How important is it to nail your first round pick? (1 Viewer)

[Raiderfan32904]

There was an interesting post in the McFadden Spotlight Thread on this topic. It kind of is a sidebar to the topic of Darren McFadden.

There seems to be some lively debate over the importance of the the first round pick. Some think it can completely derail your season if you blow your first round pick. Others think of it as just another of 15 or 18 total picks and you can recover and find good value later.

Thoughts?

 

[TheCommish]

I drafted Andre Johnson in the first round last year. And still finished tied for the best record in my league. You can overcome a bad first round pick. It happens with quality depth and staying on top of the waiver wire.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Its just another pick. In general people spend way to much time worrying about the first round of their draft when they really need to be thinking of the middle to late rounds. The draft is just the beginning of the football season. Fantasy football is not won at the draft .... what you do in free agency and trades often times wins/loses a season.

ETA: I don't do snake drafts anymore....waste of time. Auction is where its at.

 

[butcher boy]

I don't see it as just another pick. While it's certainly possible to overcome a bad first round pick, it's much more difficult to make up the productivity that a true first round stud gives you. You really have to nail your mid and late round picks to overcome it.

I wonder, of the people who picked CJ, DMC, or Vick last year, how many also drafted Newton or Gronk or other mid-round guys who exploded?

I don't completely avoid risky guys in the first round, but some guys just scream "draft me and regret it later" and I will definitely avoid them even if VBD says otherwise.

 

[Shutout]

I drafted Andre Johnson in the first round last year. And still finished tied for the best record in my league. You can overcome a bad first round pick. It happens with quality depth and staying on top of the waiver wire.

I think those types of scenarios depend HIGHLY on your overall league makeup: your rules, the activity and "skill" of fellow owners, etc. In your case, you may have survived AJ last year. But in other elagues, there are probably a ton of guys (I know one at least) who took Jamal Charles with his first pick and never was a factor.

I know a guy who took Chris Johnson and died a slow, miserable death. It really just depends on all that other stuff.

I think, really, the answers and opinions to this question is not so much a yes or no answer, but rather, the answer is an indication to the level of your leagues' sophistication and evolution. When I played years ago in leagues with simplified scoring and very basic setup, drafting a guy like Marshall Faulk with the #1 overall was equivalent to punching your ticket for the playoffs and saying "See five of you guys in 13 weeks!" But in my leagues today, the difference between the guy who took Calvin Johnson at 8 and the guy who took DMAC, Charles, or even Foster just a pick or two one way or the other represents a chasm that could never be bridged.

 

[jurb26]

I'll just transfer my post from the McFadden thread to here.

I don't see how it is anecdotal. Personally, I see the concept of "you have to nail you're 1st pick" as anecdotal. Here's the thing. There is a large amount of risk when you whiff on any of you're 1st 5 or 6 picks. Missing on a guy you project as a sure starter, no matter what round, is going to be a shot to the leg. On top of that, you can whiff because of more reasons than just injury. Injury also happens to be the most difficult of all of them to project.

You can whiff by a guy simply underperforming just as easily as you can due to him being injured. How safe was C. Johnson last year? While McFadden may carry a higher injury risk, he also carries a greater certainty of performance when he is on the field. That too is important. I mean, you guys are talking like the ONLY risk in fantasy is injury risk. That simply isn't true. There is the plan old fashion risk of a guy just not performing as well as you expect, even though he's healthy. Which IMO is worse. Because you typically ride that underperforming high pick for far too long before seeing the light.

Here's the other thing. Across a draft of 15 or 20 rounds, you are certain to have picks that in the end turn out to be value and picks that turn out to be poor value. That's just they way it goes when you're making so many picks. You win some and loose some, as the saying goes. So maybe you miss on you're 1st round selection. Do you not think that if you hit on you're next 2 or 3 you're team will still end up very strong? Maybe the guy next to you hits on his 1st pick but misses on his next 3. Who's team would you predict is better?

This myopic treatment of the 1st selection baffles me year after year. I hear people say it at every draft table I sit at and it just never makes sense. In the moment of the draft, you have to make every pick count. When my pick in round 3 comes up (after all the picks before it have gone by) I value that pick just as much as any of the picks I had before it, because it's the present pick. I want a "hit" just as much at 3 as the 2 before it. In short, I value all picks the same at the moment they have to be made. I don't associate more or less risk value to any of them. What's funniest of all is that after all my years drafting and playing fantasy. The guys who worry and says lines like "you have to nail you're first pick" don't have any more success or luck at nailing them as the guys who simply don't care or believe in it.

Perhaps this isn't the right place to have this discussion and a thread of it's own is created?

 

[GregR]

Given that the difference in value between top players and the next rung down is so big... it's not a small deal to have a first round talent.

But it's more important that you got one than that you got one with your 1st round pick. If you get the end of season RB5 and RB15, doesn't matter which was taken in the 1st and which in the 2nd rounds.

 

[ponchsox]

This is what makes me tempted to take a QB in the first round outside the top 3 RB. The top 5 QBs have the best chance of performing close to their mean stats and stay healthy. Losing a 1st round RB due to injury can certainly put a damper on your season.

 

[Pipes]

I think it depends on the size of the league. In a smaller league it's not all that difficult but in a 16 team league for example it's much more difficult to overcome. Especially if it's a high 1st rounder with your 2nd pick not being until the mid to late 20s. It's rare in the 16 team league I'm in to pull anyone of value off of waivers...not impossible but rare.

 

[sbonomo]

I have always been a firm believer that nailing a first round pick is not enough to win a season (although Faulk/LT almost bucked that trend). You need to have a solid core with good upside backups. For instance; I picked Foster with my first pick last year. Thankfully i had him handcuffed so production from the RB spot did not really skip a beat except for a week or two when he was splitting carries. I credit my championship to hitting on Wes Welker (mid 5th round pick in a 12 team draft), Jimmy Graham (late pick) and Sproles (late pick). I was diligent with the waiver wire picking up Jordy nelson early (i have no idea why anyone would drop him but my gain). That all equaled another championship for my mantel. Have a solid plan in place at draft time a be an active owner.

 

[butcher boy]

I think it kind of comes down to this for me. No matter what round you're currently picking in, the bottom line is you want to pick the right guys, which of course is an obvious statement. The reason I think it's more important to nail an earlier pick than a later pick is that it's generally easier to pick one of those right guys in the first round than it is in later rounds. I am much more more confident saying that Tom Brady will put up stud numbers than I am in anyone's ability to pick which 5th round RB or WR is going to blow up.

That's why when looking at a player like DMac, it's easier to pull the trigger on someone else who is not as much of a risk and who I think will probably put up enough points to not make it a "wrong" pick.

 

[TheFootballJesus]

I understand the appeal of McFadden but I'd much rather take risky, upside-based picks in the middle rounds instead of round 1.

 

[th3f00l]

Your first few picks are just the safest bets, the later rounds are the ones that can pay the biggest reward. I've had injury issues and underperformer's in my first overall picks and still been able to pull together a squad. The year I drafted Shonn Greene for my first pick I took Foster in the 5th and traded Greene for Welker later in the year. So, there are circumstances that the first pick flops, but hopefully somewhere later in the draft you get rewarded with a gem. But, even the best drafted team can miss the playoffs due to poor management, and a bad draft day can still be salvaged.

 

[habsfan]

What's that cliche? You can't win a league with your first pick but you can definitely lose it.

 

[LawFitz]

What's that cliche? You can't win a league with your first pick but you can definitely lose it.

I buy this.

 

[Manster]

I understand the appeal of McFadden but I'd much rather take risky, upside-based picks in the middle rounds instead of round 1.

This

 

[Garrett]

How many people who took Chris Johnson in the first round won their league last year?

 

[Kleck]

I understand the appeal of McFadden but I'd much rather take risky, upside-based picks in the middle rounds instead of round 1.

This

Typically what I do too. Focus more on consistent, solid guys in the first few rounds.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I have never nailed my first round pick but then again I do not swing that way

 

[jurb26]

I understand the appeal of McFadden but I'd much rather take risky, upside-based picks in the middle rounds instead of round 1.

This

Typically what I do too. Focus more on consistent, solid guys in the first few rounds.

The problem with this thinking is that being consistent, solid guys is what gets them drafted in the 1st few rounds. Some of those so called consisent and solid guys will not turn out as such when the season is over. It may be injury, it may be underperforming but it's going to happen to several players nobody thought it would.

 

[MAC_32]

You don't have to, but your margin for error is greatly reduced if you miss. Most championship teams have the most star players, it's easiest to find a star at the top of the draft. If you miss on your first rounder then you're banking on finding this year's Gronk, Cruz, Stafford, etc.

That said, I don't spend much time analyzing the top of the draft, I spend the majority of my time filtering through the middle and deeper crop.

 

[Sabertooth]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

 

[MAC_32]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

I've never bought into the 'anyone can get hurt' argument. Yes, anyone CAN get hurt, but some people are more injury prone than others. I think DMC is more injury prone than Calvin, Larry, and a host of other early round options. If he's there in the 2nd after Richardson, AD, Forte, etc. are gone then I'll consider him. I was more comfortable with him last year when there was a natural handcuff, doesn't look like it this year.

 

[butcher boy]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

 

[Instinctive]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

 

[MAC_32]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

I'd argue any of those top RB's that have made it through a season unscathed, especially those who have done it multiple times, are less prone to injury than DMC. Skinny legs, multiple lower body injuries - there's reason to believe he is more likely to get injured than others. Once he does it for a full season I think it's fair to re-evaluate, see Reggie Bush.

 

[TheGrimReaper]

If you go back and look, end of season at your "draft" or "auction" in each of your leagues, you are going to see hits and misses. Nobody is perfect. If you say you are, you're lying, plain and simple.

Your 1st rounder doesnt have to be a "homerun", but it has to be solid.

I firmly believe in the saying, "You cant win your draft in the 1st 4 rounds, but you can lose it there."

You have to avoid the 1st thru 4th round "bust" and be solid throughout. If you can do that, you put yourself in good position to make the playoffs, and then anything can happen.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Instinctive]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

I'd argue any of those top RB's that have made it through a season unscathed, especially those who have done it multiple times, are less prone to injury than DMC. Skinny legs, multiple lower body injuries - there's reason to believe he is more likely to get injured than others. Once he does it for a full season I think it's fair to re-evaluate, see Reggie Bush.

Why? Is Reggie Bush magically less injury prone now? Or was he just unlucky a couple seasons in a row? None of McFadden's issues have been degenerative or Chronic. He had turf toe that has never come back, a freak lis franc thing, the broken eye socket (definition of freak injury IMO)...it's not like he's Troy Aikman having yet another back surgery or Jahvid Best about to have his 14th concussion (just to be clear, that's an exaggeration...).People said the same thing about Steven Jackson - he got unlucky. He had a couple injuries that occurred in back to back seasons. Since then? He's become magically tougher and less injury prone as he ages? NO. He just hasn't been as unlucky.

 

[-jb-]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

 

[Instinctive]

If you go back and look, end of season at your "draft" or "auction" in each of your leagues, you are going to see hits and misses. Nobody is perfect. If you say you are, you're lying, plain and simple. Your 1st rounder doesnt have to be a "homerun", but it has to be solid. I firmly believe in the saying, "You cant win your draft in the 1st 4 rounds, but you can lose it there." You have to avoid the 1st thru 4th round "bust" and be solid throughout. If you can do that, you put yourself in good position to make the playoffs, and then anything can happen.Just my 2 cents

I think it can cost you a ton in the first few rounds....but you can also definitely win your draft there. Having one of those guys in the first round who goes on to double anyone else's VBD and have a record breaking season can definitely put you through to the playoffs with ease.

 

[butcher boy]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

While I'd tend to agree that the RB position as a whole is more prone to injury, there are still guys within the position who are more prone than others. I wouldn't label McCoy as an injury risk for example. Rice either for the most part. Mathews gets the label because of his growing reputation to take himself out of games at the first sign of pain. It's not rocket science. It's looking at the players' history to determine trends.

 

[Instinctive]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.

Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

While I'd tend to agree that the RB position as a whole is more prone to injury, there are still guys within the position who are more prone than others. I wouldn't label McCoy as an injury risk for example. Rice either for the most part. Mathews gets the label because of his growing reputation to take himself out of games at the first sign of pain. It's not rocket science. It's looking at the players' history to determine trends.

I know you wouldn't. That's my point. You're wrong to do so. If Rice got hurt this year, say he has a quad injury. And then again next year, with a high ankle sprain. Misses 5 games each season. At age 27, is he suddenly a guy more prone to injury?What are you saying makes a guy injury prone? Is he genetically more likely to get injured? Are his muscles different? Not enough milk growing up for his bones? Or do you only label a guy injury prone because he got hurt a couple times in a short period, and then he's not injury prone anymore when he makes it through a season or two?

Edit: to bold the quote

 

[butcher boy]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.

Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

While I'd tend to agree that the RB position as a whole is more prone to injury, there are still guys within the position who are more prone than others. I wouldn't label McCoy as an injury risk for example. Rice either for the most part. Mathews gets the label because of his growing reputation to take himself out of games at the first sign of pain. It's not rocket science. It's looking at the players' history to determine trends.

I know you wouldn't. That's my point. You're wrong to do so. If Rice got hurt this year, say he has a quad injury. And then again next year, with a high ankle sprain. Misses 5 games each season. At age 27, is he suddenly a guy more prone to injury?What are you saying makes a guy injury prone? Is he genetically more likely to get injured? Are his muscles different? Not enough milk growing up for his bones? Or do you only label a guy injury prone because he got hurt a couple times in a short period, and then he's not injury prone anymore when he makes it through a season or two?

Edit: to bold the quote

I don't understand why this is so difficult. To answer your question, yes if a guy has a history of getting hurt and missing games, I'll label him injury prone. Until that happens, the player is not. I'm fully aware that no one is 100% immune to injury, but the best we can do as fantasy prognosticators is look at history and tendencies and assign risk based on that.Different people handle pain differently. Read what I posted about Mathews and his growing rep as being a softy. Compare him to a guy like Gore or Big Ben who both have a history of playing through pain and injuries. Every player is different and yes some guys are simply more prone to miss time than others.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

Steven Jackson, Frank Gore, Isaac Bruce, Aaron Rodgers (yes he had the injury prone label for a while), Matt Stafford, etc.

 

[Instinctive]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.

Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

While I'd tend to agree that the RB position as a whole is more prone to injury, there are still guys within the position who are more prone than others. I wouldn't label McCoy as an injury risk for example. Rice either for the most part. Mathews gets the label because of his growing reputation to take himself out of games at the first sign of pain. It's not rocket science. It's looking at the players' history to determine trends.

I know you wouldn't. That's my point. You're wrong to do so. If Rice got hurt this year, say he has a quad injury. And then again next year, with a high ankle sprain. Misses 5 games each season. At age 27, is he suddenly a guy more prone to injury?What are you saying makes a guy injury prone? Is he genetically more likely to get injured? Are his muscles different? Not enough milk growing up for his bones? Or do you only label a guy injury prone because he got hurt a couple times in a short period, and then he's not injury prone anymore when he makes it through a season or two?

Edit: to bold the quote

I don't understand why this is so difficult. To answer your question, yes if a guy has a history of getting hurt and missing games, I'll label him injury prone. Until that happens, the player is not. I'm fully aware that no one is 100% immune to injury, but the best we can do as fantasy prognosticators is look at history and tendencies and assign risk based on that.Different people handle pain differently. Read what I posted about Mathews and his growing rep as being a softy. Compare him to a guy like Gore or Big Ben who both have a history of playing through pain and injuries. Every player is different and yes some guys are simply more prone to miss time than others.

You make my point for me!Gore was a guy labeled as injury prone as recently as prior to drafts LAST YEAR. And he was labeled as injury prone coming out of college. And everyone's favoite knock on Gore in recent years has ben "well you know he's going to miss a couple games."

Let's be clear - you're moving the goalposts now. Being soft and being injury prone are two different things - I can understand labeling a guy soft and perhaps avoiding him because he come sout of the game after harder hits a lot and needs a breather.

You don't understand why this is difficult because you don't get it yet, but the lightbulb's about to go on, so bear with me.

To answer your question, yes if a guy has a history of getting hurt and missing games, I'll label him injury prone. Until that happens, the player is not

Ok: WHY? Missing games does not make someone injury prone. That's a total bastardization of cause and effect. You miss games because you are injured, and you would be more likely to get injured if you were injury prone (make sense?). The reason for being injury prone can't be missing games - missing games is a result of being injury prone. It's circular logic. What I am saying is this: If a guy is injury prone, there's a reason. He's not just magically more likely to get injured, something about him is different from other players/people in general. Are you with me? (this is not sarcasm by the way - I can see where this can get confusing and want to try and explain the concept as best I can)

You're using a bad process by looking at an effect to see if a guy is injury prone, when you should be looking for a cause. For instance, if a guy has an actual degenerative knee condition, he's probably prone to injury in his knees - regardless of whether or not he has missed games already. Missing games does not make one injury prone - something that makes you injury prone does. Missing games is a result of that.

We can use concussions as an example: We'll say that each concussion makes you more likely to have another concussion. As such, when a player has a concussion, he becomes more likely to have another. So when Jahvid Best has 4, he is much more likely to have another one, which in turn makes him even more likely to have another, and so on and so forth...as such, one could call Jahvid Best injury prone - somethign about HIM, his person, his body, makes him more likely to get injured.

His missing games did not make him injury prone - the concussions did.

Now, to apply this to McFadden: McFadden (to my knowledge) has not had injuries which build on each other or make you weaker in places or make you more likely to re-injure yourself. He's just had discrete instances of injury - I would call that unlucky, not injury prone.

Get it now?

 

[Instinctive]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

Steven Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Aaron Rodgers (yes he had the injury prone label for a while), Matt Stafford, etc.

Fred Taylor's just the easiest.SJax is a really good one, agreed.GoreMatt SchaubAndre JohnsonThe two Texans are interesting, because everyone decided they were injury prone, then for a couple years they weren't injury prone, and now they seem to be injury prone again. Did they magically heal and become non0injury prone people for a year or two? Or have they always been injury prone and just got lucky for a year or two? Or are they the same as all the other players and just got unlucky a couple times (my choice)? Especially when you note that their injuries are, respectively, unrelated to each other.

 

[MAC_32]

Just don't bag it up. I agree with MAC_32. This is why guys like Calvin and Larry come into play. Very little chance they don't finish in the Top 10 for wideouts. Much better chance of a guy like DMC falling out of the top 20 for backs.

Even this line of thinking while ostensively reasonable, is dangerous. Just because Calvin and Larry have been solid every year doesn't mean that they are any less immune to injury. Just because DMC is hurt every year, doesn't foretell with any certainty that he will be hurt again. Consensus would agree with you though. But in the first round, I think it’s a losing strategy to go with consensus. There will always be a huge gang of people bemoaning their luck of choosing lousy first round picks and point to the shirt icons. But reality is NO ONE is a "safe" pick in the first round.

Yes, and while no one can predict injuries 100%, you CAN accurately label guys as more prone to get hurt. DMac gets hurt EVERY year. He's fragile. If I had to put money down, I'd bet that he's more likely to get hurt than Aaron Rodgers or Calvin who are both there at around the same ADP.There is nothing wrong with consensus when the consensus uses the FACT that some guys simply get hurt all the time and earn their fragile label.

And ten years ago you'd have said the same thing about Fred Taylor...then you'd have gone on to miss three straight years of 1500+ total yards, 300+ touches (sorry, 296 one year), and almost 8+ TDs a year.I too would bet DMC is more likely to get hurt than Rodgers or Calvin. I'd also bet the same about Mathews, Foster, Rice, McCoy...because they all play RB, where players are much more likely to get hurt than WRs or QBs.Larry and Calvin as people aren't more (you say less up there, but you mean more) immune to injury...but Larry and Calvin as WRs are certainly more immune than players at RB are. That's the reason you take a top wideout, TE, or QB early - they're just as, if not more consistent year to year, and the positions they play carry less injury risk.

I'd argue any of those top RB's that have made it through a season unscathed, especially those who have done it multiple times, are less prone to injury than DMC. Skinny legs, multiple lower body injuries - there's reason to believe he is more likely to get injured than others. Once he does it for a full season I think it's fair to re-evaluate, see Reggie Bush.

Why? Is Reggie Bush magically less injury prone now? Or was he just unlucky a couple seasons in a row? None of McFadden's issues have been degenerative or Chronic. He had turf toe that has never come back, a freak lis franc thing, the broken eye socket (definition of freak injury IMO)...it's not like he's Troy Aikman having yet another back surgery or Jahvid Best about to have his 14th concussion (just to be clear, that's an exaggeration...).People said the same thing about Steven Jackson - he got unlucky. He had a couple injuries that occurred in back to back seasons. Since then? He's become magically tougher and less injury prone as he ages? NO. He just hasn't been as unlucky.

Turf toe and the foot injury, it's reasonable to assume the turf toe injury led to the foot injury due to over compensation. This is a big issue in injury recovery, that you over compensate for the issue and cause something else. I don't get concerned when a guy has one injury, it happens, but when I think one injury leads to another injury I do. If he proves himself recovered I'll buy in again, but at his current price I don't think he's worth the risk. Maybe next year.

 

[butcher boy]

I dont think we're going to agree on this. I hear what you're saying about guys being unlucky and not having degenerative conditions, but I really do think that some guys are more fragile than others. It may have to do with conditioning, offseason training, etc. but I'm not willing to chalk up the history for some of these guys entirely as luck.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

Steven Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Aaron Rodgers (yes he had the injury prone label for a while), Matt Stafford, etc.

Fred Taylor's just the easiest.SJax is a really good one, agreed.GoreMatt SchaubAndre JohnsonThe two Texans are interesting, because everyone decided they were injury prone, then for a couple years they weren't injury prone, and now they seem to be injury prone again. Did they magically heal and become non0injury prone people for a year or two? Or have they always been injury prone and just got lucky for a year or two? Or are they the same as all the other players and just got unlucky a couple times (my choice)? Especially when you note that their injuries are, respectively, unrelated to each other.

Isaac Bruce was notorious for his hamstring injuries early in his career and then all of a sudden he was an ironman that played until his late 30s. Remember when Stafford's shoulders were made of glass? Now he's a first rounder in dynasty start-ups.There's a famous quote in fantasy baseball circles (by a Bll James disciple who's name I am forgetting) that says: "There's two type of pitchers in baseball. Those that are injured and those that are not injured, yet." The same applies to NFL players, especially RBs. I love Rice and McCoy and hope they stay healthy the rest of their careers, but its doubtful that they will. I guess people will then wonder how they lost their magical ability not to get injured. When McFadden puts two healthy seasons in a row together i guess he'll have found that magic somehow. It's such a silly concept.

 

[Instinctive]

I dont think we're going to agree on this. I hear what you're saying about guys being unlucky and not having degenerative conditions, but I really do think that some guys are more fragile than others. It may have to do with conditioning, offseason training, etc. but I'm not willing to chalk up the history for some of these guys entirely as luck.

So is Steven Jackson injury prone or not?I'm just wondering: what is it that makes you think it makes sense for a guy to be injury prone, and then suddenly not be anymore? Who he is didn't change.

 

[Instinctive]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

Steven Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Aaron Rodgers (yes he had the injury prone label for a while), Matt Stafford, etc.

Fred Taylor's just the easiest.SJax is a really good one, agreed.GoreMatt SchaubAndre JohnsonThe two Texans are interesting, because everyone decided they were injury prone, then for a couple years they weren't injury prone, and now they seem to be injury prone again. Did they magically heal and become non0injury prone people for a year or two? Or have they always been injury prone and just got lucky for a year or two? Or are they the same as all the other players and just got unlucky a couple times (my choice)? Especially when you note that their injuries are, respectively, unrelated to each other.

Isaac Bruce was notorious for his hamstring injuries early in his career and then all of a sudden he was an ironman that played until his late 30s. Remember when Stafford's shoulders were made of glass? Now he's a first rounder in dynasty start-ups.There's a famous quote in fantasy baseball circles (by a Bll James disciple who's name I am forgetting) that says: "There's two type of pitchers in baseball. Those that are injured and those that are not injured, yet." The same applies to NFL players, especially RBs. I love Rice and McCoy and hope they stay healthy the rest of their careers, but its doubtful that they will. I guess people will then wonder how they lost their magical ability not to get injured. When McFadden puts two healthy seasons in a row together i guess he'll have found that magic somehow. It's such a silly concept.

Someone who gets it. Yay!And big Bill James fan.

 

[One]

The bigger the league, the more important it is to land a safe 1st rd pick.

8-10 teamers can draft a punter with the 1st pick and still kill it.

It's rare that I see a team with a 1st round bust win it all in my 14-16 team leagues.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

Steven Jackson, Isaac Bruce, Aaron Rodgers (yes he had the injury prone label for a while), Matt Stafford, etc.

Fred Taylor's just the easiest.SJax is a really good one, agreed.GoreMatt SchaubAndre JohnsonThe two Texans are interesting, because everyone decided they were injury prone, then for a couple years they weren't injury prone, and now they seem to be injury prone again. Did they magically heal and become non0injury prone people for a year or two? Or have they always been injury prone and just got lucky for a year or two? Or are they the same as all the other players and just got unlucky a couple times (my choice)? Especially when you note that their injuries are, respectively, unrelated to each other.

Isaac Bruce was notorious for his hamstring injuries early in his career and then all of a sudden he was an ironman that played until his late 30s. Remember when Stafford's shoulders were made of glass? Now he's a first rounder in dynasty start-ups.There's a famous quote in fantasy baseball circles (by a Bll James disciple who's name I am forgetting) that says: "There's two type of pitchers in baseball. Those that are injured and those that are not injured, yet." The same applies to NFL players, especially RBs. I love Rice and McCoy and hope they stay healthy the rest of their careers, but its doubtful that they will. I guess people will then wonder how they lost their magical ability not to get injured. When McFadden puts two healthy seasons in a row together i guess he'll have found that magic somehow. It's such a silly concept.

stafford stupidly didnt have his shoulder surgically repaired after the first injury. Then Dr. Andrews got in there and now he can take a hit. We will see if he can avoid the bug this year.

 

[Pura Vida]

You can not win a SB with your first pick. However, you can lose a SB with your first pick. Make it count!

 

[-jb-]

Everyone always references Fred Taylor. Are there any others that we can come up with? One player does not disprove the theory.

Steven Jackson, Frank Gore, Isaac Bruce, Aaron Rodgers (yes he had the injury prone label for a while), Matt Stafford, etc.

I'll give you Gore and Stafford. Those are good ones. I still consider Jackson to come with some injury risk, Bruce wasn't ever an injury risk (he missed multiple games in 5 out of 15 years, one of which was the year he retired), and I never considered Rodgers an injury risk.

 

[MAC_32]

Stafford and Rodgers were never on my list. Jackson only was the year he held out, for good reason. His physical style and high quantity of career touches is starting to be a concern though. Doubt he's on any of my teams this year because I'm looking at RB's early and WR's and QB around his ADP.

Gore's been on the list for a while though, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be on there. Been running on bionic knees since coming into the league and constantly misses game time. I rode him his first big year because he was cheap, but I've stayed away from him since.

I'm getting wary about Andre Johnson too, not so much that I'll avoid him but enough to knock him down a round - seems most have. His injury last year is sending up red flags as he just can't seem to stay away from those lower body injuries. If I can find someone with a young WR and either a decent RB2 or an Aaron Hernandez type TE I'll move him in my dyno.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Fred Taylor.

 

[TheFootballJesus]

Stafford and Rodgers were never on my list. Jackson only was the year he held out, for good reason. His physical style and high quantity of career touches is starting to be a concern though. Doubt he's on any of my teams this year because I'm looking at RB's early and WR's and QB around his ADP.Gore's been on the list for a while though, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be on there. Been running on bionic knees since coming into the league and constantly misses game time. I rode him his first big year because he was cheap, but I've stayed away from him since.I'm getting wary about Andre Johnson too, not so much that I'll avoid him but enough to knock him down a round - seems most have. His injury last year is sending up red flags as he just can't seem to stay away from those lower body injuries. If I can find someone with a young WR and either a decent RB2 or an Aaron Hernandez type TE I'll move him in my dyno.

To be fair though, Andre Johnson has only missed more than 3 games in a season twice in a 9 year career. I agree, he seems to get banged up a lot, but if I had to guess I'd say he's a lot more likely to miss just a couple games this season rather than a significant portion.

 

[Instinctive]

Fred Taylor.

Thanks for reading all the posts above you that didn't mention him at all. We're sooooo glad you showed up to contribute here, or we never would have mentioned him.