Toby Gerhart (1 Viewer)

[bigmarc27]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Nothing wrong with this post..I dig him as well

 

[pidgeonmanza]

especially with adp's injury history if he gets hurt gerhart is a top 20 if not top 10 guy for the weeks adp is out

 

[finito]

especially with adp's injury history if he gets hurt gerhart is a top 20 if not top 10 guy for the weeks adp is out

Hasn't Peterson only missed 2-3 games in his career?

 

[BINGBING]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

All of these guys were 1st round picks with 1st round skill. I don't think Gerhart is on the same talent level as these guys.

 

[Mr.Underhill]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake. People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

What was Alexander's value while Watters was still there? Same with Duece and Ricky.Is ADP's skill level no better than Watters's was when Alexander was drafted? Is ADP as much a headcase as Ricky was/is?Or, to put it another way...Who has the better odds of leaving the door open for a back-up to come in and take your job:1)Adrian Peterson2)Steve SlatonI think you're way off. Sure situations change quickly. But those situations that change less quickly are the ones where a very talented RB is in his prime and on a very good team trying to make that last push to get over the hump and into a Super Bowl.

 

[bigmarc27]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

All of these guys were 1st round picks with 1st round skill. I don't think Gerhart is on the same talent level as these guys.

He might not be, but the Vikings traded up into round 2 to get him so I don't think he's a dime a dozen mid-round RB either. Neither of the three I mentioned were surefire guys either - they did go round 1, but none of those three were in the top 15 if I remember correctly.Anyway, I'm not trying to say he's going to be a stud this year or even next. I definitely buy his prospects long-term though and think he'll prove he was worthy of a top 6 or so pick when it's done.

 

[treat88]

Couldn't agree more.

He's a far superior talent to Hardesty or Tate who I see routinely go 5 or 6 in rookie drafts.

Gerhart has gone anywhere between 10 and 20.

He's the definition of value in dynasty leagues.

 

[MAC_32]

Couldn't agree more.He's a far superior talent to Hardesty or Tate who I see routinely go 5 or 6 in rookie drafts.Gerhart has gone anywhere between 10 and 20. He's the definition of value in dynasty leagues.

I got him with pick 18 in one league, like Hardesty and Tate his team traded up to get him. Unlike Hardesty and Tate who command early-mid 1st round rookie picks this guy is falling deep into round 2.Draft talent, opportunity will come.

 

[esalmons30]

I was thin at RB in my 25 man ppr dynasty team. I took Best at 1.4 and Gerhart at 1.8 and then Dwyer fell to me at 2.7. I really hope that 2 of thses guys will be soild for me over the next 5 years Might have to wait a little bit but with 5 year rookie contract's I am very happy!

 

[HenryMuto]

Problem is does someone want to wait 4-5 years before getting a return on their investment of a high draft pick ?

Listen unless Peterson gets crippled Gerhart is nothing more than a back up for the next 4-5 years.

Those who took Turner took him in round 4 in my draft so that makes sense because he had to wait 4 years for any production but 4th round is alot different then a 1st round pick and have to sit on it for 4-5 years.

I like Gerhart as much as the next guy but I can't see spending a 1st round pick on someone you hope to get production out of in 2015.

 

[treat88]

Problem is does someone want to wait 4-5 years before getting a return on their investment of a high draft pick ?

Listen unless Peterson gets crippled Gerhart is nothing more than a back up for the next 4-5 years.

Those who took Turner took him in round 4 in my draft so that makes sense because he had to wait 4 years for any production but 4th round is alot different then a 1st round pick and have to sit on it for 4-5 years.

I like Gerhart as much as the next guy but I can't see spending a 1st round pick on someone you hope to get production out of in 2015.

Things change fast.

Sure it looks like that at this point, but guys emerge and have value unexpectedly every season.

It's no lock that any rookie produces regardless of draft slot. It can't be said often enough though; draft talent and situations accommodate.

I'm not going to take a guy simply based on situation over a real talent like Gerhart even in a bad spot. That's just me, but over the long haul I think that strategy wins out in dynasty formats.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

It doesn't help him now that Moats has signed with the Vikes.

 

[vikingdave]

I just hope Gerhart is good at one thing, getting AP some gatorade after he scores...

 

[MAC_32]

It doesn't help him now that Moats has signed with the Vikes.

What does that never was have anything to do with Toby?

 

[Go deep]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake. People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

Taking Gerhart over Tate in a rookie draft would be a mistake. Even if you think/know Gerhart is the more talented player and will eventually end up being the better player. Perceived value is just as important, if not more so than actual value.Lets say you knew Tate would rush for 1000 yards and 10 TD's in 2010, and Gerhart 400, 4. You also knew that over the next 6 seasons after that, Tate would rush for 400, 4, and Gerhart 1000, 10 each season, who would you draft first in a rookie draft right now?

 

[Go deep]

I just hope Gerhart is good at one thing, getting AP some gatorade after he scores...

Im sure Gerhart wouldnt mind passing AD the Gatorade when he passes him on the field while replacing him for goalline carries.

 

[vikingdave]

I just hope Gerhart is good at one thing, getting AP some gatorade after he scores...

Im sure Gerhart wouldnt mind passing AD the Gatorade when he passes him on the field while replacing him for goalline carries.

doubtful...

 

[SSOG]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

All of these guys were 1st round picks with 1st round skill. I don't think Gerhart is on the same talent level as these guys.

Plus Priest was 30 when the Chiefs drafted Johnson. Watters was 31 when the Seahawks drafted Alexander. Adrian Peterson is 25. Big, big, big difference.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

All of these guys were 1st round picks with 1st round skill. I don't think Gerhart is on the same talent level as these guys.

He might not be, but the Vikings traded up into round 2 to get him so I don't think he's a dime a dozen mid-round RB either. Neither of the three I mentioned were surefire guys either - they did go round 1, but none of those three were in the top 15 if I remember correctly.

Yet the Texans also traded up for Tate in the same area of the draft (same with the Browns and Hardesty), and you're treating him like a "dime a dozen mid-round RB".It's not like Gerhart is some top prospect that everyone saw as way better than Hardesty and Tate. The consensus had all three pretty much equal, so Gerhart landing behind Peterson makes a huge difference.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Tate was drafted 7 picks later. Hardesty 8 picks later. So, according to the NFL, there isn't a world of difference in talent between these guys. According to you or me, there may be, but not according to the league.

So then you consider situation, and that very obviously favors the other guys IMO. The LJ behind Priest and Alexander behind Ricky scenarios thrown out there are vastly different. Ricky was 31 (and flaky) when Alexander was drafted. Holmes was 30 (and had significant injury issues) when LJ was drafted. ADP is 25 and is the cornerstone of his offense. And as mentioned before, both LJ and Alexander were 1st rounders, not mid 2nd rounders. Yes, it makes a difference. If not in terms of talent, then it terms of investment by the team and the lack of any guaranteed opportunities generated by a high draft spot and teams not wanting to look stupid. As a GM, you can spend a second on a "luxury" pick and "get away with it" even if it doesn't pan out all that well. Harder to do that with a first round pick. People remember those more as "busts" so they get a LOT of opportunities to fail (e.g. Reggie Bush).

Gerhart is 23 years old (fairly old for a rookie) and going into a situation where it is entirely possible that the incumbent uber-talented starter will be around and productive for 5 or 6 more years (or more). The guy could legitimately not see an real opportunity as an NFL starter for the entire length of his rookie contract, and when it is over, as shocking as it may sound, he will be borderline old!

I know folks love the old adages about how the cream will rise, but situation DOES matter - particularly for RBs. And Gerhart's situation couldn't be a lot worse in terms of fantasy startability. It just has to be factored in, and it has been as shown by ADP.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I just hope Gerhart is good at one thing, getting AP some gatorade after he scores...

Im sure Gerhart wouldnt mind passing AD the Gatorade when he passes him on the field while replacing him for goalline carries.

doubtful...

I'm not sure about that....and when AD is fumbling.I'm curious how that offense rolls now...with weapons everywhere. Is it power O or airing it out?

 

[socrates]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

Taking Gerhart over Tate in a rookie draft would be a mistake. Even if you think/know Gerhart is the more talented player and will eventually end up being the better player. Perceived value is just as important, if not more so than actual value.

Lets say you knew Tate would rush for 1000 yards and 10 TD's in 2010, and Gerhart 400, 4. You also knew that over the next 6 seasons after that, Tate would rush for 400, 4, and Gerhart 1000, 10 each season, who would you draft first in a rookie draft right now?

Huh?? Perhaps I have missed your point.

Under your described scenario, I would be foolish to take Tate over Gerhart in a dynasty format, unless I was desperate for Tate's production this season, or my league rules for retention of players was too restrictive.

As an ADP owner, I am hoping to see Gerhart fall to me in the 2nd, where I know I have no shot at drafting Tate or Hardesty, so I get your point about perceived value, but none of that means squat if I miss out on the player I am targeting. Because of Gerhart's perceived lower value, I would be tempted to trade down out of a mid-first round pick, if I was targeting Gerhart there, but you better have a pretty good understanding of your league mates' tendencies.

Gerhart's average draft position represents potential value, I believe, but as other posters have identified, he is an older rookie who will likely get a limited number of touches for the foreseeable future, barring an injury to Peterson.

For me, I would rate Tate and Hardesty both above Gerhart, not because they are necessarily more talented, but because of the difference in the opportunity for meaningful carries. I simply do not see the gap in their talent levels being wide enough to warrant drafting Gerhart over Tate or Hardesty.

 

[Go deep]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

Taking Gerhart over Tate in a rookie draft would be a mistake. Even if you think/know Gerhart is the more talented player and will eventually end up being the better player. Perceived value is just as important, if not more so than actual value.

Lets say you knew Tate would rush for 1000 yards and 10 TD's in 2010, and Gerhart 400, 4. You also knew that over the next 6 seasons after that, Tate would rush for 400, 4, and Gerhart 1000, 10 each season, who would you draft first in a rookie draft right now?

Huh?? Perhaps I have missed your point.

Under your described scenario, I would be foolish to take Tate over Gerhart in a dynasty format, unless I was desperate for Tate's production this season, or my league rules for retention of players was too restrictive.

As an ADP owner, I am hoping to see Gerhart fall to me in the 2nd, where I know I have no shot at drafting Tate or Hardesty, so I get your point about perceived value, but none of that means squat if I miss out on the player I am targeting. Because of Gerhart's perceived lower value, I would be tempted to trade down out of a mid-first round pick, if I was targeting Gerhart there, but you better have a pretty good understanding of your league mates' tendencies.

Gerhart's average draft position represents potential value, I believe, but as other posters have identified, he is an older rookie who will likely get a limited number of touches for the foreseeable future, barring an injury to Peterson.

For me, I would rate Tate and Hardesty both above Gerhart, not because they are necessarily more talented, but because of the difference in the opportunity for meaningful carries. I simply do not see the gap in their talent levels being wide enough to warrant drafting Gerhart over Tate or Hardesty.

Only if your league doesnt allow trading, which should never be the case. If Tate puts up 1000 yards and 10 TD's as a rookie, his "perceived" value is going to be that of a top 5-8 RB. On the other hand, Gerhart and his 400 yards will still be valued where he is right now. You could easily trade Tate for a top 10-15 WR AND Gerhart.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think Gerhart below Tate and Hardesty is right where he should be -- similar talent level, but opportunity takes him down a bit.

But I agree Gerhart has fallen farther than he should. I've seen drafts where Jonathan Dwyer and James Starks were taken before him. Gerhart should definitely be taken before those types.

 

[socrates]

I understand he's behind Peterson, but talent shines through in the end and I think he's super talented. He's dropping to round 2 in non ppr leagues and I think it's a huge mistake.

People passed on LJ because of Priest, Alexander because of Waters, and Deuce because of Ricky. Situations change quickly, and Id much rather stake a long-term claim to Gerhart than I would Ben Tate (for example).

Taking Gerhart over Tate in a rookie draft would be a mistake. Even if you think/know Gerhart is the more talented player and will eventually end up being the better player. Perceived value is just as important, if not more so than actual value.

Lets say you knew Tate would rush for 1000 yards and 10 TD's in 2010, and Gerhart 400, 4. You also knew that over the next 6 seasons after that, Tate would rush for 400, 4, and Gerhart 1000, 10 each season, who would you draft first in a rookie draft right now?

Huh?? Perhaps I have missed your point.

Under your described scenario, I would be foolish to take Tate over Gerhart in a dynasty format, unless I was desperate for Tate's production this season, or my league rules for retention of players was too restrictive.

As an ADP owner, I am hoping to see Gerhart fall to me in the 2nd, where I know I have no shot at drafting Tate or Hardesty, so I get your point about perceived value, but none of that means squat if I miss out on the player I am targeting. Because of Gerhart's perceived lower value, I would be tempted to trade down out of a mid-first round pick, if I was targeting Gerhart there, but you better have a pretty good understanding of your league mates' tendencies.

Gerhart's average draft position represents potential value, I believe, but as other posters have identified, he is an older rookie who will likely get a limited number of touches for the foreseeable future, barring an injury to Peterson.

For me, I would rate Tate and Hardesty both above Gerhart, not because they are necessarily more talented, but because of the difference in the opportunity for meaningful carries. I simply do not see the gap in their talent levels being wide enough to warrant drafting Gerhart over Tate or Hardesty.

Only if your league doesnt allow trading, which should never be the case. If Tate puts up 1000 yards and 10 TD's as a rookie, his "perceived" value is going to be that of a top 5-8 RB. On the other hand, Gerhart and his 400 yards will still be valued where he is right now. You could easily trade Tate for a top 10-15 WR AND Gerhart.

Ok, I am following your line of thinking. I agree with your take on that. Tate's trade value would undoubtedly rise if he rushed for 1,000 and 10 TDs, but Tate and Hardesty both are being valued right now by some as potential starters, so I am not certain just how much his value goes up. On the other hand, if Tate fails to overtake Slaton and Foster in Houston, his value could bottom out. Gerhart, who is not currently being valued as a starter, on the other hand, is unlikely to lose any value (albeit, a lower starting value for Gerhart than either Tate or Hardesty).

 

[SSOG]

Only if your league doesnt allow trading, which should never be the case. If Tate puts up 1000 yards and 10 TD's as a rookie, his "perceived" value is going to be that of a top 5-8 RB. On the other hand, Gerhart and his 400 yards will still be valued where he is right now. You could easily trade Tate for a top 10-15 WR AND Gerhart.

That's a great philosophy if you've got a magic crystal ball that tells you exactly who is a fluke and when to sell. It's probably more likely that you'd commit the same sin that Slaton owners committed and hold him and try to build around him.I see a lot of people manage their teams like a stock market, always trying to buy assets because they think that it will experience an increase in value, not because they think it is a valuable fantasy asset that will help their squad. I see it blow up in their faces a lot, too, as an asset that had a non-trivial expense to acquire (such as Ben Tate) doesn't wind up increasing his value, or as they miss the "sell high" window and wind up taking a massive loss. Or as the guy they really wanted (in your hypothetical, Gerhart) gets drafted by a true believer and then their whole plan (trade for him in year N+1) falls apart. Generally, I'm a much bigger fan of the "steady eddie" roster construction method. You know, the method where you just roster the best players. Perceived value is irrelevant if you never trade a guy.

 

[socrates]

Only if your league doesnt allow trading, which should never be the case. If Tate puts up 1000 yards and 10 TD's as a rookie, his "perceived" value is going to be that of a top 5-8 RB. On the other hand, Gerhart and his 400 yards will still be valued where he is right now. You could easily trade Tate for a top 10-15 WR AND Gerhart.

That's a great philosophy if you've got a magic crystal ball that tells you exactly who is a fluke and when to sell. It's probably more likely that you'd commit the same sin that Slaton owners committed and hold him and try to build around him.I see a lot of people manage their teams like a stock market, always trying to buy assets because they think that it will experience an increase in value, not because they think it is a valuable fantasy asset that will help their squad. I see it blow up in their faces a lot, too, as an asset that had a non-trivial expense to acquire (such as Ben Tate) doesn't wind up increasing his value, or as they miss the "sell high" window and wind up taking a massive loss. Or as the guy they really wanted (in your hypothetical, Gerhart) gets drafted by a true believer and then their whole plan (trade for him in year N+1) falls apart. Generally, I'm a much bigger fan of the "steady eddie" roster construction method. You know, the method where you just roster the best players. Perceived value is irrelevant if you never trade a guy.

Sound advice.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I just hope Gerhart is good at one thing, getting AP some gatorade after he scores...

Im sure Gerhart wouldnt mind passing AD the Gatorade when he passes him on the field while replacing him for goalline carries.

doubtful...

I'm not sure about that....and when AD is fumbling.I'm curious how that offense rolls now...with weapons everywhere. Is it power O or airing it out?

You know Gerhart (whom I am a huge fan of, desperately wish landed elsewhere and own in several leagues where I have AP) regressed pretty badly in fumbling hissenior year right? He fumbled FIVE times in his last season, some in very key situations.He has his own issues putting the ball on the turf (admitedly it's hard to say if that was a permanant regression or a bump in the road, but I am concerned a bit). Maybe he'll carry the same sand fumble ball AP does.

 

[super sleeper]

I can't see how Gerhart is going to be any different than Brian Leonard. Much more valuable in the NFL than in fantasy. St. Louis didn't know what to do with him, and he got banged up a bit his first two years, but they love him in Cincy as a short-yardage guy who picks up first downs, tough yards, can play some fullback, and catch the ball. But he had no chance of supplanting Jackson, and he wouldn't replace Benson now.

 

[datonn]

Two rules I always stick with related to rookies and drafting:

1. Draft BPA, trade for need.

2. Tie-breaker between talent and opportunity is talent.

I think re-draft blows, personally. As such, if I'm drafting rookies in my dynasty leagues, I'm in DEEP trouble if I'm expecting an immediate ROI out of anyone from the rookie class. Folks forget that "NFL" stands for "Not For Long." Talent, 40-times, et al fades. Opportunity fades/changes. That said, opportunity fades/changes one heck of a lot fast than talent...serious injuries aside. Why then would dynasty owners fall all over themselves for a guy like Ben Tate (moderate talent, IMHO, good/great potential opportunity) when there is a player out there (Toby Gerhart) who is the clearly superior talent (again, IMHO)?

Gerhart's opportunity is limited in 2010, barring a serious injury to ADP. Probably very limited in 2011 as well. Maybe even 2012. However, who's to say that Peterson and/or Gerhart will be wearing a Vikings uniform a season or two from now? Why do people treat the situation as if ADP and Gerhart are both going to spend the next 8-10 seasons in Purple jerseys?

Look at the Texans RB situation, for example. Anybody care to comment upon how long ago Steve Slaton was "Ben Tate?" I'll give you a hint: Barack Obama and John McCain were still battling it out for the White House...while Joe Biden was trying not to say anything stupid and Sarah Palin seemingly tried to say stupid things.

So...people who drafted Slaton citing opportunity vs. talent. You looked like geniuses in 2008. 2009? Not so much. And now 2010? Someone named Ben Tate just burst your balloon. So...people drafting Ben Tate in 2010...maybe you'll look like geniuses in 2010! However, what about 2011-2012? Will that opportunity still be there...and/or will Gerhart's superior talent leave Tate's short-term opportunity in the dust? Rhetorical question, but you get the idea.

 

[Go deep]

Only if your league doesnt allow trading, which should never be the case. If Tate puts up 1000 yards and 10 TD's as a rookie, his "perceived" value is going to be that of a top 5-8 RB. On the other hand, Gerhart and his 400 yards will still be valued where he is right now. You could easily trade Tate for a top 10-15 WR AND Gerhart.

That's a great philosophy if you've got a magic crystal ball that tells you exactly who is a fluke and when to sell. It's probably more likely that you'd commit the same sin that Slaton owners committed and hold him and try to build around him.I see a lot of people manage their teams like a stock market, always trying to buy assets because they think that it will experience an increase in value, not because they think it is a valuable fantasy asset that will help their squad. I see it blow up in their faces a lot, too, as an asset that had a non-trivial expense to acquire (such as Ben Tate) doesn't wind up increasing his value, or as they miss the "sell high" window and wind up taking a massive loss. Or as the guy they really wanted (in your hypothetical, Gerhart) gets drafted by a true believer and then their whole plan (trade for him in year N+1) falls apart. Generally, I'm a much bigger fan of the "steady eddie" roster construction method. You know, the method where you just roster the best players. Perceived value is irrelevant if you never trade a guy.

Ive successfully built 4 dynasty teams by treating players like a stock. You dont need a crystall ball to successful either. You just need to be right more often than wrong. Sure, this method isnt for everyone, but if you can do it with a fair amount of success, its the best way to build a dynasty team. Perceived value is NEVER irrelevant, and if you dont take advantage of it, you are not likely to ever build a dominant team.Im not saying theres anything wrong with playing it safe, or falling in love with your players. If that is what is more fun for some people, thats all that really counts, and you can still field a competitive team. I personally am not content with a competitive team, i want to build a true dynasty, and the only real way to do that is to successfully trade players at the end of their peak for players that are about to hit theirs.What sin did Slaton ownrs committ? Alot of people wrote him off during their rookie drafts, and it blew up in their faces. Those people where patting themselves on the back last year when Slaton wasnt as succussful as his rookie year. Fact is, putting on weight to try to prove he could handle the full load was possibly his real downfall. He was better his rookie season when he carried the ball more, and things might have been different in year two had he and the Texans had left things as is. It seems like popular opinion around here that Slaton fans suffered while guys who didnt like him won something. Most people took Slaton in the 2nd/3rd round of their rookie drafts. Who did the Slaton haters take over him? Limas Sweed, James Hardy, Ryan Torrain? Thats the biggest reason for the Slaton hate, and why some people continued to not believe in him even after his rookie year.

 

[Go deep]

Only if your league doesnt allow trading, which should never be the case. If Tate puts up 1000 yards and 10 TD's as a rookie, his "perceived" value is going to be that of a top 5-8 RB. On the other hand, Gerhart and his 400 yards will still be valued where he is right now. You could easily trade Tate for a top 10-15 WR AND Gerhart.

I get what you are saying, but we don't have the advantage of knowing those things.While I am certainly not advocating taking Gerhart at 1.5/1.6, I am advocating skipping Hardesty and Tate and grabbing other prospects in those spots and then trying to grab Gerhart in a latter stage of the draft.

Perceived value fluctuates with every blurb posted in this or any other forum, talent is a constant variable. I don't think SSOG was in any way advocating playing it safe.

We have no way of knowing anything thats going to happen, ie. Gerhart will be any good even if AD gets hurt. What we do know is Tate has a better chance at success early due to his situation. So even if you like Gerharts talent a bit more, you should either trade down, or take Tate and trade him at some point when you think his value has peaked.Sure, talent is a constant variable, but determining who is more talented, and having that talent translate into fantasy points is a as big, if not a bigger crapshoot than pinning down perceived value.

Also, SSOG is certainly advocating safe play by saying you should just draft who you think is better. Playing it safe is not an insult, most people do it, and alot have some success doing so. I just happen to not be one of those people.

 

[HenryMuto]

Two rules I always stick with related to rookies and drafting:1. Draft BPA, trade for need.2. Tie-breaker between talent and opportunity is talent.I think re-draft blows, personally. As such, if I'm drafting rookies in my dynasty leagues, I'm in DEEP trouble if I'm expecting an immediate ROI out of anyone from the rookie class. Folks forget that "NFL" stands for "Not For Long." Talent, 40-times, et al fades. Opportunity fades/changes. That said, opportunity fades/changes one heck of a lot fast than talent...serious injuries aside. Why then would dynasty owners fall all over themselves for a guy like Ben Tate (moderate talent, IMHO, good/great potential opportunity) when there is a player out there (Toby Gerhart) who is the clearly superior talent (again, IMHO)?Gerhart's opportunity is limited in 2010, barring a serious injury to ADP. Probably very limited in 2011 as well. Maybe even 2012. However, who's to say that Peterson and/or Gerhart will be wearing a Vikings uniform a season or two from now? Why do people treat the situation as if ADP and Gerhart are both going to spend the next 8-10 seasons in Purple jerseys?Look at the Texans RB situation, for example. Anybody care to comment upon how long ago Steve Slaton was "Ben Tate?" I'll give you a hint: Barack Obama and John McCain were still battling it out for the White House...while Joe Biden was trying not to say anything stupid and Sarah Palin seemingly tried to say stupid things. So...people who drafted Slaton citing opportunity vs. talent. You looked like geniuses in 2008. 2009? Not so much. And now 2010? Someone named Ben Tate just burst your balloon. So...people drafting Ben Tate in 2010...maybe you'll look like geniuses in 2010! However, what about 2011-2012? Will that opportunity still be there...and/or will Gerhart's superior talent leave Tate's short-term opportunity in the dust? Rhetorical question, but you get the idea.

What if your "high stakes" dynasty league only carries 16 players from year to year with 2 having to be a K/DF. That leaves only 14 players to be kept each year and if your only using 20 man rosters your pretty much screwed if you carry players like Gerhart unless your the AP owner.Also I might not be around 5 years from now when Gerhart finally hits the field. I could get hit by a bus or suffer a heart attack you just never know.

 

[Go deep]

Two rules I always stick with related to rookies and drafting:1. Draft BPA, trade for need.2. Tie-breaker between talent and opportunity is talent.I think re-draft blows, personally. As such, if I'm drafting rookies in my dynasty leagues, I'm in DEEP trouble if I'm expecting an immediate ROI out of anyone from the rookie class. Folks forget that "NFL" stands for "Not For Long." Talent, 40-times, et al fades. Opportunity fades/changes. That said, opportunity fades/changes one heck of a lot fast than talent...serious injuries aside. Why then would dynasty owners fall all over themselves for a guy like Ben Tate (moderate talent, IMHO, good/great potential opportunity) when there is a player out there (Toby Gerhart) who is the clearly superior talent (again, IMHO)?Gerhart's opportunity is limited in 2010, barring a serious injury to ADP. Probably very limited in 2011 as well. Maybe even 2012. However, who's to say that Peterson and/or Gerhart will be wearing a Vikings uniform a season or two from now? Why do people treat the situation as if ADP and Gerhart are both going to spend the next 8-10 seasons in Purple jerseys?Look at the Texans RB situation, for example. Anybody care to comment upon how long ago Steve Slaton was "Ben Tate?" I'll give you a hint: Barack Obama and John McCain were still battling it out for the White House...while Joe Biden was trying not to say anything stupid and Sarah Palin seemingly tried to say stupid things. So...people who drafted Slaton citing opportunity vs. talent. You looked like geniuses in 2008. 2009? Not so much. And now 2010? Someone named Ben Tate just burst your balloon. So...people drafting Ben Tate in 2010...maybe you'll look like geniuses in 2010! However, what about 2011-2012? Will that opportunity still be there...and/or will Gerhart's superior talent leave Tate's short-term opportunity in the dust? Rhetorical question, but you get the idea.

So you would draft Gerhart ahead of Tate right now?Also, Tate and Slaton were not the same at all. Tate is a consensus top 6 pick. Slaton was an undersized RB who everyone thought was too small to be a FF option, and was drafted in the 2nd/3rd round of rookie drafts. Even at this point, he was still a good pick for those who took him. For anyone who traded him between his rookie season and the 2009 season are in even better shape. So drafting Slaton was a smart decision either way.

 

[moderated]

Tate was drafted 7 picks later. Hardesty 8 picks later. So, according to the NFL, there isn't a world of difference in talent between these guys. According to you or me, there may be, but not according to the league.So then you consider situation, and that very obviously favors the other guys IMO. The LJ behind Priest and Alexander behind Ricky scenarios thrown out there are vastly different. Ricky was 31 (and flaky) when Alexander was drafted. Holmes was 30 (and had significant injury issues) when LJ was drafted. ADP is 25 and is the cornerstone of his offense. And as mentioned before, both LJ and Alexander were 1st rounders, not mid 2nd rounders. Yes, it makes a difference. If not in terms of talent, then it terms of investment by the team and the lack of any guaranteed opportunities generated by a high draft spot and teams not wanting to look stupid. As a GM, you can spend a second on a "luxury" pick and "get away with it" even if it doesn't pan out all that well. Harder to do that with a first round pick. People remember those more as "busts" so they get a LOT of opportunities to fail (e.g. Reggie Bush).Gerhart is 23 years old (fairly old for a rookie) and going into a situation where it is entirely possible that the incumbent uber-talented starter will be around and productive for 5 or 6 more years (or more). The guy could legitimately not see an real opportunity as an NFL starter for the entire length of his rookie contract, and when it is over, as shocking as it may sound, he will be borderline old!I know folks love the old adages about how the cream will rise, but situation DOES matter - particularly for RBs. And Gerhart's situation couldn't be a lot worse in terms of fantasy startability. It just has to be factored in, and it has been as shown by ADP.

i like gerhart, but even if adp has an injury he's a spot player for the next 3 years, and after that he has to have showed enough where a team wants him to be their feature RB.unless those things happen his value is severely capped.

 

[datonn]

What if your "high stakes" dynasty league only carries 16 players from year to year with 2 having to be a K/DF. That leaves only 14 players to be kept each year and if your only using 20 man rosters your pretty much screwed if you carry players like Gerhart unless your the AP owner.Also I might not be around 5 years from now when Gerhart finally hits the field. I could get hit by a bus or suffer a heart attack you just never know.

If my "high stakes" dynasty league only carries 16 players from year to year (14, plus a PK and a D/ST), I doubt I would have any rookies on my roster, apart from the rare exception. Too many rookies bust and/or take a few years to develop into players one can start...so I'd rather have younger vets or vets in their prime, personally. Wait until the Spring and then deal those picks away to an owner or two who has been afflicted with "draft fever." Although what you're talking about sounds more like a keeper league than a true dynasty league.Also, you're absolutely right about life being too short. However, most dynasty owners I know are generally in it for the long-haul. Willing to wait (or suffer) for a season or two if it is called for. Ideally, it's more like waves though. One wave comes into shore (players in their prime), and you are drafting and trading to make sure that the next wave behind them is ready to come in on its heels. Rinse and repeat. If you worry about there not potentially being a next year or even a tomorrow, then stick to re-draft. Also, cash out your 401K, empty your savings and burn through all your vacation time at work.

 

[HenryMuto]

What if your "high stakes" dynasty league only carries 16 players from year to year with 2 having to be a K/DF. That leaves only 14 players to be kept each year and if your only using 20 man rosters your pretty much screwed if you carry players like Gerhart unless your the AP owner.Also I might not be around 5 years from now when Gerhart finally hits the field. I could get hit by a bus or suffer a heart attack you just never know.

If my "high stakes" dynasty league only carries 16 players from year to year (14, plus a PK and a D/ST), I doubt I would have any rookies on my roster, apart from the rare exception. Too many rookies bust and/or take a few years to develop into players one can start...so I'd rather have younger vets or vets in their prime, personally. Wait until the Spring and then deal those picks away to an owner or two who has been afflicted with "draft fever." Although what you're talking about sounds more like a keeper league than a true dynasty league.Also, you're absolutely right about life being too short. However, most dynasty owners I know are generally in it for the long-haul. Willing to wait (or suffer) for a season or two if it is called for. Ideally, it's more like waves though. One wave comes into shore (players in their prime), and you are drafting and trading to make sure that the next wave behind them is ready to come in on its heels. Rinse and repeat. If you worry about there not potentially being a next year or even a tomorrow, then stick to re-draft. Also, cash out your 401K, empty your savings and burn through all your vacation time at work.

I told the FFPC that they were running a glorified Keeper league and not a dynasty league but they would not listen to my pleas for a taxi squad where we could draft rookies and hold them for 2-3 years not counting on the 20 man regular season roster. They are so afraid that people will suck so bad early on and quit and have no chance to get better if others "hoard" the talent on a taxi squad. Ticks me off but I wanted to play so I joined anyway but the fact they don't even understand what a real dynasty league is ... is well annoying. Also everyone else in the league didn't like my idea as well because they are so afraid of sucking I guess. Personally I been playing in my only dynasty league since 1997 and I have never had to go into rebuild mode...made the playoffs 12 out of 13 years and the 1 year I missed I could have made it had I won my last game but lost.This league is great that they run for high stakes but terrible they don't use a taxi squad. really terrible.Also I am in it for the long haul been running my CFL league since 1997 probably way before most people on here even thought about a dynasty league.I am curious anyone on here in a dynasty league that started back in 1997 or before and it is still running strong ? (I still have 8 of the original owners and the 2 that dropped out were replaced and they are still in so 12 owners for a 10 team league going into year 14)

 

[datonn]

So you would draft Gerhart ahead of Tate right now?Also, Tate and Slaton were not the same at all. Tate is a consensus top 6 pick. Slaton was an undersized RB who everyone thought was too small to be a FF option, and was drafted in the 2nd/3rd round of rookie drafts. Even at this point, he was still a good pick for those who took him. For anyone who traded him between his rookie season and the 2009 season are in even better shape. So drafting Slaton was a smart decision either way.

Yeah, my point on Slaton was primarily that owners were selecting him in 2008 based largely upon the position he played (RB premium) and on opportunity. Not talent. Now two years later, owners are drafting the next rookie running back in Houston largely on, guess what: opportunity! I'm just saying that opportunity is a lot more volatile than talent. So tie, for me, goes to talent.On your other question, I have Gerhart > Tate in the talent department. I've warmed on Best and Spiller over the past few months...but back in April, I had Gerhart right in the mix with the other three top RBs in the class (behind Matthews, assuming he landed in San Diego, which he did). The only true rookie draft where I had the opportunity to draft Gerhart, I got him at 1.11. I was going to take him at 1.06 (my other #1 in that league), but I assumed his lousy short-term opportunity might allow him to fall. Not too far though, as the ADP owner was OTC a couple of picks later.Had I not been fairly confident in Gerhart falling to 1.11 in that draft, I would have taken him at 1.06...with Ben Tate still available (Tate went at 1.07). Maybe I'll be proven wrong (heck, wouldn't even be the first time I was wrong this HOUR, lol). However, over their careers, Gerhart will be the much better back. How much better depends upon the "O" word (opportunity). But Gerhart is the superior talent...and I don't even think it is close.

 

[Go deep]

So you would draft Gerhart ahead of Tate right now?Also, Tate and Slaton were not the same at all. Tate is a consensus top 6 pick. Slaton was an undersized RB who everyone thought was too small to be a FF option, and was drafted in the 2nd/3rd round of rookie drafts. Even at this point, he was still a good pick for those who took him. For anyone who traded him between his rookie season and the 2009 season are in even better shape. So drafting Slaton was a smart decision either way.

Yeah, my point on Slaton was primarily that owners were selecting him in 2008 based largely upon the position he played (RB premium) and on opportunity. Not talent. Now two years later, owners are drafting the next rookie running back in Houston largely on, guess what: opportunity! I'm just saying that opportunity is a lot more volatile than talent. So tie, for me, goes to talent.On your other question, I have Gerhart > Tate in the talent department. I've warmed on Best and Spiller over the past few months...but back in April, I had Gerhart right in the mix with the other three top RBs in the class (behind Matthews, assuming he landed in San Diego, which he did). The only true rookie draft where I had the opportunity to draft Gerhart, I got him at 1.11. I was going to take him at 1.06 (my other #1 in that league), but I assumed his lousy short-term opportunity might allow him to fall. Not too far though, as the ADP owner was OTC a couple of picks later.Had I not been fairly confident in Gerhart falling to 1.11 in that draft, I would have taken him at 1.06...with Ben Tate still available (Tate went at 1.07). Maybe I'll be proven wrong (heck, wouldn't even be the first time I was wrong this HOUR, lol). However, over their careers, Gerhart will be the much better back. How much better depends upon the "O" word (opportunity). But Gerhart is the superior talent...and I don't even think it is close.

Do you think Gerhart will have a better season than Tate in 2010? Assuming you think Gerhart wont do much in 2009, wouldnt it still be smart to take Tate first? So if your comparison of Tate to Slaton is tight, you should easily be able to trade Tate for a top 15 WR and Gerhart.

 

[datonn]

Do you think Gerhart will have a better season than Tate in 2010? Assuming you think Gerhart wont do much in 2009, wouldnt it still be smart to take Tate first? So if your comparison of Tate to Slaton is tight, you should easily be able to trade Tate for a top 15 WR and Gerhart.

Yeah, if you think you can pull that type of deal off during/after the 2010 season, that's a different story! Then Tate could very-well be the play. For me though, I've got Bloom (openly calling Tate "fool's gold") and a few other FBGs and other sites' staffers in that same league...so it's not nearly as easy to pull that type of trade off. I feel like a big 'ol catfish...swimming in waters with great whites and barracudas. I've got to rely upon the waiver wire and the draft a lot more in that league than most of the other dynasty leagues I'm in.I'm lucky in that league too, as I'm pretty solid at every position. The one thing I didn't have was a good, talented, young RB to carry the torch when 2-3 of my other guys have ridden off into the sunset. If it takes Gerhart 2-3 years, that's fine. In the interim, we'll watch the offers from the ADP owner hopefully get bigger and bigger. I didn't draft him to trade him though! That said, no player is ever untouchable in a deal.Edited to add: I think Tate likely has the better 2010...although not by nearly the margin that most others probably assume he will.

 

[Tickle Monster]

LMAO at people thinking ADP's blocking fullback is going too low in rookie drafts.

This is Gerhart's last 4 games of the year. Ru Yds Avg TDsOregon 38 223 5.9 3 @USC 29 178 6.1 3 California 20 136 6.8 4 Notre Dame 29 205 7.1 3 Definitely blocking FB material

 

[Bojang0301]

I can't see how Gerhart is going to be any different than Brian Leonard. Much more valuable in the NFL than in fantasy. St. Louis didn't know what to do with him, and he got banged up a bit his first two years, but they love him in Cincy as a short-yardage guy who picks up first downs, tough yards, can play some fullback, and catch the ball. But he had no chance of supplanting Jackson, and he wouldn't replace Benson now.

Did I miss where Brian Leonard led the country in rushing in the Pac-Ten and didn't lose his job to a superior talent in his senior year?

 

[HenryMuto]

It is a shame where he landed I was really high on him as well but your really stuck if you take him. On most any other team save a few you could think he might work his way into the line up but not in Minnesota I mean it is Peterson and that means 4-5 more years save a major injury.

I will still take him if I can but for me that means pick #20 because I have picks 2 and 20 and I am not taking him at 2 and I have no chance to trade up with the draft picking lovers who covet picks like no tomorrow in my league.

 

[SSOG]

Also, SSOG is certainly advocating safe play by saying you should just draft who you think is better. Playing it safe is not an insult, most people do it, and alot have some success doing so. I just happen to not be one of those people.

I never advocated "playing it safe". In fact, I don't really know what playing it safe is. Playing it safe, to me, means acquiring talent. I think people get far too caught up with ceilings and floors and upsides and downsides and risk and reward- at the end of the day, be the guy with the most talent. That's the only "safe" play out there. It's the only "smart" play out there. It's the only winning strategy out there.Some people like to get cute and draft people they like less hoping that a few things will break right. If those things break right, then great. If they don't, then that sucks. It's a viable strategy, and some people have success with it, but to me it seems far too convoluted. If I think a guy is the best player on the board, I'm going to take him. I'd rather just skip all those steps where I grab inferior players and then hope to deal them later for a profit so I can afford to get the player that I wanted in the first place.

 

[esalmons30]

LMAO at people thinking ADP's blocking fullback is going too low in rookie drafts.

This is Gerhart's last 4 games of the year. Ru Yds Avg TDsOregon 38 223 5.9 3 @USC 29 178 6.1 3 California 20 136 6.8 4 Notre Dame 29 205 7.1 3 Definitely blocking FB material

 

[PahtyTom]

shhh

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I can't see how Gerhart is going to be any different than Brian Leonard. Much more valuable in the NFL than in fantasy. St. Louis didn't know what to do with him, and he got banged up a bit his first two years, but they love him in Cincy as a short-yardage guy who picks up first downs, tough yards, can play some fullback, and catch the ball. But he had no chance of supplanting Jackson, and he wouldn't replace Benson now.

Did I miss where Brian Leonard led the country in rushing in the Pac-Ten and didn't lose his job to a superior talent in his senior year?

No, you just acknowledged and rejected another posters racism with RBs...I applaud your effort to be honest.

 

[massraider]

I can't see how Gerhart is going to be any different than Brian Leonard. Much more valuable in the NFL than in fantasy. St. Louis didn't know what to do with him, and he got banged up a bit his first two years, but they love him in Cincy as a short-yardage guy who picks up first downs, tough yards, can play some fullback, and catch the ball. But he had no chance of supplanting Jackson, and he wouldn't replace Benson now.

Did I miss where Brian Leonard led the country in rushing in the Pac-Ten and didn't lose his job to a superior talent in his senior year?

No, you just acknowledged and rejected another posters racism with RBs...I applaud your effort to be honest.

It's racism to compare a white RB to another white RB?

 

[Go deep]

I can't see how Gerhart is going to be any different than Brian Leonard. Much more valuable in the NFL than in fantasy. St. Louis didn't know what to do with him, and he got banged up a bit his first two years, but they love him in Cincy as a short-yardage guy who picks up first downs, tough yards, can play some fullback, and catch the ball. But he had no chance of supplanting Jackson, and he wouldn't replace Benson now.

Did I miss where Brian Leonard led the country in rushing in the Pac-Ten and didn't lose his job to a superior talent in his senior year?

No, you just acknowledged and rejected another posters racism with RBs...I applaud your effort to be honest.

It's racism to compare a white RB to another white RB?

Racism? No, but its prejudice.