Talent Vs. Situation/Opportunity (1 Viewer)

[Shutout]

It ranks right up there with the greatest debates of all time:

-Chicken or the egg

-Superman Vs. the Hulk

Pick a side, draw your line in the sand, and promote your cause. All answers should have neat penmanship, be in essay format and, of course, you will need to defend your answers!

Points will be given (highlighted in red) and score kept in the original post.

Food for thought:

Per Mike Mayock, the well respected draft and scouting guru, a guy like Rueben Randle is ranked as the 9th best WR, yet it is almost a certainty that he will not go as low as the 9th Wr taken in fantasy drafts. In fact, I have yet to see a mock in the SP where he is the 9th or lower WR taken.

You think talent trumps and the cream rises to the top?

Then how does a guy in 2004 named Wes Welker go undrafted and become one of the best threats in the game?

You think situation and location, location, location is the key?

Then how do you explain WRs in that same 2004 draft named Michael Jenkins, Lee evans, and Reggie williams going to Atlanta, Buffalo, and Jacksonville (which, at the time, were all promising places with big name QBs)? Keep in mind that all three of these guys were thought of as top talents at the time also.

So, let's get some reasons and put this to bed and maybe next week we will decid on that whole Superman and Hulk thing.

 

[MAC_32]

It's both, yea we all want the easy answer one or the other but it really depends situation to situation and player to player. What I usually do to mine for talent outside of round 1 in a rookie draft is highlight the prospects I like most then I'll look for those who went to potentially favorable situations - ones in which an opportunity could emerge sometime in the near future or ones that are going into potentially lethal offenses in which if they win a shot at the job could flourish. I trend towards the latter over the former because their ceiling is usually higher.

From my recent experience there are much more hits at the WR position than others so the effect it's having on my rookie boards is de-valuaing round #1 WR's.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

maybe next week we will decid on that whole Superman and Hulk thing.

Already been decided: http://secretearths.blogspot.com/2006/05/hulk-versus-superman-showdown-of.html

 

[Shutout]

maybe next week we will decid on that whole Superman and Hulk thing.

Already been decided: http://secretearths.blogspot.com/2006/05/hulk-versus-superman-showdown-of.html

The fact that you have reference to that is both admirable and...disturbing.

 

[werdnoynek]

bad situations can be really bad... bad enough that you have to wait a long time for improvement until a point were it may be too late. i agree with MAC that the WR position seems to be more talent friendly when the situation is bad, while the RB and TE positions can be less friendly in bad situations.

personally, i still go for talent over situation. if the situation doesn't get better or doesn't look like it will in the future (next year or two) then i normally try to jump ship and unload after a good performance or two.

 

[Shutout]

bad situations can be really bad... bad enough that you have to wait a long time for improvement until a point were it may be too late. i agree with MAC that the WR position seems to be more talent friendly when the situation is bad, while the RB and TE positions can be less friendly in bad situations. personally, i still go for talent over situation. if the situation doesn't get better or doesn't look like it will in the future (next year or two) then i normally try to jump ship and unload after a good performance or two.

I'm not trying to poke at anything, just asking questions to try to see where people draw the line:So, if, somehow, someway, Richardson goes to Minnesota (let's just say the Vikes say "Peterson is going to be fine but you can never have too many RBS these days") and they draft Richardson and Martin goes to Cincy and the Bengals say " this is our new Ced Ben", then you stil take the talent? Where does one draw a line? I know the answer is "situational", but, in general, how gloomy does it have to look for a talented player before you cut bait (because we can look at any given year and find Foster and Turner and Welker, etc...guys who weren't seen as the most talented but obviously a slight shift in situation made all the difference...Sproles...)

 

[Dr. Octopus]

maybe next week we will decid on that whole Superman and Hulk thing.

Already been decided: http://secretearths.blogspot.com/2006/05/hulk-versus-superman-showdown-of.html

The fact that you have reference to that is both admirable and...disturbing.

I googled it As to the topic, like anything it's a mixture of both. Talent is the more important factor of course but for RBs, situation and opportunity have to come into play a little.

 

[MAC_32]

bad situations can be really bad... bad enough that you have to wait a long time for improvement until a point were it may be too late. i agree with MAC that the WR position seems to be more talent friendly when the situation is bad, while the RB and TE positions can be less friendly in bad situations. personally, i still go for talent over situation. if the situation doesn't get better or doesn't look like it will in the future (next year or two) then i normally try to jump ship and unload after a good performance or two.

I'm not trying to poke at anything, just asking questions to try to see where people draw the line:So, if, somehow, someway, Richardson goes to Minnesota (let's just say the Vikes say "Peterson is going to be fine but you can never have too many RBS these days") and they draft Richardson and Martin goes to Cincy and the Bengals say " this is our new Ced Ben", then you stil take the talent? Where does one draw a line? I know the answer is "situational", but, in general, how gloomy does it have to look for a talented player before you cut bait (because we can look at any given year and find Foster and Turner and Welker, etc...guys who weren't seen as the most talented but obviously a slight shift in situation made all the difference...Sproles...)

J Stew is probably the best example. When creating my board for that draft I said I either wanted to get up to pick 2 to get him or position myself in the middle of the 1st to take Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, or Matt Forte. Glad my original plan did not work and I had to 'settle' for the middle of the 1st.I still wouldn't have valued him any differently though. I still think he is a special talent and at the time could not have forcasted the Panthers signing DeAng to that stupid extension and picking up a QB that would become their goal line back. The only thing that may have altered my decision making was if I knew his foot would be as big of a problem as it's been. It hasn't cost him game time, but I think it's contributed to him not getting more of the load than he has.

 

[Kleck]

There is really no easy answer. In my opinion it's both, and I'd also throw in work ethic. There have been plenty of talented players in good situations who have failed. Sometimes it's injuries or maturity issues that slow them in the beginning, but they don't always go on to be successful later.

 

[werdnoynek]

bad situations can be really bad... bad enough that you have to wait a long time for improvement until a point were it may be too late. i agree with MAC that the WR position seems to be more talent friendly when the situation is bad, while the RB and TE positions can be less friendly in bad situations. personally, i still go for talent over situation. if the situation doesn't get better or doesn't look like it will in the future (next year or two) then i normally try to jump ship and unload after a good performance or two.

I'm not trying to poke at anything, just asking questions to try to see where people draw the line:So, if, somehow, someway, Richardson goes to Minnesota (let's just say the Vikes say "Peterson is going to be fine but you can never have too many RBS these days") and they draft Richardson and Martin goes to Cincy and the Bengals say " this is our new Ced Ben", then you stil take the talent? Where does one draw a line? I know the answer is "situational", but, in general, how gloomy does it have to look for a talented player before you cut bait (because we can look at any given year and find Foster and Turner and Welker, etc...guys who weren't seen as the most talented but obviously a slight shift in situation made all the difference...Sproles...)

for me, i would still take richardson first overall in rookie drafts - i'd gladly sit on him and wait a couple of years to see if the situation improves because his ceiling is that much higher than martin's. if AP didn't get injured last season, i'd still go with richardson given AP is 27 and one of the few every down backs in the league left. there's obviously risks with this - in '08 i took j.stewart over mcfadden because i liked his talent more. really mcfadden hasn't shown he can stay healthy but his situation is still better to this day imo. in his rookie season, i thought j.stew would beat out williams but then williams put up his 20 TD season... i held stewart for a few more years and ended up getting rid of him (before last season i think) when i blew up my team to rebuild for a devy and a rookie pick. i'd rather hold onto high ceiling talent in a bad situation than take a lower ceiling guy in a great situation. as to why, no idea really... just personal preference. i play more for future so i normally gather as much talent as i can, hold for a couple of years, and then bail if it isn't going to improve in another year or two. i think it's an interesting topic, but i honestly don't think there's a correct answer. you could be missing out by cutting bait too soon or missing completely by taking talent over situation, i guess that's the risk we take and what makes dynasty leagues so damn fun to participate in.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

The Situation

 

[FavreCo]

You took Calvin Johnson no matter where he went. You took Peterson no matter where he went. You take Richardson no matter where he goes. When deciding between Lamar Miller, Wilson and Martin, you take the one with the better opportunity. When deciding between Say, Michael Floyd and whoever you think are the top WRs after Blackmon, you go opportunity. Blackmon may even fall into that category.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In dynasty always take the better player. Situation change all the time and you're better off just stockpiling good players IMO.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

In dynasty always take the better player. Situation change all the time and you're better off just stockpiling good players IMO.

Couldn't disagree more.No way can you make the case for this in all instances.This is the consummate debate - talent vs. situation.Was Tim Hightower better than half the RBs in his draft class? No, but he was a viable RB because he was in AZ and then WASH, getting valuable touches in the Red Zone.Michael Turner was stuck for years behind LT2. Michael Bush languished as the RB2 behind several RBs in Oakland. Both RBs in Carolina would likely be better if they were on separate teams. And on and on.It depends - that's the answer. If you have tons of developmental spots on your Dynasty roster, by all means draft talent and wait for it to develop. The opportunity cost is low, since you have to have developmental guys anyway. It isn't consuming your annual roster spots.If you have a smaller Dynastly league (say 12 teams, 20 roster spots) then you don't have as much room and can't wait for guys to develop in 3-4 years. If you have 14 or 16 teams and 3 or more times skilled roster spots (24 or more typically) then start stashing. 30+ roster spots? Absolutely stash. In today's NFL, RBs are going to be on the team that they got drafted for 3-4 years at a minimum (barring a trade or cut / sign elsewhere - but that's hardly the norm). You simply have to give some weight to the situation and not just go on talent. Ryan Mallett and Brian Hoyer could be studs.... but behind Brady we may never know. Do you think that Tarvaris Jackson would start for most teams? No, but as a spot starter he has value. Both Mallett and Hoyer likely have more talent than Jackson, yet Jackson had more fantasy value.Both matter. Period. How much weight you give to each depends on your league size and your opinion as to when he could become a starter and also your patience to wait for him to crack the lineup. Remember not only must he get a shot, he has to step up and deliver.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

In dynasty always take the better player. Situation change all the time and you're better off just stockpiling good players IMO.

Couldn't disagree more.No way can you make the case for this in all instances.This is the consummate debate - talent vs. situation.Was Tim Hightower better than half the RBs in his draft class? No, but he was a viable RB because he was in AZ and then WASH, getting valuable touches in the Red Zone.Michael Turner was stuck for years behind LT2. Michael Bush languished as the RB2 behind several RBs in Oakland. Both RBs in Carolina would likely be better if they were on separate teams. And on and on.It depends - that's the answer. If you have tons of developmental spots on your Dynasty roster, by all means draft talent and wait for it to develop. The opportunity cost is low, since you have to have developmental guys anyway. It isn't consuming your annual roster spots.If you have a smaller Dynastly league (say 12 teams, 20 roster spots) then you don't have as much room and can't wait for guys to develop in 3-4 years. If you have 14 or 16 teams and 3 or more times skilled roster spots (24 or more typically) then start stashing. 30+ roster spots? Absolutely stash. In today's NFL, RBs are going to be on the team that they got drafted for 3-4 years at a minimum (barring a trade or cut / sign elsewhere - but that's hardly the norm). You simply have to give some weight to the situation and not just go on talent. Ryan Mallett and Brian Hoyer could be studs.... but behind Brady we may never know. Do you think that Tarvaris Jackson would start for most teams? No, but as a spot starter he has value. Both Mallett and Hoyer likely have more talent than Jackson, yet Jackson had more fantasy value.Both matter. Period. How much weight you give to each depends on your league size and your opinion as to when he could become a starter and also your patience to wait for him to crack the lineup. Remember not only must he get a shot, he has to step up and deliver.

Your point about roster size is a good one, and one I forget since our joint league (MOX) is the only dynasty league I'm in that has small(ish) rosters.Other than that we just disagree. At least re: players you have to pay any sort of significant price to obtain. If you can grab Tim Hightower in the 4th round of your rookie draft or off the WW, sure. Though I'm still going to try and flip a guy like that when he's in the middle of his 20 game run as a RB2/3 for a prospect I really like .IMO if you pick up talented guys you may suffer for a year or two due to situation, but you'll end up with good teams that have the advantage of being built to last.