Yet anyone who thinks you need to draft RBs first in a dynasty league is lacking experience. The majority of leagues do not allow 3 starting RBs to 1 QB. In such a league RBs are much more valueable because you can start 3 times as many despite there being an equal number of each starting in the NFL. If the starting requirements were equal then QBs would dominate these lists due to their longevity. In your average league where you start 1 QB and 2 RBs you get top ten rankings that include both like we see here.

 

[UnknownCoach]

I think in a new dynasty league, drafting based on position is foolish - these players are locked up, and you need SOME impact players each year to consistenty win. Therefore, IMO, the goal is to project the impact players for the next three years and draft with an eye to which will possibly continue to be around after that. Generally (at least the past couple of years) that means ranking your top players by going with the top 8 or so RBs, top 3 or 4 WRs, and then the top 2 or 3 QBs - after that comes a plethora of RB options and young WR options, with about 7 or 8 QBs of the Pennie/Leftwich mold peppered in.One simple thing stands out to me about QBs and WRs - the top few tend to hold value over the years, and they stick around a lot longer than RBs. Drafting one of them early is building for the future. Drafting RB early and ignoring a pick of the top few at the QB/WR position is a "win now" philosophy which will find you without the studs at those other positions within a few years - but your mates will be able to build around their QB/WR studs over time easier than you can build around a couple RBs b/c you MUST change over those RBs - even the top ones - within a few years, but those top QB/WR guys will be anchors for up to a decade.I really think it is a mistake to rank your top 10 overall players without an eye towards mixing up the positions. Oh, and anyone who fails to rank LT #1 is an idiot.

Yes, the need to find new RBs is a constant year to year need for all owners regardless of how they initially drafted. You can draft 4 straight RBs and chances are you'll still be looking for another one in year two. When building a dynasty I'm looking at getting the top young players at any position. Of course you do need to value players according to rules also. Rules change who those top players are. They also change the value of each position. 'Dynasty' doesnt value RBs over other positions. In fact it reduces their value. Rules do affect the value of positions. Here we have no rules to work with. Still I'd never count on a player for a decade. Even if they are they very rarely remain at the top that long. I wouldnt count on an RB for even one season because the odds of any one RB getting hurt is extremely high. I've witnessed more than a small percentage of these 'win now' RB drafters hit the toilet in year one. I've made it to championships in year 1 without drafting a single sure starter at RB. We pretty much agree on except on one thing. Vick is even more special than LT is

 

[Tick]

I'm leaning toward agreeing with Aaron here - the overall rankings are going to be pretty much useless because of the huge difference in strategy based on roster requirements and scoring. Ranking by position is good, and people can mix and match those as they please to make their own overall ranking, but trying to build a consensus just seems pointless.I also agree that it's much easier to find a future QB late in a draft than it is to find a future RB (I'm ignoring WRs for this because I think the big problem most of the RB-happy people have is with QBs in the first round - WRs are explainable). In my draft last week, I picked up the following QBs with good potential late:Carson Palmer r12Tim Couch r22Kurt Warner r26Drew Brees r34David Garrard r37Rohan Davey r43Kelly Holcomb r45In that group, I see Palmer as a potential star, Couch as a starter this season who's still young and might turn it around, Warner as a huge gamble worth taking in the 26th round, Brees as a guy who could actually start this season and beyond, though it's unlikely, Garrard as a strong backup who'll get his shot somewhere soon, Davey as someone to stash on the roster with some potential, and Holcomb as a pretty worthless guy, but one who still has a chance to start this season. In summary, I got a lot of potential late in the draft at QB. However, at RB, there was nothing promising left after six rounds. All the RBs I got late:Ladell Betts r13Dominic Rhodes r23Kenny Watson r39Jesse Chatman r50James Fenderson r52Betts was picked before the Portis talk, but has had a few chances without really grabbing a job. Rhodes has potential with the recent talk that James could be out in Indy, so he has great potential. Watson, Chatman, and Fenderson are all scrubs who will never start anywhere, but they're young so I picked them in case they end up as the primary backup somewhere and someone gets hurt.In summary, Rhodes is the only one that really has much potential.I know that might not seem relevant to the top 10 picks, but I believe it is. I'm very confident that at least one of my cheap QBs is going to be a starter this season, and that at least one of them will be a starter for the next three years... so I don't mind waiting until the 10th round to pick my main guy (Plummer). However, at RB I don't think that any of my cheap guys are going to start this season, and I really doubt any of them will ever be starters except for possibly Rhodes. So, I feel kind of silly for not getting a good second RB in the second or third round and getting stuck with Dillon for my RB2.I just think that if you don't fill out your RBs early, you're in trouble both for the present and the future at RB. If you don't pick a super QB, I think it's much easier to recover later in the draft.

 

[John 14:6]

I disagree. It is not THAT difficult to find WR studs in the later rounds. Personally, I picked up Chad Johnson in round 5 of an inaugural dynasty draft last year, and now he's in everybody's top 3 for WRs. Sure, there's a little bit of luck involved, but I am much more confident in my ability to find WRs (with top-10 potential) in rounds 3-8 of a draft than I would be finding potential top-10 RBs. You have to factor in what everyone else will do, and since everybody else is going to go RB-crazy in most drafts, if you wait too long you are screwed. It would not be until the end of round 1 or sometime in round 2 that I'd consider taking players such as Culpepper, Manning, Holt, C.Johnson, M.Harrison, etc. b/c at that point you are comparing them to RBs like Domanick Davis and Rudi Johnson.But, passing up on guys like LT2 and Deuce (as people seem to be suggesting) for a QB like Michael Vick is just pure madness, IMHO.

Again, that's all true in a redraft league, but you're not going to be able to find those types of QBs and WRs as easily in future years of a dynasty league. If it's your first year of a dynasty league and you want to win now, then I would say go with the stud RBs if you can draft them. For me, I was picking second last in our inaugral draft last year and none of the major RBs fell that far. So while everyone else was already pretty well off at RB, I decided to try to get the best palyers at other positions (since I couldn't compete at RB THIS year) and then build around them for the future. So my first four picks were Moss, McNabb (not THE best, but was close at the time), Ray Lewis, Jeremy Shockey, Mike Rucker, and Jason Taylor. If my team would have performed badly, I would be able to draft a stud RB in the rookie draft this year and be set. (However, my team did well.) If I went the other way and tried grabbing a later RB, I would have a hard time finding a rookie QB or WR to put in right away, then I would have been toward the bottom of my league in EVERY position. Only Moss and Boldin have been that good as rookies. Most other rookies would take time to develop and by the time that happens, most RBs would be closer to the end of their careers. They would still have some good years left, but it does shrink your window of competitiveness. And the WRs like you mentioned are already on other people's rosters, it's only rookies and total stiffs available. I could try drafting more RBs for trading, but everyone else is pretty much set at RB.But now, I have some of the top players at each position and lead the league in scoring last year. If I did poorly, I could draft one of those rookie RBs and I would probably have a top player at every position for years to come since QBs and WRs have longer careers.

 

[UnknownCoach]

I know that might not seem relevant to the top 10 picks, but I believe it is. I'm very confident that at least one of my cheap QBs is going to be a starter this season, and that at least one of them will be a starter for the next three years... so I don't mind waiting until the 10th round to pick my main guy (Plummer).

No its not very relevant because in the top ten we are picking studs - players who have few peers at their position. In building a dynasty the goal is to get as many studs as possible... at all positions. This isnt just done at the draft. Its done from day one until you quit. Its not so easy to find Peyton Manning caliber QB. Its not so easy to aquire a Randy Moss. These type of young studs are far and few between. On the other hand stud RBs actually arent as hard to pick up later. Like I said when the debate first started RBs turnover often and take less time to develope. Those 'future' QBs or WRs you are talking about grabbing later can sit on your bench for years and either never amount to anything or just prove to be mediocre. Young RBs tend not to sit around developing as long. You usually find out fairly early in their careers how good they can be. Thus aquireing your future stud RBs isnt so hard after all. It makes little difference if a player is first string or second string in the NFL when talking about dynasty prospects. Accepting mediocre players as your starters wont win leagues. We want studs. Many of those future studs are NFL backups. If you think Mark Brunell is more valueable than Larry Johnson in a dynasty league you better think again. You might want to re-evaluate your middle and late round drafting strategies.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I disagree. It is not THAT difficult to find WR studs in the later rounds. Personally, I picked up Chad Johnson in round 5 of an inaugural dynasty draft last year, and now he's in everybody's top 3 for WRs.

You keep talking about last year's dynasty draft. That is a poor starting point for the standard by which you should judge how to put together a dynasty league because basically- it has been a redraft league so far. It has been in existence for one year. Your opponents dynasty strategies (if they were taking a long view) have not unveiled themselves. Things can change fast.Those players that drafted Moss or Culpepper at 1.8 have a chance to draft a rookie running back in round 1 if they kept their picks. I would assert that they have just as good a chance at getting a top 10 rb for the future in the early part of round 1 as they did if they drafted the eigth best running back at 1.8.Also, I hink the disagreement is good. we wouldn't learn much if we all sat around and agreed with each other. I don't think the point of this is really to gain some consensus. It is a meeting point for an exchange of ideas.

 

[Drugrunner's Alias]

What strikes me as very interesting is the way this has developed.When we first started this, came up with the plan, and put out positional rankings, the one thing everyone was clamoring for in posts, and the PMs I received was an overall ranking. The comments ran along the lines that Positional ranking were nice and all, but overall rankings where necessary to slot things. The reason I purposely didn't include a scoring system was that there is no standard. Perhaps that needs to be rethought.I will say that RBs are far more valuable than perhaps realized in this discussion, because you must plan on replacing them almost annually. Even if you have LT2.If in 1999, you hit the mother load, and grabbed Edge and Ricky that year, you weren't locked up forever. RBs get Old, Hurt, and diminish in skills faster than any other position. The need for them is always at a premium.Having played in Dynasty Leagues for 15 years now, I understand the concept of "tanking". I've done it myself in the past. I no longer know how I would view the concept of grabbing Young QBs/WRs in an initial draft, and starting with say Jamel White and Mike Alstot as my RBs the first year, knowing that I will do poorly to get a top 3 pick the following year for my young stud RB?

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I think the problem is that everyone wants to promote "their system". I don't think there is a correct system. I think if you look at any league- you will see some teams at the top that put their teams together in very different ways. Everyone keeps yammering about the inagural draft. Well- you only get to do that once. You spend the next years drafting rookies, working the waiver wire and making trades. 5 years in, many of your initila picks will be irrelevant.I like to trade guys with "upside" and picks for established proven talent that is between 24-27 years old. I like production. Some others like to stickpile picks like crazy and amass more depth than most. Some focus on running back strength, while others choose wr's- particularly if they are in a flex league. While in a redraft you may prefer a rb to a wr at the flex position- the translation to dynasty isn't as fluid. 3 years ago, most would have prefered Antowain Smith to Amani Toomer at a flex position. 3 years later, Toomer has put up better number in 2 of the three years, and looks to have significantly more to offer in the future. There is no right way.I am also of the belief that if you don't think you have a resonable chance to win that you should dump players that won't make significant contributions when your team is poised to compete again. Others may disagree.Personally, I think all of the talk about posiion is overdone. I think, that over the test of time, the best teams will be result of the owners that have had a little luck, had the ability to evaluate talent/opportunity, have been able to acquire more rising players before they reach their upper limit, and trade better players just before they start to drop off - regardless of position. To paraphrase Unlucky- the ones making the projections.

 

[smlevin]

Drafting RB early and ignoring a pick of the top few at the QB/WR position is a "win now" philosophy which will find you without the studs at those other positions within a few years - but your mates will be able to build around their QB/WR studs over time easier than you can build around a couple RBs b/c you MUST change over those RBs - even the top ones - within a few years, but those top QB/WR guys will be anchors for up to a decade.I really think it is a mistake to rank your top 10 overall players without an eye towards mixing up the positions. Oh, and anyone who fails to rank LT #1 is an idiot.

I disagree. It is not THAT difficult to find WR studs in the later rounds. Personally, I picked up Chad Johnson in round 5 of an inaugural dynasty draft last year, and now he's in everybody's top 3 for WRs. Sure, there's a little bit of luck involved, but I am much more confident in my ability to find WRs (with top-10 potential) in rounds 3-8 of a draft than I would be finding potential top-10 RBs. You have to factor in what everyone else will do, and since everybody else is going to go RB-crazy in most drafts, if you wait too long you are screwed. It would not be until the end of round 1 or sometime in round 2 that I'd consider taking players such as Culpepper, Manning, Holt, C.Johnson, M.Harrison, etc. b/c at that point you are comparing them to RBs like Domanick Davis and Rudi Johnson.But, passing up on guys like LT2 and Deuce (as people seem to be suggesting) for a QB like Michael Vick is just pure madness, IMHO.

I FULLY agree with you that taking Vick over LT or Deuce is foolish - note that I said my overall list would go with the top-8 or so RBs and THEN a few WRs, THEN a few QBs, then whatever.But, I am not saying it is difficult or impossible to find WR gems (just as it is not difficult or impossible to find QB or RB gems if you are doing your job), but my point is the NUMBERS. CJohn 2002 was a late dynasty pick b/c he hadn't done anything, after his 2002 season he jumped up to where someone like AJohn is today, but it is likely he is now a perrenial top-WR pick for the next decade.My point is not the difficulty in finding studs - my point is the minimum number of those studs that exist year to year at the QB and WR positions means locking one of them up in a new initial dynasty draft is a potential anchor for 6-8 years - locking up a stud RB is an anchor for likely 3-4 years. QB - a decade or more. It is simply not "foolish" to start a draft with a top-rated QB and/or WR if you are drafting from the #5/6 spot or down. I think the first 5 or 6 RBs should be HANDS DOWN selected before ANY WR/QB, but after that, I can't fault a dynasty player from drafting Moss or Vick over Edge James, Fred Taylor, or several other potentially top-8 RB that will probably have a 3-4 year top-player shelf life in the best of worlds.

 

[Drugrunner's Alias]

If I am sitting in the #9 or further down position in an Initial draft, I am taking Moss in a Dynasty league, regardless of the outcome.Another thing to consider is that you could easily have replaced 75% if not all of your original players in a 3 year span.

 

[aaronr28]

It is simply not "foolish" to start a draft with a top-rated QB and/or WR if you are drafting from the #5/6 spot or down. I think the first 5 or 6 RBs should be HANDS DOWN selected before ANY WR/QB, but after that, I can't fault a dynasty player from drafting Moss or Vick over Edge James, Fred Taylor, or several other potentially top-8 RB that will probably have a 3-4 year top-player shelf life in the best of worlds.

I don't have a problem with this. To each his own, but I think owners who ignore those top 5 or 6 RBs for QBs are likely making their team LESS competitive for the next 2 to 4 years with just that pick. Sure, they might be more competitive 4 or 5 years down the road, but they'll have had 4 rookie drafts and countless number of trade opportunities by then to completely reshape their roster. Every rookie draft I've ever been in, the RBs go early and often and young stud QBs and WRs slide to the middle or end of the first round.Thus, in an inaugural draft and in annual rookie drafts, it should always be easier to pick up QB and WR talent than RB talent.

My strategy: Acquiring and building RB depth should be the priority of any dynasty owner. Because of the high turnover at the position, you want to get as many quality RBs as possible and surround them with quality at the QB and WR positions. Obviously, you can't completely ignore the other positions, but I just think there is so much more supply there that you can get by without superstars. I just think passing on a RB in the top-6 to top-10 is going to hurt you more than grabbing that stud QB is going to help you. I can understand the WR need more than QBs b/c you have multiple starting positions to fill.

 

[Tick]

If you think Mark Brunell is more valueable than Larry Johnson in a dynasty league you better think again. You might want to re-evaluate your middle and late round drafting strategies.

Um... what? Are you still talking to me? Where on earth did that come from?

 

[smlevin]

If in 1999, you hit the mother load, and grabbed Edge and Ricky that year, you weren't locked up forever. RBs get Old, Hurt, and diminish in skills faster than any other position. The need for them is always at a premium.

Exactly my point regarding WR/QB in a new dynasty league - it is an individual preference which position to build around over the next few years, but if drafting in the top few picks, even if you "want" to build around WR/QB, not selecting a RB in a new intial dynasty league seems foolish - you are still highly likely to have a top-WR/QB available to you in the second rather than passing on those stud RBs that are likely to be tops in the field for the next few years.Example - 1.04 - if you pass on Mike Vick and take Deuce McCallister instead, on your ccomeback, you might not have Vick or CPepp available to you in the second, but for the next half a decade plus your QB spot could be manned by Peytin Manning, or your WR spot could see AJohn, or Holt, or CJohn for the next 5-7 years.Anyway, I think that illustrates my point.

 

[John 14:6]

Example - 1.04 - if you pass on Mike Vick and take Deuce McCallister instead, on your ccomeback, you might not have Vick or CPepp available to you in the second, but for the next half a decade plus your QB spot could be manned by Peytin Manning, or your WR spot could see AJohn, or Holt, or CJohn for the next 5-7 years.

But if you take Moss there, you could also grab one of those WRs the next time around and have two studs who will most likely have longer careers (and be at the top during their careers) as opposed to the RB who would break down sooner.Both sides have used the shorter career of RBs to support their argument. Pro WR/QB people say that you should get the studs there since RBs won't last as long, then you'll have the WR/QB longer. Pro RB people say, since they can break down earlier, you need to stockpile them to cover yourself when one does.

 

[smlevin]

I was just using the example, but you are correct. If you are determined to go stud WR for the next few years, and suffer at RB until someone deep on your roster emerges, that's your perogative. I personally think that in a new dynasty league, from the 1-4 spot, it is a huge mistake to pass on any of the RBs that should be there (LT, Deuce, Green, Portis - plus, Holmes) - as those Rbs arelikely to star for your team - from the RB spot - for the next 3-4 years, and you can build other spots around them - including the RB spots.In short, I'd be psyched for Deuce and CJohn for the next three years as my nucleus to build around more than I'd be psyched with Moss/CJohn as my nucleus for the next 7 years. But, it is a matter of preference. Someone at the #6/7 spot will be able to zig-zag the competition and start C-Pepp/Vick/Manning alongside Moss/Holt/CJohn for the next 5-7 years while building the RB spot each and every year - starting with this year's deep RBs in the 3rd-6th rounds (including "win now" options like Dunn, rookie RBs, Duckett, Martin, George/Brown, etc.

 

[John 14:6]

I was just using the example, but you are correct. If you are determined to go stud WR for the next few years, and suffer at RB until someone deep on your roster emerges, that's your perogative.Someone at the #6/7 spot will be able to zig-zag the competition and start C-Pepp/Vick/Manning alongside Moss/Holt/CJohn for the next 5-7 years while building the RB spot each and every year - starting with this year's deep RBs in the 3rd-6th rounds (including "win now" options like Dunn, rookie RBs, Duckett, Martin, George/Brown, etc.

You don't have to suffer at RB until someone emerges. Practically every year there is at least one rookie RB that puts up great numbers and does even better down the road. You would really only suffer at RB for the first year or two, so you don't have to worry about building up the position each and every year.On the otherhand, rookie WRs and QBs take much longer to develop and perform.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Another thing to consider is that you could easily have replaced 75% if not all of your original players in a 3 year span.

Bingo! Its amazing how all these stud RB owners with no or limited dynasty experience think their top RB is going to be there for 4 years. Even if he is, he's very unlikely to put up stud numbers each year. The only RB who has remained on one of my dynasty rosters that long is Jamal Lewis. A player who's already missed a full season, been suspended, missed other games to injury, and may be done in the NFL at age 24.

 

[11B]

Just because my top 10 overall had Carr, that doesn't mean I'd take him there. Also, it's hard to compare Manning and Carr stats cuz Carr is on an expansion team. I do think now after having my 1st year in a dynasty league, I would take Moss with the 1st pick overall. A QB would be high on my list also. Of course you could get Carr A. Johnson a little later, so that's where you draft them. Carr can't be a starter now anyways. Ideally, I'd like to draft in the 10 spot in a 12 team league, hopefully Moss would be there for me, then I'd grab C-Pep in rd 2. If you can get another top wr in the 3rd that is young do it. Then grab a bunch of young rb's that you know will be the starter soon. I curently have:AlexanderEdgeC. BrownO. SmithM. MorrisMusa Smith <~Thank you Jamal LewisI had:J FargasR. JohnsonLook at the crop of young good rb's I had. Yeah by doing the strategy I talk about above will hurt you in year 1, you can be very loaded by year 2 or 3. It's a dynasty league not a 5 player keeper league. I didn't do the strategy I talked about, but I wish I would of. I traded up from 11 to 4 and down from 14 to 21 and took Alexander. I should of stayed at 11 & 14 and did what I talked about. Now I have to build my wr's up. Nobody wants to trade me a wr cuz they know I'll be too solid all around then, that's where I'm hurting. My roster is:QB'sBulger, Marc STL Carr, David HOU McNabb, Donovan PHI RB'sAlexander, Shaun SEA Brown, Chris TEN Bryson, Shawn DET James, Edgerrin IND Morris, Maurice SEA Smith, Musa BAL Smith, Onterrio MIN WR/TE'sGardner, Rod WAS WR 158 8 Givens, David NEP Johnson, Chad CIN Lelie, Ashley DEN Mitchell, Freddie PHI K'sEdinger, Paul CHI Gramatica, Martin TBB DT/ST'sChiefs, Kansas City KCC Rams, St. Louis STL Luckily because of a couple trades even though I started with pick 11 in rd 1 cuz I lost in teh championship, I have 2 1st rd picks now, 6 & 7. I'm taking to wr's, thankfully this draft is loaded there.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Any person who really knows FFB believes in building his team through the RB position. RB see the ball more than WR, and they score much more consistently. Obviously, things are a little more complicated in a dynasty league, but the basic strategy should remain the same. When your looking at longevity, it is impossible to predict any players stats multiple years from now. There are way to many variables. Young stud RB are the key to any championship. I would much rather have a team that wins one or two titles and then needs to rebuild the RB position, than a team that is mediocre for 10 years with a stud WR and QB.

 

[aaronr28]

Any person who really knows FFB believes in building his team through the RB position. RB see the ball more than WR, and they score much more consistently. Obviously, things are a little more complicated in a dynasty league, but the basic strategy should remain the same. When your looking at longevity, it is impossible to predict any players stats multiple years from now. There are way to many variables. Young stud RB are the key to any championship. I would much rather have a team that wins one or two titles and then needs to rebuild the RB position, than a team that is mediocre for 10 years with a stud WR and QB.

here's a guy who gets it! GB you JediMaster.

 

[Drugrunner's Alias]

Just because my top 10 overall had Carr, that doesn't mean I'd take him there.

Then I guess I should have defined it better.

 

[VICK-IS-GOD]

Young stud RB are the key to any championship.

Yeah, but there are only 5 or so of the young stud RB's. After that the value is with the stud QB's and stud WR's in a dynasty league.I think most everyone values the true young stud RB's the most, the problem is that only 5-6 owners have a shot at one of em in an initial dynasaty draft.

 

[aaronr28]

Yeah, but there are only 5 or so of the young stud RB's. After that the value is with the stud QB's and stud WR's in a dynasty league.I think most everyone values the true young stud RB's the most, the problem is that only 5-6 owners have a shot at one of em in an initial dynasaty draft.

I just looked over everybody's rankings, and most seemed to group LT2, Deuce, and Portis as the top-3 RBs. Well, all of these non RB players were ranked ahead of at least 1 of those top-3 RBs (with # of lists in parentheses):QBCulpepper (5)Manning (6)McNabb (3)Vick (5)WRMoss (9)Holt (3)C.Johnson (2)Boldin (1)So, there are apparently PLENTY of people in here who would draft a QB or WR ahead of an established young stud RB who has only been in the league for 2 or 3 years.

 

[smlevin]

So, there are apparently PLENTY of people in here who would draft a QB or WR ahead of an established young stud RB who has only been in the league for 2 or 3 years.

And, IMO, they are not thinking clearly. New dynasty/positional strategy, whatever - I don't know how you pass on RBs that might compete for annual top-10 rankings for the next 3-4 years, regardless of the QB/WR.I think the QB/WR talk becomes relevant around pick #5, and not before.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Even if you are talking any pick in the top 12, you have to take a back with the exception of maybe Moss. By taking a QB in the early rounds, you are not picking the players with the most value. Of the top 10 QB of last year, only two were taken even near the early rounds in most drafts. Green, Hasselbeck, McNair, Brooks, Kitna, Bulger, Favre, and Johnson were all later round picks. Why pick Manning in the second when you can get Green in the 7th or 8th? The only QB to even consider are the ones with rushing potential, and you still want a consistent back if given the choice.

 

[smlevin]

Even if you are talking any pick in the top 12, you have to take a back with the exception of maybe Moss. By taking a QB in the early rounds, you are not picking the players with the most value. Of the top 10 QB of last year, only two were taken even near the early rounds in most drafts. Green, Hasselbeck, McNair, Brooks, Kitna, Bulger, Favre, and Johnson were all later round picks. Why pick Manning in the second when you can get Green in the 7th or 8th? The only QB to even consider are the ones with rushing potential, and you still want a consistent back if given the choice.

Because Manning//Vick/CPepp early are likely to be the anchor in a DYNASTY league for 7-9 years. The late QBs are one year fillers. Nothing WRONG with filling in your QB every year, or over a few years, but it is not ridiculous to sacrifice top RBs in the later part of the first for the QB/WR anchors for your squad for a many years to come.Personally, if I am choosing between my #1 ranked QB (CPepp), my #1 ranked WR (Moss) and my #8 or 9 RB (Edge, or Fred T are in that range), I think long and hard about the WR or QB, figurng they'll be top-10 for the next 5-7 years versus these RBs that are likely to be on the extreme downslide in 3 years.

 

[cracKer]

Interesting discussion so far, even more interesting lists. Randy Moss is the only non-RB that I'd even consider in the top 10 overall. Runners are gold, no matter how you look at it. QB's and WR's play longer? Sure they do, but they all do. Ask Maurile how a decent QBBC fairs against a single stud, I think quite well, and receivers are always much easier to find during the rookie draft/waivers.

1. LaDanian Tomlinson (the most coveted player in the game)

2. Deuce McAllister (could easily be #1 based on talent, but another subpar TD year will have me very concerned)

3. Clinton Portis (doesn't bring as much to the table as Tomlinson and McAllister but deserves mention in the same breath)

4. Ahman Green (when trying to find faults, there aren't any. The Favre-less factor and his lack of receptions down the stretch last year make you wonder)

5. Priest Holmes (hoping there's some truth to a young 31 year old)

6. Shaun Alexander (the fact that his name is always mentioned in rumors, that has to scare you off a bit. His incredible production cannot be ignored)

7. Jamal Lewis (a young thoroughbred, if he can keep his nose clean)

8. Kevan Barlow

9. Randy Moss

10. Edgerrin James

Fred Taylor was hard to leave off, but I think that this is exactly how I'd draft right now.

 

[smlevin]

I'm with your list - until Barlow. I just can't do it. Just can't elevate him to the top-10 wihtout seeing him healthy for a season. That top-10 spot is too valuable - I'd replace him with Fred Taylor, who I think has young legs - I rate the players about even for injury risk, and FredT higher on the talent/opp scale. I think FredT is YET to have his best seaosn, and I think he'll have at least 2 and maybe 3 top-10 seasons. I am MUCH higher on him than on Barlow - even in a dynasty league, but that's me.I would have Barlow in the DomDavis/Rudi Johnson range of backs that I'd select after Moss. I am with you on the QBs - despite what I think is"reasonable" for other people, I will gladly sacrifice the top few QBs in the first couple rounds to another team, even in a new dynasty league. Rounds 1-3 would be all RB/WR selections for me.One guy not mentioned often in these dynasty league discussions is Deshaun Foster - SDavis has 2 more years in him as a feature back, and he never seems to make it through an entire year healthy - Foster looks to have the most athletic skill and best RB situation of any of the young backs who is not currently starting.I would also look towards OSmith as a guy who will be a star in two years.

 

[cracKer]

I'm with your list - until Barlow. I just can't do it.

It's a tough late first round call, but I see Barlow elevating his game to a level that would this spot appropriate. I have a serious mancrush on Fred Taylor, but I wish they'd just overuse him for a season and allow us to salivate over his best in class running skills. Then again, he may get injured.BTW, I'm not touching Ricky Williams or Travis Henry. They may in fact end up in the top 10, but the situation for both just stinks.Ricky Williams = toast

 

[aaronr28]

Interesting discussion so far, even more interesting lists. Randy Moss is the only non-RB that I'd even consider in the top 10 overall. Runners are gold, no matter how you look at it. QB's and WR's play longer? Sure they do, but they all do. Ask Maurile how a decent QBBC fairs against a single stud, I think quite well, and receivers are always much easier to find during the rookie draft/waivers.

1. LaDanian Tomlinson (the most coveted player in the game)

2. Deuce McAllister (could easily be #1 based on talent, but another subpar TD year will have me very concerned)

3. Clinton Portis (doesn't bring as much to the table as Tomlinson and McAllister but deserves mention in the same breath)

4. Ahman Green (when trying to find faults, there aren't any. The Favre-less factor and his lack of receptions down the stretch last year make you wonder)

5. Priest Holmes (hoping there's some truth to a young 31 year old)

6. Shaun Alexander (the fact that his name is always mentioned in rumors, that has to scare you off a bit. His incredible production cannot be ignored)

7. Jamal Lewis (a young thoroughbred, if he can keep his nose clean)

8. Kevan Barlow

9. Randy Moss

10. Edgerrin James

Fred Taylor was hard to leave off, but I think that this is exactly how I'd draft right now.

GB more sane people joining the discussion

 

[Drugrunner's Alias]

The top 10 should be 9 RBs and Randy Moss.

 

[John 14:6]

Young stud RB are the key to any championship. I would much rather have a team that wins one or two titles and then needs to rebuild the RB position, than a team that is mediocre for 10 years with a stud WR and QB.

The thing is, you can get those young stud RBs in year 2 and/or 3, so you won't be mediocre for years to come. So far all the arguments for RB seem to completely ignore the fact it's a dynasty league and you can add studs through the draft every y ear, especially at RB.If someone does take the stud WRs and QB early because the RBs were taken earlier, they will supposedly do bad that first year due to lack of RB production, right? (It didn't work for me...) So then that team will have a high rookie pick the next year. Nearly every year there is at least one rookie RB who puts up numbers near the top of the league, and gets better in following years. So then you get a stud at EVERY position, plus you're WRs and QB are already covered and your RBs are younger than most other people's.However, you can't do this as easily going the other way, taking RBs in the initial draft and then trying to nad good rookie QBs and WRs. And like someone mentioned earlier, if I'm picking later in the draft I would rather get a guy who will be at or near the top of his position and build the rest of my team around him than take the 8th or 9th RB and put myself behind everyone right away.The only argument I see from the RB people is "you need RBs to win in fantasy football." Though I have seen plenty of contrary examples in my leagues over the years, I would definitely agree with this mentality. The thing is in a dynasty league you don't have to get them right away your initial year. If you can get one of Tomlinson, Portis, or McAllister then I would definitely say do it. but if you're picking later I would go for Moss or someone who will be around and at the top of his position for a long time rather than an older RB who is already just the 8th or 9th RB and won't have as long of a career.

 

[Tick]

I don't think people are saying that if you don't take RBs early, you'll be one of the worst two teams and get to draft a rookie RB the next season. They're saying that you'll be the 4th-best team for the next 10 years, which isn't the goal of most FF players.

 

[John 14:6]

I don't think people are saying that if you don't take RBs early, you'll be one of the worst two teams and get to draft a rookie RB the next season.

Then why such an outcry by certain people to take RBs early, even if you're picking late in the draft?

They're saying that you'll be the 4th-best team for the next 10 years, which isn't the goal of most FF players.

Which could also be the case for someone who uses the 8th or 9th pick on a RB. Not everyone can get a top young RB and not everyone can win the championship each year. That's a good reason to take a you stud WR and QB, because you have them around longer to build around.And you won't be the 4th best every year if you manage your team well and get breaks. In our 10 team inaugral dynasty draft last year I took Moss and McNabb with my first two picks and lead the league in scoring the FIRST year. In another 12 team dynasty league I'm in I had to draft for another team in our inaugral year. He picked later in the draft and with his first two picks I got him Randy Moss and Terrell Owens. He lead the league in scoring THAT year, too. And in a 10-team keeper league, in our inaugral draft a few years back my brother drafted Marvin Harrison and Terrell Owens with his first two picks and lead the league in scoring each of the first two years.The main reason for the success of those teams was players picked up later. With my team last year, I got Santana Moss, Chris Chambers, and Brad Johnson really late in the draft. I later picked up Dom Davis, Brian Russel, Tony Parrish, and Chris Draft to name a few. In the second leauge, I got Shaun Alexander and another RB late (I forget who exactly, I think it was Priest, but I got them both really late after drafting two other RBs earlier, including Dunn who didn't do too well that year...) who both broke out that year and were among the top RBs, showing you don't necessarily HAVE to take one the 1st round to get a good one. In the third league, my brother also got Priest Holmes late. Even with aaron's team he showed earlier, he got some great late picks like Chad Johnson.I'd say the bottom line to fantasy football success is coming through in the late rounds, regardless of what position you draft earlier. Of course the old phrase holds true: "You can't win your league in the 1st round, but you can certainly lose it there."

 

[UnknownCoach]

Any person who really knows FFB believes in building his team through the RB position. RB see the ball more than WR, and they score much more consistently. Obviously, things are a little more complicated in a dynasty league, but the basic strategy should remain the same. When your looking at longevity, it is impossible to predict any players stats multiple years from now. There are way to many variables. Young stud RB are the key to any championship. I would much rather have a team that wins one or two titles and then needs to rebuild the RB position, than a team that is mediocre for 10 years with a stud WR and QB.

I'm not disagreeing with that by taking a QB or WR with my first pick. The fact is that I do build my team primarily through the RB position. I just dont neccessarily draft RBs first.Dynasty teams are not 'built' during your draft. Like I said when this arguement first came up, the initial draft is of minor importance. Like I said stud RBs are available well after round 1, well after the draft is over, and continually throughout every season.

 

[smlevin]

I have a serious mancrush on Fred Taylor, but I wish they'd just overuse him for a season and allow us to salivate over his best in class running skills. Then again, he may get injured.

I'd risk it, especially in a budding dynasty league. Fred Taylor is a prime target of mine in my redraft leagues this year - I like him better than almost every other back outside the elite FF backs - and sdome of them ar egrowing chinks in the armor - Portis is being traded, Alexander is in trade rumors, is possibly losing DJax, and has Morris breathing down his neck, and JLew's legal troubles may be a distraction, and Edge aint the same Edge.

 

[Drugrunner's Alias]

Sorry for the bump, Shick! said that everything older than 30 or 60 days is going to be washed. Just trying to save Dynasty Stuff.

 

[Gentle_Mental_Giant]

Dynasty top 10 for 1pt/Rec League...1. LT - Outproduced even Holmes w/100 Rec's...expect that to continue for years to come.2. Green - Maturing as top back and consistant in passing game.3. Portis - Would be #2 if he caught more passes. Durability and new team shouldn't factor into your consideration. He's special.4. Alexander - Consistant with yardage and TDs. Lacks involvement in passing game. Would be higher, but rarely flashes multiple TD games. Still though, have to love him for his utter consistancy.5. McAllister - Nice receiving numbers but plays on a streaky team. Has a problem with consistancy. Still though...has to be top 5 in dynasty consideration.6. Williams - No injury concerns and has excellent numbers the past 5 years. Could rebound to top 3 numbers if Miami's offensive restructuring pans out.7. Moss - Puts up RB numbers. He remains a top dynasty keeper because Minnesota has locked up the offense to long term contracts and more specifically, Culpepper is proving to be a stud QB.8. Holmes - Yes, I know he's long in the tooth, but come on...do you want to win now? If so, put him on your squad. He's good for at least 2 championships and let's face it...who wouldn't want two rings? Trade him away 2 years from now.9. Holt - Finally found the endzone. Don't let anyone talk you out of him either. Martz will continue to focus on the vertical passing game and Holt excels at it. Holt could surpass Moss this year if Faulk goes down to prolonged injury. Look at his stats...Holt was amazing when Faulk was absent.10. Culpepper - Yes I know QBs are a dime a dozen, but what other QBs are as consistant as Cpep? The answer is none. You say Manning should be here? Oh really? Did you notice how inconsistant he was? In head to head Manning is very mediocre. I'll take the steady 2-3 TD performance from my QB any day of the week. So there you have it. I do think youth is important and proven consistancy as well. J. Lew falls off the list due to current legal problems and a history of serious injury. Edge has not returned to form and will not be worth his price come draft day or when trading for him. Harrison is overrated now and just watch out. Wayne and Stokely are legitimate threats to steal balls from Marvin. Just too many options to consider Harrison a consistant threat anymore.There's a slight buzz about Fred Taylor staying healthy. He's still not a top 10 dynasty keeper. At best late second round. Two many up and comers like Dominick Davis, Reggie Barlow and Rudi Johnson to name a few. Those guys should be in your high second tier considerations.Enjoyed everyone's lists so far...Giant

 

[Burning Sensation]

5. McAllister - Nice receiving numbers but plays on a streaky team. Has a problem with consistancy. Still though...has to be top 5 in dynasty consideration.

9 straight 100 yard rushing games is inconsistent?