Jamaal Charles should be 1st overall pick (1 Viewer)

[The Sportz Guy]

The RB crew is absolutely atrocious this year. Truly disgusting, really. Either get a top five option or wait and load up on WRs or a QB. The big question? Who should go 1st overall. I've seen several different options, but one makes the most sense to me: Jamaal Charles. He's the safest option (which is vital for a first round selection), and you can count on him to be a lead back and get touches on the ground and through the air. Eddie Lacy is seemingly always dealing with an injury, and Le'Veon Bell is suspended for the first three games. Anyone else who should be in consideration for the top pick? Here's what I have rankings-wise:

[Link removed. Feel free to cut and paste your rankings here. -MT]

I have always valued QBs higher than some, but it doesn't make sense to take one at #1; although, Rodgers and Luck are the safest players in fantasy right now.

 

[ldizzle]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

 

[The Sportz Guy]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

 

[Soulfly3]

Lacy the undisputed #1 RB this year.

No hesitation.

 

[The Sportz Guy]

Lacy the undisputed #1 RB this year.

No hesitation.

Reasoning? I think it's close, but I feel safer with Jamaal Charles.

 

[Shutout]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

You don't have to draft Kniles at all. It's like the Alfred Blue/Johnathan Grimes thing with Foster.

There are certain guys like these guys that, when healthy, they are the alpha and the omega and there is nothing worth wasting a roster spot on in between and if you are saying "draft him #1", then you have weighed the risks and you go with it..and you get that #1 production.

There is no reason fretting injuries. They happen to all the RBs here and there and for several years, they never touched Peterson or Foster or LT or Charles or Shady and they were awesome, awesome backs. At that same time, they Were touching Murray (but then when they didn't, you saw what Murray did).

Just forget the injuries and look at the combination of talent and opportunity and go with it. Right now, we can safely say that there are about 5 RB jobs where a healthy RB=a top 5 RB in fantasy almost by default and Charles is just as good as any of them to be there.

I have no problem going with Charles this year without a Kniles Davis handcuff because I've seen Charles enough over the years to KNOW that last year, he was struggling with nagging things and that is NOT his norm. And I also know when he was able to play (even though, to me, he looked 85% at best most of the entire season), Davis was worthless. as he should be because you don't sit superstars if you know what you're doing.

I love Charles this year. He's healthy, he's motivated, he's on a team that should be able to keep it interesting most weeks but not kill teams and let Charles take a quarter off.

 

[The Sportz Guy]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

You don't have to draft Kniles at all. It's like the Alfred Blue/Johnathan Grimes thing with Foster.

There are certain guys like these guys that, when healthy, they are the alpha and the omega and there is nothing worth wasting a roster spot on in between and if you are saying "draft him #1", then you have weighed the risks and you go with it..and you get that #1 production.

There is no reason fretting injuries. They happen to all the RBs here and there and for several years, they never touched Peterson or Foster or LT or Charles or Shady and they were awesome, awesome backs. At that same time, they Were touching Murray (but then when they didn't, you saw what Murray did).

Just forget the injuries and look at the combination of talent and opportunity and go with it. Right now, we can safely say that there are about 5 RB jobs where a healthy RB=a top 5 RB in fantasy almost by default and Charles is just as good as any of them to be there.

I have no problem going with Charles this year without a Kniles Davis handcuff because I've seen Charles enough over the years to KNOW that last year, he was struggling with nagging things and that is NOT his norm. And I also know when he was able to play (even though, to me, he looked 85% at best most of the entire season), Davis was worthless. as he should be because you don't sit superstars if you know what you're doing.

I love Charles this year. He's healthy, he's motivated, he's on a team that should be able to keep it interesting most weeks but not kill teams and let Charles take a quarter off.

I personally wouldn't take Davis because of his current ADP. He's going too early for me, and like you said, when Charles is healthy, Davis is nearly valueless. I would rather have an impact player at that point in the draft instead of feeling like I have to take Davis. Even if Charles misses a game or so, that other player I draft will have a bigger impact than having Davis for that one or two games.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

You don't have to draft Kniles at all. It's like the Alfred Blue/Johnathan Grimes thing with Foster.

There are certain guys like these guys that, when healthy, they are the alpha and the omega and there is nothing worth wasting a roster spot on in between and if you are saying "draft him #1", then you have weighed the risks and you go with it..and you get that #1 production.

There is no reason fretting injuries. They happen to all the RBs here and there and for several years, they never touched Peterson or Foster or LT or Charles or Shady and they were awesome, awesome backs. At that same time, they Were touching Murray (but then when they didn't, you saw what Murray did).

Just forget the injuries and look at the combination of talent and opportunity and go with it. Right now, we can safely say that there are about 5 RB jobs where a healthy RB=a top 5 RB in fantasy almost by default and Charles is just as good as any of them to be there.

I have no problem going with Charles this year without a Kniles Davis handcuff because I've seen Charles enough over the years to KNOW that last year, he was struggling with nagging things and that is NOT his norm. And I also know when he was able to play (even though, to me, he looked 85% at best most of the entire season), Davis was worthless. as he should be because you don't sit superstars if you know what you're doing.

I love Charles this year. He's healthy, he's motivated, he's on a team that should be able to keep it interesting most weeks but not kill teams and let Charles take a quarter off.

I personally wouldn't take Davis because of his current ADP. He's going too early for me, and like you said, when Charles is healthy, Davis is nearly valueless. I would rather have an impact player at that point in the draft instead of feeling like I have to take Davis. Even if Charles misses a game or so, that other player I draft will have a bigger impact than having Davis for that one or two games.

Yeah, you don't have to draft Davis - just wait until the guy that drafted him drops him after 3-4 weeks of not being able to use him.

 

[The Sportz Guy]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

You don't have to draft Kniles at all. It's like the Alfred Blue/Johnathan Grimes thing with Foster.

There are certain guys like these guys that, when healthy, they are the alpha and the omega and there is nothing worth wasting a roster spot on in between and if you are saying "draft him #1", then you have weighed the risks and you go with it..and you get that #1 production.

There is no reason fretting injuries. They happen to all the RBs here and there and for several years, they never touched Peterson or Foster or LT or Charles or Shady and they were awesome, awesome backs. At that same time, they Were touching Murray (but then when they didn't, you saw what Murray did).

Just forget the injuries and look at the combination of talent and opportunity and go with it. Right now, we can safely say that there are about 5 RB jobs where a healthy RB=a top 5 RB in fantasy almost by default and Charles is just as good as any of them to be there.

I have no problem going with Charles this year without a Kniles Davis handcuff because I've seen Charles enough over the years to KNOW that last year, he was struggling with nagging things and that is NOT his norm. And I also know when he was able to play (even though, to me, he looked 85% at best most of the entire season), Davis was worthless. as he should be because you don't sit superstars if you know what you're doing.

I love Charles this year. He's healthy, he's motivated, he's on a team that should be able to keep it interesting most weeks but not kill teams and let Charles take a quarter off.

I personally wouldn't take Davis because of his current ADP. He's going too early for me, and like you said, when Charles is healthy, Davis is nearly valueless. I would rather have an impact player at that point in the draft instead of feeling like I have to take Davis. Even if Charles misses a game or so, that other player I draft will have a bigger impact than having Davis for that one or two games.

Yeah, you don't have to draft Davis - just wait until the guy that drafted him drops him after 3-4 weeks of not being able to use him.

Precisely.

 

[FUBAR]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

You don't have to draft Kniles at all. It's like the Alfred Blue/Johnathan Grimes thing with Foster. There are certain guys like these guys that, when healthy, they are the alpha and the omega and there is nothing worth wasting a roster spot on in between and if you are saying "draft him #1", then you have weighed the risks and you go with it..and you get that #1 production.

There is no reason fretting injuries. They happen to all the RBs here and there and for several years, they never touched Peterson or Foster or LT or Charles or Shady and they were awesome, awesome backs. At that same time, they Were touching Murray (but then when they didn't, you saw what Murray did).

Just forget the injuries and look at the combination of talent and opportunity and go with it. Right now, we can safely say that there are about 5 RB jobs where a healthy RB=a top 5 RB in fantasy almost by default and Charles is just as good as any of them to be there.

I have no problem going with Charles this year without a Kniles Davis handcuff because I've seen Charles enough over the years to KNOW that last year, he was struggling with nagging things and that is NOT his norm. And I also know when he was able to play (even though, to me, he looked 85% at best most of the entire season), Davis was worthless. as he should be because you don't sit superstars if you know what you're doing.

I love Charles this year. He's healthy, he's motivated, he's on a team that should be able to keep it interesting most weeks but not kill teams and let Charles take a quarter off.

I personally wouldn't take Davis because of his current ADP. He's going too early for me, and like you said, when Charles is healthy, Davis is nearly valueless. I would rather have an impact player at that point in the draft instead of feeling like I have to take Davis. Even if Charles misses a game or so, that other player I draft will have a bigger impact than having Davis for that one or two games.

Yeah, you don't have to draft Davis - just wait until the guy that drafted him drops him after 3-4 weeks of not being able to use him.

Precisely.

Unless you're playing in a draft and forget league. In best ball or other leagues without waivers, I'm all over the Charles / Davis combo.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Sure. Why not. You have to make sure and reach for Knile Davis though. It's the only backfield I feel confident in the backup to be a 3 down back.

To feel extra safe, you may have to draft Davis. What if you don't want to reach for him, though? Would you lean Lacy instead?

You don't have to draft Kniles at all. It's like the Alfred Blue/Johnathan Grimes thing with Foster. There are certain guys like these guys that, when healthy, they are the alpha and the omega and there is nothing worth wasting a roster spot on in between and if you are saying "draft him #1", then you have weighed the risks and you go with it..and you get that #1 production.

There is no reason fretting injuries. They happen to all the RBs here and there and for several years, they never touched Peterson or Foster or LT or Charles or Shady and they were awesome, awesome backs. At that same time, they Were touching Murray (but then when they didn't, you saw what Murray did).

Just forget the injuries and look at the combination of talent and opportunity and go with it. Right now, we can safely say that there are about 5 RB jobs where a healthy RB=a top 5 RB in fantasy almost by default and Charles is just as good as any of them to be there.

I have no problem going with Charles this year without a Kniles Davis handcuff because I've seen Charles enough over the years to KNOW that last year, he was struggling with nagging things and that is NOT his norm. And I also know when he was able to play (even though, to me, he looked 85% at best most of the entire season), Davis was worthless. as he should be because you don't sit superstars if you know what you're doing.

I love Charles this year. He's healthy, he's motivated, he's on a team that should be able to keep it interesting most weeks but not kill teams and let Charles take a quarter off.

I personally wouldn't take Davis because of his current ADP. He's going too early for me, and like you said, when Charles is healthy, Davis is nearly valueless. I would rather have an impact player at that point in the draft instead of feeling like I have to take Davis. Even if Charles misses a game or so, that other player I draft will have a bigger impact than having Davis for that one or two games.

Yeah, you don't have to draft Davis - just wait until the guy that drafted him drops him after 3-4 weeks of not being able to use him.

Precisely.

Unless you're playing in a draft and forget league. In best ball or other leagues without waivers, I'm all over the Charles / Davis combo.

I think Charles is too cheap right now, at least in my leagues. People want to pay late 1st at best, and 3 more years or Charles is easily worth that. I'm put out feelers to buy him elsewhere if this is universal. People act like JC is already in his 30s.

 

[Mario Kart]

I'm pretty sure Lamar Miller should be the #1 pick this year.

 

[Sabertooth]

Lacy the undisputed #1 RB this year.

No hesitation.

Oh ####. Dammit Soulfly don't you Josh Gordon the Packers now.

 

[Soulfly3]

Lacy the undisputed #1 RB this year.

No hesitation.

Oh ####. Dammit Soulfly don't you Josh Gordon the Packers now.

sorry bro

 

[The Sportz Guy]

I'm pretty sure Lamar Miller should be the #1 pick this year.

Maybe if Ajayi weren't there...

 

[travdogg]

I still like Bell. So he's missing 3 games, big deal, they are the three least important ones.

I'd make an argument for Gronk at #1, he's got the biggest drop off to the next best guy out of anyone, and I'm not sweating Brady possibly being gone the first month.

 

[jurb26]

I still like Bell. So he's missing 3 games, big deal, they are the three least important ones.

I'd make an argument for Gronk at #1, he's got the biggest drop off to the next best guy out of anyone, and I'm not sweating Brady possibly being gone the first month.

I assume you mean they are least important because they aren't playoffs games. The problem is, playoffs only matter if you get there. Bell will miss over 20% of the regular season of fantasy. That matters. It could matter a lot.

 

[travdogg]

I still like Bell. So he's missing 3 games, big deal, they are the three least important ones.

I'd make an argument for Gronk at #1, he's got the biggest drop off to the next best guy out of anyone, and I'm not sweating Brady possibly being gone the first month.

I assume you mean they are least important because they aren't playoffs games. The problem is, playoffs only matter if you get there. Bell will miss over 20% of the regular season of fantasy. That matters. It could matter a lot.

But he'll likely be the best guy after those first three weeks. I personally started 0-4 last season and then didn't lose again until the championship.

I don't think drafting Bell #1 means you are dooming yourself to start 0-3 at all either, 1 player doesn't make a team like that. You just start someone else and maybe lose 5-6 points, on average, from what you would usually get.

 

[Shutout]

I still like Bell. So he's missing 3 games, big deal, they are the three least important ones.

I'd make an argument for Gronk at #1, he's got the biggest drop off to the next best guy out of anyone, and I'm not sweating Brady possibly being gone the first month.

I assume you mean they are least important because they aren't playoffs games. The problem is, playoffs only matter if you get there. Bell will miss over 20% of the regular season of fantasy. That matters. It could matter a lot.

But he'll likely be the best guy after those first three weeks. I personally started 0-4 last season and then didn't lose again until the championship.

I don't think drafting Bell #1 means you are dooming yourself to start 0-3 at all either, 1 player doesn't make a team like that. You just start someone else and maybe lose 5-6 points, on average, from what you would usually get.

3 games plus a bye week =31% of your weeks leading to qualify for the playoffs. That's a big drawback. Then if he comes around slow or something, its multiplied. Wouldn't be a big deal if he was an average guy with upside to swing things in your favor but given what it costs to get him, even with the known suspension, it is too much.

And then you have to deal with your assumption that he will be the best when he returns. He has the chance, sure, but it changes more than it stays the same. Are you in year two of an Arian Foster-like run from a few years back or are you in year 4 when he slowed? I'd be willing to give more benefit of the doubt if it weren't for how heavily they relied on him in the passing game (which REALLY boosted his FF status). Much like Foster the year he came off 60+ catches which seemed absurd, it also appeared as if there was absolutely no reason for that to change the next year. No indication given by the player or coaches. But then it did.

Great player but I just cant give away 30% of my season as a given and still pay a first round price. Just seems like a situation where you take the "field" side of that bet.

 

[travdogg]

I still like Bell. So he's missing 3 games, big deal, they are the three least important ones.

I'd make an argument for Gronk at #1, he's got the biggest drop off to the next best guy out of anyone, and I'm not sweating Brady possibly being gone the first month.

I assume you mean they are least important because they aren't playoffs games. The problem is, playoffs only matter if you get there. Bell will miss over 20% of the regular season of fantasy. That matters. It could matter a lot.

But he'll likely be the best guy after those first three weeks. I personally started 0-4 last season and then didn't lose again until the championship.

I don't think drafting Bell #1 means you are dooming yourself to start 0-3 at all either, 1 player doesn't make a team like that. You just start someone else and maybe lose 5-6 points, on average, from what you would usually get.

3 games plus a bye week =31% of your weeks leading to qualify for the playoffs. That's a big drawback. Then if he comes around slow or something, its multiplied. Wouldn't be a big deal if he was an average guy with upside to swing things in your favor but given what it costs to get him, even with the known suspension, it is too much.

And then you have to deal with your assumption that he will be the best when he returns. He has the chance, sure, but it changes more than it stays the same. Are you in year two of an Arian Foster-like run from a few years back or are you in year 4 when he slowed? I'd be willing to give more benefit of the doubt if it weren't for how heavily they relied on him in the passing game (which REALLY boosted his FF status). Much like Foster the year he came off 60+ catches which seemed absurd, it also appeared as if there was absolutely no reason for that to change the next year. No indication given by the player or coaches. But then it did.

Great player but I just cant give away 30% of my season as a given and still pay a first round price. Just seems like a situation where you take the "field" side of that bet.

My issue with taking the field, is that Bell's only wart is the suspension, I don't see anybody else up there that is a sure thing, I mean look at the candidates:

Gronk, missing Brady for first 4 games(probably)

Lacy, lower ceiling because the offense runs through Rodgers, and doesn't do enough work in the passing game

Lynch, pushing 30, doesn't catch enough, and Graham addition could mean fewer carries, or bigger holes, lots of uncertainty

Charles, getting up in years, getting nicked up in the lower body a lot, very reliant of receiving TD's which are fluky for RBs, offense added Maclin, and Kelce is improving.

Murray, coming off huge workload, new team, should see less work

Forte, new staff, under 4 ypc last year, pushing 30.

McCoy, going to much worse offense,

Foster, very injury prone, getting up in years

I don't personally think Peterson is a realistic candidate despite where some rank him, and I hate the idea of a WR at #1 overall unless he's got a Jerry Rice in the early/mid-90's type advantage over all the other guys, which nobody has right now.

I like Bell's issues the most, I'm not worried about his production coming from the passing game, in fact, I prefer it, I think he's a very realistic candidate for 60+ catches despite missing 3 games.

If I had to pick someone other than Bell, I think I'd go with Gronk at the moment.

 

[jurb26]

Charles is 28, these are his prime years. Saying he's getting up there in age is a stretch. Time is contagious, everyone's getting older.

He also had a HAS last year. That can happen to anyone.

Reid loves throwing to his RBs. Maclin isn't going to hurt him. If anything, he helps by making the offense better.

To me he's the clear RB1 in redraft.

 

[bostonfred]

Foster was the number one ppg back last year, has a cheap backup, and is the same age as Charles. They both had minor injuries last year, both missed a season recently, and both are the focal points of offenses that feature the running game. foster doesn't have any real risk of losing carries to blue, but Charles does lose carries to Davis and they could cut his workload back because they have a good backup.

it's amazing to me that foster still isn't in the conversation for number one but Charles is. There just isn't any justification for it.

 

[Dan Hindery]

I think I'd probably take Bell but it would depend a little bit upon the league setup, quality of competition and how confident I was that I could get through the first few weeks without him. DeAngelo Williams will be available super late, so grabbing him is a decent enough option if you don't end up landing a stronger RB3 that you can use as your RB2 for a few weeks for example.

It's also worth remembering that Bell is still going to appeal the suspension and it wouldn't be a surprise to see it reduced to 2 games.

Lastly, I think Bell missing a few games early might end up being a blessing in disguise. Pitt doesn't want to burn him out with 400+ touches. But I think they will be okay with giving him 350+ squeezed into 13 or 14 games.

Bell's going to be such a huge advantage down the stretch that I think it's worth losing the 7 PPG or so over the first 2 to 3 weeks that Charles would give you over Bell's replacement. You start out 14 or 21 points in the hole after the first few weeks, but then Bell chips away at that 2 or 3 points each week the rest of the season vs. the other top RBs.

 

[Rimez]

For me its bell then charles, you can limp your way into the playoffs with clever trades and waiver pickups then you have the #1 overall on your roster. taking charles means overpaying/drafting for davis, charles is no ironman and if he gets banged up before the bye weeks then davis may never hit the waiver wire.

as for lacy, there are 4 RBs 3 WRs and a TE i would draft before him.

 

[Mario Kart]

I'm pretty sure Lamar Miller should be the #1 pick this year.

Maybe if Ajayi weren't there...

Ajayi means nothing. He might spell Miller on a few fourth down plays. No worries.

 

[Shutout]

Foster was the number one ppg back last year, has a cheap backup, and is the same age as Charles. They both had minor injuries last year, both missed a season recently, and both are the focal points of offenses that feature the running game. foster doesn't have any real risk of losing carries to blue, but Charles does lose carries to Davis and they could cut his workload back because they have a good backup.

it's amazing to me that foster still isn't in the conversation for number one but Charles is. There just isn't any justification for it.

I agree that Foster could just as easily be that guy. The problem is you can't have these Foster conversations here without them devolving to nonsense. People STILL just love to hate Foster. He came out of nowhere and burned the non-believers so bad that they just have to have their "KAHNNNN!" moment.

 

[Shutout]

I still like Bell. So he's missing 3 games, big deal, they are the three least important ones.

I'd make an argument for Gronk at #1, he's got the biggest drop off to the next best guy out of anyone, and I'm not sweating Brady possibly being gone the first month.

I assume you mean they are least important because they aren't playoffs games. The problem is, playoffs only matter if you get there. Bell will miss over 20% of the regular season of fantasy. That matters. It could matter a lot.

But he'll likely be the best guy after those first three weeks. I personally started 0-4 last season and then didn't lose again until the championship.

I don't think drafting Bell #1 means you are dooming yourself to start 0-3 at all either, 1 player doesn't make a team like that. You just start someone else and maybe lose 5-6 points, on average, from what you would usually get.

3 games plus a bye week =31% of your weeks leading to qualify for the playoffs. That's a big drawback. Then if he comes around slow or something, its multiplied. Wouldn't be a big deal if he was an average guy with upside to swing things in your favor but given what it costs to get him, even with the known suspension, it is too much.

And then you have to deal with your assumption that he will be the best when he returns. He has the chance, sure, but it changes more than it stays the same. Are you in year two of an Arian Foster-like run from a few years back or are you in year 4 when he slowed? I'd be willing to give more benefit of the doubt if it weren't for how heavily they relied on him in the passing game (which REALLY boosted his FF status). Much like Foster the year he came off 60+ catches which seemed absurd, it also appeared as if there was absolutely no reason for that to change the next year. No indication given by the player or coaches. But then it did.

Great player but I just cant give away 30% of my season as a given and still pay a first round price. Just seems like a situation where you take the "field" side of that bet.

My issue with taking the field, is that Bell's only wart is the suspension, I don't see anybody else up there that is a sure thing, I mean look at the candidates:

Gronk, missing Brady for first 4 games(probably)

Lacy, lower ceiling because the offense runs through Rodgers, and doesn't do enough work in the passing game

Lynch, pushing 30, doesn't catch enough, and Graham addition could mean fewer carries, or bigger holes, lots of uncertainty

Charles, getting up in years, getting nicked up in the lower body a lot, very reliant of receiving TD's which are fluky for RBs, offense added Maclin, and Kelce is improving.

Murray, coming off huge workload, new team, should see less work

Forte, new staff, under 4 ypc last year, pushing 30.

McCoy, going to much worse offense,

Foster, very injury prone, getting up in years

I don't personally think Peterson is a realistic candidate despite where some rank him, and I hate the idea of a WR at #1 overall unless he's got a Jerry Rice in the early/mid-90's type advantage over all the other guys, which nobody has right now.

I like Bell's issues the most, I'm not worried about his production coming from the passing game, in fact, I prefer it, I think he's a very realistic candidate for 60+ catches despite missing 3 games.

If I had to pick someone other than Bell, I think I'd go with Gronk at the moment.

I get what you're saying but I think you mis-cast Lacy a bit and it's hard for me to overlook three more games of Gronk and Lynch on any day. I know the perception of Foster but on any given Sunday, I'd take him over any RB in the league.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

In redraft why wouldnt he be?

 

[sho nuff]

Lacy the undisputed #1 RB this year.

No hesitation.

Reasoning? I think it's close, but I feel safer with Jamaal Charles.

I think Lacy is likely "safer"..but don't think Id take him #1.

Charles has the higher ceiling for sure.

 

[Ace08]

We're talking strictly redraft here right?

No way on earth could I justify taking Charles, who's workload I can't help but envision being slightly reduced by Andy Reid, over a pissed off just released from his cage Adrian Peterson.

I normally don't draft RB's early cause all of my leagues are full point PPR...but Peterson is the exception to the rule. I normally never draft RB's over the age of 28, much less approaching 30, but once again Peterson is the exception to the rule.

Add to that Norv Turner and a competent passing game and I see no way Peterson doesn't lead the league in rushing and finish as the #1 fantasy RB in every format. I'd rank Bell 2nd and Lacy 3rd. I'm just not as high on Charles this year as most in this thread.

 

[TDorBust]

I think Charles is too cheap right now, at least in my leagues. People want to pay late 1st at best, and 3 more years or Charles is easily worth that. I'm put out feelers to buy him elsewhere if this is universal. People act like JC is already in his 30s.

Did I miss something or when was a back any good after age 30? I expect 1 more and at most 2 more years of Charles at his current level. Charles has been the workhorse for the last 6 years and the only thing that has helped him is that the Chiefs have sucks enough that he has not racked up 20-50 additional carries in the post season. Charles will be 29 at the end of this season.

 

[TDorBust]

Lacy the undisputed #1 RB this year.

No hesitation.

Reasoning? I think it's close, but I feel safer with Jamaal Charles.

I think Lacy is likely "safer"..but don't think Id take him #1.

Charles has the higher ceiling for sure.

You can't win the league with 1.01 but you sure can lose it. I feel better about Lacy at 1.01 this year than I did about any of the RBs going into last year.

I don't see taking Charles 1.01 with his age and the potential of the Chiefs just falling flat on their face. On the other hand you know the Packers will be winning games and need to run out the clock. You also know that the Packers will be going up and down the field and Lacy can get a couple rushing and receiving TDs. You also know that the Packers will not run down Lacy where he is worthless down the stretch.

The only upside for Charles is that he is really the only good option in KC. I would rather take the risk of Lacy getting 1 or 2 TDs of the Packers 4-5 TDs a game than Charles creating his own drive for a TD every game.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

I think Charles is too cheap right now, at least in my leagues. People want to pay late 1st at best, and 3 more years or Charles is easily worth that. I'm put out feelers to buy him elsewhere if this is universal. People act like JC is already in his 30s.

Did I miss something or when was a back any good after age 30? I expect 1 more and at most 2 more years of Charles at his current level. Charles has been the workhorse for the last 6 years and the only thing that has helped him is that the Chiefs have sucks enough that he has not racked up 20-50 additional carries in the post season. Charles will be 29 at the end of this season.

 

[TDorBust]

I think Charles is too cheap right now, at least in my leagues. People want to pay late 1st at best, and 3 more years or Charles is easily worth that. I'm put out feelers to buy him elsewhere if this is universal. People act like JC is already in his 30s.

Did I miss something or when was a back any good after age 30? I expect 1 more and at most 2 more years of Charles at his current level. Charles has been the workhorse for the last 6 years and the only thing that has helped him is that the Chiefs have sucks enough that he has not racked up 20-50 additional carries in the post season. Charles will be 29 at the end of this season.

What? You disagree and think Charles will be a #1 RB in 3 years? Please explain your reasoning

 

[barackdhouse]

I don't think you can go wrong taking Charles at 1. Or AP, or Lacy. I'd put Bell above them all if not for the suspension. I like Foster but hate the Texans offense. I like Forte but he's not going to catch 100+ balls this year. I think the top tier of RBs is strong this year, so for me that kills any argument of taking a top WR #1. Gronk would be interesting, though.

 

[fightingillini]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

 

[jurb26]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

I want the #1 pick in every league.

 

[TDorBust]

Charles is 28, these are his prime years. Saying he's getting up there in age is a stretch. Time is contagious, everyone's getting older.

He also had a HAS last year. That can happen to anyone.

Reid loves throwing to his RBs. Maclin isn't going to hurt him. If anything, he helps by making the offense better.

To me he's the clear RB1 in redraft.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/07/16/age-of-decline-rb1/

Charles peaked 2 years ago when he had 12 TDs and was 26-27 years old, he will be 28-29 years old this year. He is still going to be a RB1 but not THE RB1 at the end of the season.

PS - Lacy is entering his prime years and Charles has exited his. You can loop in Bell with Lacy as well if you dont mind going without your #1 for the first 3 weeks.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

I want the #1 pick in every league.

 

[travdogg]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

Agreed. I want to pick at 5 or 6, and end up with Bell or Gronk there, maybe Lynch in a worst case scenario.

 

[Shutout]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

Agreed. I want to pick at 5 or 6, and end up with Bell or Gronk there, maybe Lynch in a worst case scenario.

So you want someone to pick your team for you so you don't look bad if you make a mistake?

I'm with the guys that want the #1. I want ALL The options possible to me and put it on me. I may trade that pick but I get to call the shot there.

You can win a league from any spot. Its about more than picking one guy in most formats and most years but, yeah, I want the chance to make my own decisions.

 

[VarsityBlues123]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

I want the #1 pick in every league.

Me too. the b2bs at the 2/3 turn are always always the best.

 

[iamkoza]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

Agreed. I want to pick at 5 or 6, and end up with Bell or Gronk there, maybe Lynch in a worst case scenario.

So you want someone to pick your team for you so you don't look bad if you make a mistake?

I'm with the guys that want the #1. I want ALL The options possible to me and put it on me. I may trade that pick but I get to call the shot there.

You can win a league from any spot. Its about more than picking one guy in most formats and most years but, yeah, I want the chance to make my own decisions.

auction?

 

[johnnyboy8102]

LeVeon is my #1 pick regardless of suspension. Draft DeAngelo Williams later to use for the first few weeks.

 

[Run It Up]

But Jamaal Charles isn't Gronk. He probably doesn't even yo soy fiesta.

 

[fightingillini]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

Agreed. I want to pick at 5 or 6, and end up with Bell or Gronk there, maybe Lynch in a worst case scenario.

So you want someone to pick your team for you so you don't look bad if you make a mistake?

I'm with the guys that want the #1. I want ALL The options possible to me and put it on me. I may trade that pick but I get to call the shot there.

You can win a league from any spot. Its about more than picking one guy in most formats and most years but, yeah, I want the chance to make my own decisions.

In most years, I agree, I want the #1 pick. But this year, there isn't a clear cut guy that will give you the VBD edge that you would like to have when picking #1. If Bell wasn't going to be suspended, he's the clear #1 pick and I would want Bell all day any day. Bell does give a nice VBD edge, but the 3 game supsension makes it really tough to take him #1 overall.

But this year I would like the 4-5 pick, since it's possible that Bell slips to that pick and even if he doesn't, I still have good options at RB and a better chance of landing a top tier WR in Round 2 (my top tier is really deep), or a nice RB2.

 

[travdogg]

I pretty much don't want the #1 pick in any league.

Agreed. I want to pick at 5 or 6, and end up with Bell or Gronk there, maybe Lynch in a worst case scenario.

So you want someone to pick your team for you so you don't look bad if you make a mistake?

I'm with the guys that want the #1. I want ALL The options possible to me and put it on me. I may trade that pick but I get to call the shot there.

You can win a league from any spot. Its about more than picking one guy in most formats and most years but, yeah, I want the chance to make my own decisions.

That's an odd way to read that. I'm saying I want to get the best value for my pick, so if the guy/guys I want are going to be available in the mid-1st, which it seems like they are, then I want to pick there to maximize the value there, and likely get a better player in round 2. Why would someone want to take a guy at #1 overall, if they are confident he'll be their at 5-6?

I don't how that translates into wanting someone to pick my team for me, or me trying to minimize making a mistake.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

It is hard to not like Charles, but how concerned are we with that oline? It is considered one of the worst (per Sirius), but losing Hudson can't help.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

LeVeon is my #1 pick regardless of suspension. Draft DeAngelo Williams later to use for the first few weeks.

I absolutely agree in leagues that arent with short-bus sized rosters.