If you draft a rookie RB for situation (1 Viewer)

[Go deep]

In all seriousness, your right, there is a fine line of situation/talent that needs to be establsihed. Im a talent over situation guy, more so in dynasty than redraft, but i understand situation plays a huge role. Its not Emmitt Smiths talent that has him as the NFL leading rusher. Does Terrell Davis rush for 2000 yards without Shanny? Think Priest Holmes or Arian Foster would have finsihed as the #1 fantasy RB on talent alone. However, when trying to evaluate a player, i think you should start with talent and go from there. Edit, as for Hunter, i tend to agree with you, and i use a players draft position to help guage his talent. However, if someone really believes Hunter is that much more talented than Carter, i dont have a problem with that.

I really think you just enhanceed my argument. People not giving more weight to situation may have missed 10+ years of Emmitt. Same for Davis and Holmes had their careers not been cut short by injuries. And the same will be true for Foster. Those ranking Foster low because of perceived talent may miss out on years of top 5 production due to situation. Houston has absolutely no reason to draft a "more talented" RB if Foster continues to finish inthe top 5 every year.Situation should receive far more weight than it does (especailly at the RB position).

Im not really arguing agsinst you, so partly enhancing your argument is what i was trying to do(or at least not trying to avoid it)How many RB's from Denver did you overdraft because of situation after Terrell Davis? Again, there are alot of variables one must be aware of when evaluating a player, situation is one of them, its just not more important than talent.

 

[JamesTheScot]

A few years back Steve McNair was an underrated QB. Then, so many people started using the "Steve McNair is perennially underrated" argument with absolution that he actually became overrated. For years, people that saw McNair as underrated were ahead of the curve, they were sharks. By the end of it, it was so overused and poorly placed that saying it became the sign of a guppy.

This "talent over situation" phrase has followed the same path. 3-4 years ago you only heard the sharks saying it. While guppies gobbled up guys in great situations, the sharks were content to sit back and wait and get the more talented player who would shine through eventually.

Now though, people have taken it to far. "Talent over situation" is used in absolution, and that's stupid.

Situation has a place in fantasy football. A big place. I've ALWAYS been a talent over situation type guy, but people are taking it way too far. This isn't the same argument we had 5 years ago when people were talking about taking an obviously less talented player *extremely* early in drafts. We're talking about late 1st round rookie picks and mid-round redraft picks here. At that point, sometimes it's worth the risk. Mediocre talents in good situations often amount to nothing. But sometimes, and not all that rarely, they win fantasy championships for people.

Again, we're talking about the late 1st round of rookie drafts and middle rounds of regular drafts here. Most people picked in those spots are going to be busts anyway. It's not like people are passing up on Adrian Peterson for Roy Helu. They're passing up on other guys who are just as unlikely to ever amount to anything worthwhile.

The other thing that people need to start taking account of to improve their fantasy football game is that they can be wrong about players. If I'm rating two players on a scale of 1-10, and I rate one of them a 6 and one of them a 5, if the 5 is in a significantly better situation I'll take him every time. Why? Because my opinions on their talent aren't their actual talent, and if I have the two rated even semi-close (or if we're talking about two guys where I don't have either as particularly elite talents) then I'd rather take my chances with the guy who has the opportunity to be an FF superstar if that talent actually is there.

I'm still a talent over situation guy, but people use the phrase with way too much absolution nowadays. Just repeating those words doesn't make you a shark like some people seem to think it does. All I hear is "Hey guys, look at me, I heard someone say talent over situation so now I use it everywhere, that means that I really know my stuff".

Extremely I'm so sick of the talent over situation argument, mainly because it all hinges on one person's personal opinion about who is more talented. For example, someone above made a claim that he took 'talent' over 'situation' when he drafted Hunter over Carter. Really? Hunter was drafted 4 spots ahead of Carter in the NFL draft! How much more talent could he possibly have?!!!!

Are you guys suggesting that Situatuion is more important than talent, or are you just sick of hearing it?

I cant speak for the guy who said Hunter was more talented than Carter, but maybe he believes Hunter is more talented and not based on draft spot.

Ultimately talent is really all that matters. Sure, Helu and Carter have great opportunities but if they suck its not really going to matter.

Not to suggest situation shouldn't be taken into consideration, but I wouldn't draft someone based solely on it.

I think you have a reconciliation problem with those two statements. If talent is "all" that matters, then situation shouldn't be taken into account.Unless you realize that talent isn't really as objective as we pretend it is. It's relative.

If the rook is more talented than the vet, the vet will give way and talent wins out.

If the vet is more talented, then the rook will never take over.

And what do we call that relative comparison of talent, fellas?

We call it situation.

 

[Hoosier16]

In all seriousness, your right, there is a fine line of situation/talent that needs to be establsihed. Im a talent over situation guy, more so in dynasty than redraft, but i understand situation plays a huge role. Its not Emmitt Smiths talent that has him as the NFL leading rusher. Does Terrell Davis rush for 2000 yards without Shanny? Think Priest Holmes or Arian Foster would have finsihed as the #1 fantasy RB on talent alone. However, when trying to evaluate a player, i think you should start with talent and go from there. Edit, as for Hunter, i tend to agree with you, and i use a players draft position to help guage his talent. However, if someone really believes Hunter is that much more talented than Carter, i dont have a problem with that.

I really think you just enhanceed my argument. People not giving more weight to situation may have missed 10+ years of Emmitt. Same for Davis and Holmes had their careers not been cut short by injuries. And the same will be true for Foster. Those ranking Foster low because of perceived talent may miss out on years of top 5 production due to situation. Houston has absolutely no reason to draft a "more talented" RB if Foster continues to finish inthe top 5 every year.Situation should receive far more weight than it does (especailly at the RB position).

Im not really arguing agsinst you, so partly enhancing your argument is what i was trying to do(or at least not trying to avoid it)How many RB's from Denver did you overdraft because of situation after Terrell Davis? Again, there are alot of variables one must be aware of when evaluating a player, situation is one of them, its just not more important than talent.

How many RBs did you overdraft based upon talent instead of situation? Probably just as many.Maybe we're similar but I think I probably value situation much more than you do.

 

[Hoosier16]

In all seriousness, your right, there is a fine line of situation/talent that needs to be establsihed. Im a talent over situation guy, more so in dynasty than redraft, but i understand situation plays a huge role. Its not Emmitt Smiths talent that has him as the NFL leading rusher. Does Terrell Davis rush for 2000 yards without Shanny? Think Priest Holmes or Arian Foster would have finsihed as the #1 fantasy RB on talent alone. However, when trying to evaluate a player, i think you should start with talent and go from there. Edit, as for Hunter, i tend to agree with you, and i use a players draft position to help guage his talent. However, if someone really believes Hunter is that much more talented than Carter, i dont have a problem with that.

I really think you just enhanceed my argument. People not giving more weight to situation may have missed 10+ years of Emmitt. Same for Davis and Holmes had their careers not been cut short by injuries. And the same will be true for Foster. Those ranking Foster low because of perceived talent may miss out on years of top 5 production due to situation. Houston has absolutely no reason to draft a "more talented" RB if Foster continues to finish inthe top 5 every year.Situation should receive far more weight than it does (especailly at the RB position).

Im not really arguing agsinst you, so partly enhancing your argument is what i was trying to do(or at least not trying to avoid it)How many RB's from Denver did you overdraft because of situation after Terrell Davis? Again, there are alot of variables one must be aware of when evaluating a player, situation is one of them, its just not more important than talent.

How many RBs did you overdraft based upon talent instead of situation? Probably just as many.Maybe we're similar but I think I probably value situation much more than you do.

After reading the Helu/Carter thread, I tihnk you factor situation more than I thought. But, that just makes your ranking of Foster all the more mind boggling to me.

 

[Brothers Mayhem]

I don't like drafting based solely on either situation alone nor talent alone - rather, I try to seek out that perfect marriage between the two. Admittedly, it is easier said than done. But that doesn't change the fact that when you are on the clock and are breaking down your options, some choices are gonna be better options for you simply because of the level of talent that player has. Other times your choices will be such that your best option is a player that is in an extremely fortunate situation, so he becomes the better draft pick at that particular time.

Every year, some player is gonna find themselves in a spot where they can benefit from a situation that makes them a better fantasy option on draft day, while others will be the best pick because of their talent. I know some Shonn Greene owners from last year who wished they went situation over talent while some Hillis owners are ecstatic they went situation over talent. Then again, their are the A. Foster owners who were more than satisfied they went talent over R. Grant's or R. Mathews situation.

Tough game to play IMO, but the owners that are skillful at balancing the two, do well IMO. This topic has me thinking though. Because when I look back at some my previous years drafts, I discovered that while on the clock, if I see that my choices present both scenario's - I would lean talent in the critical rounds of the draft and then lean heavily on situation in the later rounds.

This may be one of them areas that fall into the "No wrong answer" category. Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Go deep]

In all seriousness, your right, there is a fine line of situation/talent that needs to be establsihed. Im a talent over situation guy, more so in dynasty than redraft, but i understand situation plays a huge role. Its not Emmitt Smiths talent that has him as the NFL leading rusher. Does Terrell Davis rush for 2000 yards without Shanny? Think Priest Holmes or Arian Foster would have finsihed as the #1 fantasy RB on talent alone. However, when trying to evaluate a player, i think you should start with talent and go from there. Edit, as for Hunter, i tend to agree with you, and i use a players draft position to help guage his talent. However, if someone really believes Hunter is that much more talented than Carter, i dont have a problem with that.

I really think you just enhanceed my argument. People not giving more weight to situation may have missed 10+ years of Emmitt. Same for Davis and Holmes had their careers not been cut short by injuries. And the same will be true for Foster. Those ranking Foster low because of perceived talent may miss out on years of top 5 production due to situation. Houston has absolutely no reason to draft a "more talented" RB if Foster continues to finish inthe top 5 every year.Situation should receive far more weight than it does (especailly at the RB position).

Im not really arguing agsinst you, so partly enhancing your argument is what i was trying to do(or at least not trying to avoid it)How many RB's from Denver did you overdraft because of situation after Terrell Davis? Again, there are alot of variables one must be aware of when evaluating a player, situation is one of them, its just not more important than talent.

How many RBs did you overdraft based upon talent instead of situation? Probably just as many.Maybe we're similar but I think I probably value situation much more than you do.

After reading the Helu/Carter thread, I tihnk you factor situation more than I thought. But, that just makes your ranking of Foster all the more mind boggling to me.

I factor in situation for RB's more than other positions, but talent still is #1. Foster would be a top 5 RB in redrafts, but situation doesnt last forever, and this is likely Kubiaks last year.

 

[Multiple Scores]

I agree with the point that the colts line should be improved. However the fact remains that 91% of 4/5th round RBs are busts. Taking a guy with that bust rate is silly in the mid/late first round of drafts. I would take a chance at a lottery ticket with carter over helu though but never in the first round.

This logic is fallacious, because 91% of 4/5th round RBs aren't drafted in the first round of fantasy drafts. What is the bust rate on 4/5th round RBs who land in good enough situations that people want to draft them that highly?

I love your logic. So if us geeks draft them high in our geek drafts they have a better shot? Call all NFL gms and let them know fantasy geeks will start running their NFL drafts. And you question my logic? It's not my logic btw it's fact.

You have it backwards; if they have a better shot, we geeks draft them higher in our geek drafts. A RB drafted in the fourth round who's sitting on the practice squad, or deep on the depth chart, will not be drafted in the first round of fantasy drafts, while an RB drafted in the fourth round who is the clear starter on a good offense will be. So a stat that's about how many practice-squad RBs never become starters has no relevance to the question of whether a starting RB will produce or not. On average, fourth round RBs are less talented than third round RBs, who are less talented than second round RBs and so on. That doesn't mean that every third round RB is better than every fourth round RB.

I counted 3 good RBS from the past 10 years and they were Turner, Marion Barber and Jacobs. If you think about it Turner was drafted to play behind LT who was lighting the league on fire at that point and was in his prime years, Jacobs was put where Tiki was doing well, Barber... I don't know. Even Rudi Johnson if you go back 11 years was drafted where Corey Dillon was putting up big numbers. So if Barber was drafted to be the starter then he was the best RB drafted to be a clear starter in 10 years, too me that reeks of failure.

 

[ZWK]

I agree with the point that the colts line should be improved. However the fact remains that 91% of 4/5th round RBs are busts. Taking a guy with that bust rate is silly in the mid/late first round of drafts. I would take a chance at a lottery ticket with carter over helu though but never in the first round.

This logic is fallacious, because 91% of 4/5th round RBs aren't drafted in the first round of fantasy drafts. What is the bust rate on 4/5th round RBs who land in good enough situations that people want to draft them that highly?

I love your logic. So if us geeks draft them high in our geek drafts they have a better shot? Call all NFL gms and let them know fantasy geeks will start running their NFL drafts. And you question my logic? It's not my logic btw it's fact.

You have it backwards; if they have a better shot, we geeks draft them higher in our geek drafts. A RB drafted in the fourth round who's sitting on the practice squad, or deep on the depth chart, will not be drafted in the first round of fantasy drafts, while an RB drafted in the fourth round who is the clear starter on a good offense will be. So a stat that's about how many practice-squad RBs never become starters has no relevance to the question of whether a starting RB will produce or not. On average, fourth round RBs are less talented than third round RBs, who are less talented than second round RBs and so on. That doesn't mean that every third round RB is better than every fourth round RB.

I counted 3 good RBS from the past 10 years and they were Turner, Marion Barber and Jacobs. If you think about it Turner was drafted to play behind LT who was lighting the league on fire at that point and was in his prime years, Jacobs was put where Tiki was doing well, Barber... I don't know. Even Rudi Johnson if you go back 11 years was drafted where Corey Dillon was putting up big numbers. So if Barber was drafted to be the starter then he was the best RB drafted to be a clear starter in 10 years, too me that reeks of failure.

You missed Domanick Williams (Houston's 4th rounder in 2003), who became the starter as a rookie and had 3 good fantasy seasons before disappearing.If you keep going back you get to the Denver rookies - 6th rounder Mike Anderson in 2000, 4th rounder Olandis Gary in 1999, and 6th rounder Terrell Davis in 1995. So you can see why people like Helu.