Trade value of the 1.01 (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

I've got 1.1 in a keep 5 10 man league. While it's not true Dynasty I've been riding Mannings coat tails since his rookie year. This year is one of the worst years to have 1.1 in my mind. The trade value is very low given the multitude of options at running back coming out. There are a lot of questions about McFadden who I believe should be the #1 pick. I believe that we will not know the full value of 1.1 until after the draft and understand what situations these RB's fall into. I threw up a poll recently that placed some of the 2008 class in hypothetical situations. The results were interesting (albeit a small sample). Stewart (or perhaps Mendenhall) could easily vault over McFadden due to team environment and combine numbers. You really need to factor in "quickness of return on investment" when evaluating draft picks these days. Here are the results of the poll if anyone's interested.

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

Interestingly I am diverging from that thery more and more. Though the gap is told to be too tight, I have seldomly seen pre-combine picks to be this unanimous om a certain guy except for Reggie Bush. Even Adrian Peterson last year was not singled out at this time of the year. He was not even considered a top 3 pick by most at the time of the draft. This year I am reading all sorts of things left and right about the possibilties of a top 3 or even a top pick, be it via trade or your regular draft.Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

Crazy.

 

[mozzy84]

I've got 1.1 in a keep 5 10 man league. While it's not true Dynasty I've been riding Mannings coat tails since his rookie year. This year is one of the worst years to have 1.1 in my mind. The trade value is very low given the multitude of options at running back coming out. There are a lot of questions about McFadden who I believe should be the #1 pick. I believe that we will not know the full value of 1.1 until after the draft and understand what situations these RB's fall into. I threw up a poll recently that placed some of the 2008 class in hypothetical situations. The results were interesting (albeit a small sample). Stewart (or perhaps Mendenhall) could easily vault over McFadden due to team environment and combine numbers. You really need to factor in "quickness of return on investment" when evaluating draft picks these days. Here are the results of the poll if anyone's interested.

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

Interestingly I am diverging from that theory more and more. Though the gap is said to be too tight by fellow posters, I have seldomly seen pre-combine picks to be this unanimous on a certain guy except for maybe Reggie Bush. Even Adrian Peterson last year was not singled out at this time of the year. He was not even considered a top 3 pick by most at the time of the draft. This year I am reading all sorts of things left and right about the possibilties of a top 3 or even a top pick, be it via trade or your regular draft.Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

this line confuses me, from what I remember it was ad, cj and lynch the whole time. Besides a few people that wanted CJ 1st for some reason....and you would be crazy to turn that deal down, someone actually offer you that?

 

[SayWhat?]

I've got 1.1 in a keep 5 10 man league. While it's not true Dynasty I've been riding Mannings coat tails since his rookie year. This year is one of the worst years to have 1.1 in my mind. The trade value is very low given the multitude of options at running back coming out. There are a lot of questions about McFadden who I believe should be the #1 pick. I believe that we will not know the full value of 1.1 until after the draft and understand what situations these RB's fall into. I threw up a poll recently that placed some of the 2008 class in hypothetical situations. The results were interesting (albeit a small sample). Stewart (or perhaps Mendenhall) could easily vault over McFadden due to team environment and combine numbers. You really need to factor in "quickness of return on investment" when evaluating draft picks these days. Here are the results of the poll if anyone's interested.

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

Interestingly I am diverging from that theory more and more. Though the gap is said to be too tight by fellow posters, I have seldomly seen pre-combine picks to be this unanimous on a certain guy except for maybe Reggie Bush. Even Adrian Peterson last year was not singled out at this time of the year. He was not even considered a top 3 pick by most at the time of the draft. This year I am reading all sorts of things left and right about the possibilties of a top 3 or even a top pick, be it via trade or your regular draft.Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

this line confuses me, from what I remember it was ad, cj and lynch the whole time. Besides a few people that wanted CJ 1st for some reason....and you would be crazy to turn that deal down, someone actually offer you that?

I think he means that Peterson wasn't considered a top 3 pick in the NFL Draft at draft time last year. But I don't necessarily agree with that assessment either. Many stated that Peterson was likely one of, if not the, best talent in the draft pool last season. Unfortunately his injury history was a cause of concern for some. On top of that, none of the teams at the very top of the draft had a pressing need for a running back.

 

[yellowdog]

Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

Crazy would be an understatement.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

Crazy would be an understatement.

While i would probably make that deal, i will not call him crazy for not making it.

 

[womb]

To those people who do have the right to call what I would do crazy (as I myself suggested) please read my previous views on this issue.

I am a guy who would rather have a proven historical track record to pick a rookie to fill a most diring need in Fantasy Football (regardless of depth...) than a lower chance with a higher ceiling. What I would worry is that if 1.01 would not deliver me an average of this track record. So what I am looking for when I read comments and pieces and articles from scouts and sportswriters at this precombine time of the year, is to see if they do huddle the RBs together like our fellow posters on the board do. IF they did that, like back when we were picking Caddy and Ronnie, would make the pick murkier.

But they do not. McFadden at this time is singled out and is almost the unanimous top prospect according to these people. I am keen to read otherwise. I feel it would be best to see other articles. Yet, from an NFL draft point of view and not Fantasy Football, to the best of my knowledge he is so far singled out. That is enough for me at this point.

When saying even ADP was not this a unanimous choice, of course I do not mean fantasy. Fantasywise he was as clear a choice as there was with what a 1.04 average draft position in Z-Lots last year? I mean real football. As far real football goes, the picture seems to be pretty well laid out this year.

When going beyond 1.01, I have seen no consensus regarding who the clear choice is, not even among this board... I know there are polls and stuff, still. And as far as scouts and sportswriters go, everyone has differing views on the next RB. I have extensive examples on typical 1.06-1.07 range picks in the past if you care to read.

So really, why would I need to take a chance? Not at this point, no. Not for me. Perhaps after the combines or the draft where we have a clearer picture.

 

[EBF]

To those people who do have the right to call what I would do crazy (as I myself suggested) please read my previous views on this issue. I am a guy who would rather have a proven historical track record to pick a rookie to fill a most diring need in Fantasy Football (regardless of depth...) than a lower chance with a higher ceiling. What I would worry is that if 1.01 would not deliver me an average of this track record. So what I am looking for when I read comments and pieces and articles from scouts and sportswriters at this precombine time of the year, is to see if they do huddle the RBs together like our fellow posters on the board do. IF they did that, like back when we were picking Caddy and Ronnie, would make the pick murkier. But they do not. McFadden at this time is singled out and is almost the unanimous top prospect according to these people. I am keen to read otherwise. I feel it would be best to see other articles. Yet, from an NFL draft point of view and not Fantasy Football, to the best of my knowledge he is so far singled out. That is enough for me at this point. When saying even ADP was not this a unanimous choice, of course I do not mean fantasy. Fantasywise he was as clear a choice as there was with what a 1.04 average draft position in Z-Lots last year? I mean real football. As far real football goes, the picture seems to be pretty well laid out this year.When going beyond 1.01, I have seen no consensus regarding who the clear choice is, not even among this board... I know there are polls and stuff, still. And as far as scouts and sportswriters go, everyone has differing views on the next RB. I have extensive examples on typical 1.06-1.07 range picks in the past if you care to read.So really, why would I need to take a chance? Not at this point, no. Not for me. Perhaps after the combines or the draft where we have a clearer picture.

There's already been a lot of stuff posted on this. No one is denying that there's a gap in value between 1.01 and 1.02. But it's not all that significant. And when you factor in the 1.06 and 1.09, it would be bad mathematics to pass on that package of picks in favor of 1.01. You'd be pissing away a chance at two additional impact players for a tiny shred of security. I would say there seems to be a pretty clear consensus number two back right now. That's Jonathan Stewart. He's been creeping up the charts and by now almost all the sources I trust have him at RB2 (scout.com, NFL Draft Scout, NFL Draft Countdown, Kiper). Scout.com has him as the #10 overall prospect. Kiper has him as the #9 overall prospect. Scott Wright has him as the #9 NFL prospect. Draft Scout has him as the #15 overall prospect. I called this one months ago. He is going to creep, creep, creep up the draft boards. And after NFL scouts get a look at him in Indianapolis, he may very well be a top 10 pick. The difference between him and McFadden isn't that big. 10-15 draft slots is not a very significant difference in a draft of 250+ players. As I've said before, I actually think Stewart might be the better prospect independent of who drafts them. His game is certainly more tailor made for the NFL. It will be interesting to follow this situation over the next few years.

 

[sheerterror]

I'm sitting at 1.03, wondering what it might take to get to 1.02. I've watched a good amount of Stewart all season, and he's my favorite back (aside from Rice) from a fan standpoint in this draft. I'd love to get the opportunity to draft him, without having to give up the farm to move up 1 spot. Obviously, it won't be as expensive as moving up from 1.02 to 1.01, but I'd imagine it would cost me a 2nd rounder at least? Seems to me that now may be the time to make the move to 1.02, before the combine, and before the Stewart hype gets out of control. Of course, I could screw myself making this move if he manages to surpass McFadden as RB1 in rookie draft coming up.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

I've got 1.1 in a keep 5 10 man league. While it's not true Dynasty I've been riding Mannings coat tails since his rookie year. This year is one of the worst years to have 1.1 in my mind. The trade value is very low given the multitude of options at running back coming out. There are a lot of questions about McFadden who I believe should be the #1 pick. I believe that we will not know the full value of 1.1 until after the draft and understand what situations these RB's fall into. I threw up a poll recently that placed some of the 2008 class in hypothetical situations. The results were interesting (albeit a small sample). Stewart (or perhaps Mendenhall) could easily vault over McFadden due to team environment and combine numbers. You really need to factor in "quickness of return on investment" when evaluating draft picks these days. Here are the results of the poll if anyone's interested.

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

Interestingly I am diverging from that thery more and more. Though the gap is told to be too tight, I have seldomly seen pre-combine picks to be this unanimous om a certain guy except for Reggie Bush. Even Adrian Peterson last year was not singled out at this time of the year. He was not even considered a top 3 pick by most at the time of the draft. This year I am reading all sorts of things left and right about the possibilties of a top 3 or even a top pick, be it via trade or your regular draft.Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

Crazy.

OK, ok.So who would you get at 1.6 and 1.9?

I would not do this trade. No way no how.

1.6-wr 1.9-qb. Not what I would call a good trade.

1.2 is 1.2 for a reason. It's the 2nd best RB.

 

[EBF]

I've got 1.1 in a keep 5 10 man league. While it's not true Dynasty I've been riding Mannings coat tails since his rookie year. This year is one of the worst years to have 1.1 in my mind. The trade value is very low given the multitude of options at running back coming out. There are a lot of questions about McFadden who I believe should be the #1 pick. I believe that we will not know the full value of 1.1 until after the draft and understand what situations these RB's fall into. I threw up a poll recently that placed some of the 2008 class in hypothetical situations. The results were interesting (albeit a small sample). Stewart (or perhaps Mendenhall) could easily vault over McFadden due to team environment and combine numbers. You really need to factor in "quickness of return on investment" when evaluating draft picks these days. Here are the results of the poll if anyone's interested.

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

Interestingly I am diverging from that thery more and more. Though the gap is told to be too tight, I have seldomly seen pre-combine picks to be this unanimous om a certain guy except for Reggie Bush. Even Adrian Peterson last year was not singled out at this time of the year. He was not even considered a top 3 pick by most at the time of the draft. This year I am reading all sorts of things left and right about the possibilties of a top 3 or even a top pick, be it via trade or your regular draft.Let's see where the other chips fall before making the final verdict. At this time though, it is still hard for me to trade it away. Not even for a high, mid and low 1st rounder like 1.02+1.06+1.09. Call me crazy.

Crazy.

OK, ok.So who would you get at 1.6 and 1.9?

I would not do this trade. No way no how.

1.6-wr 1.9-qb. Not what I would call a good trade.

1.2 is 1.2 for a reason. It's the 2nd best RB.

Like I said, there has been plenty of discussion about the value of these picks. The only thing you can say about 1.01 is that it represents the most highly-regarded player prior to the start of this draft group's actual NFL careers. So while McFadden might have a slight edge over the others for the time being, that in no way shape or form guarantees his ultimate success. I pointed out earlier that the top back in the draft only becomes a good pro 70% of the time and actually only becomes the best RB from his class about 40% of the time. That should put McFadden's value in a more realistic light.

I would definitely trade 1.01 for 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 this year. I would take Stewart or Mendenhall/WR/WR and I would feel pretty good that in the long run, my players would be more valuable than Darren McFadden.

It seems to me that short-term memories are prevailing here and lots of people are looking at McFadden and seeing Peterson. I think that's a mistake. Peterson was a rare case. More often than not, the top RB chosen doesn't go on to become some elite superstar at the next level. I feel like McFadden is especially risky given his very bad body type. Stewart and Mendenhall have much better builds for the pro game and both of those guys are fine prospects in their own right (unanimous first round picks judging by my sources). I expect at least one of them to be very good at the next level.

 

[FUBAR]

OK, ok.So who would you get at 1.6 and 1.9?I would not do this trade. No way no how.1.6-wr 1.9-qb. Not what I would call a good trade.1.2 is 1.2 for a reason. It's the 2nd best RB.

Let's just use the last few years, no way to know for certain who the 6/9 are in 08.In one of my leagues, the actual picks:2007: Peterson for Lynch + Bowe + S. Rice2006: Reggie Bush for Addai + Holmes + VYoung2005: Ronnie Brown for Carnell Williams + Williamson + Mark Clayton2004: Kevin Jones for Steven Jackson + Tatem Bell + Michael Clayton2003: McGahee for LJ + Palmer + Musa SmithI realize leagues are different, but in most years, the trade was at least decent. Even with Peterson, that trade is still looking fair - and few RBs are Peterson.

 

[FUBAR]

I would definitely trade 1.01 for 1.06 and 1.09 this year. I would take Stewart or Mendenhall/WR/WR and I would feel pretty good that in the long run, my players would be more valuable than Darren McFadden.

I assume you mean 1.01 for 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09; 1 for 6 and 9 would be nuts.

 

[EBF]

I would definitely trade 1.01 for 1.06 and 1.09 this year. I would take Stewart or Mendenhall/WR/WR and I would feel pretty good that in the long run, my players would be more valuable than Darren McFadden.

I assume you mean 1.01 for 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09; 1 for 6 and 9 would be nuts.

Yea, woops.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

OK, ok.So who would you get at 1.6 and 1.9?I would not do this trade. No way no how.1.6-wr 1.9-qb. Not what I would call a good trade.1.2 is 1.2 for a reason. It's the 2nd best RB.

Let's just use the last few years, no way to know for certain who the 6/9 are in 08.In one of my leagues, the actual picks:2007: Peterson for Lynch + Bowe + S. Rice2006: Reggie Bush for Addai + Holmes + VYoung2005: Ronnie Brown for Carnell Williams + Williamson + Mark Clayton2004: Kevin Jones for Steven Jackson + Tatem Bell + Michael Clayton2003: McGahee for LJ + Palmer + Musa SmithI realize leagues are different, but in most years, the trade was at least decent. Even with Peterson, that trade is still looking fair - and few RBs are Peterson.

I think the 3 player side of those deals is better every year but 2005.

 

[IM666]

I've got the 1.02 pick in my dynasty league, and will wait and see how FA and the draft play out. If I had to trade right now, I would go after MBIII and be happy if I got him.

 

[Bossman]

I traded the 1.1 pick about 6 weeks ago. Traded it straight up for Steve Smith (PPR league)

I now understand how you owned the 1.01

 

[womb]

OK, ok.So who would you get at 1.6 and 1.9?I would not do this trade. No way no how.1.6-wr 1.9-qb. Not what I would call a good trade.1.2 is 1.2 for a reason. It's the 2nd best RB.

Let's just use the last few years, no way to know for certain who the 6/9 are in 08.In one of my leagues, the actual picks:2007: Peterson for Lynch + Bowe + S. Rice2006: Reggie Bush for Addai + Holmes + VYoung2005: Ronnie Brown for Carnell Williams + Williamson + Mark Clayton2004: Kevin Jones for Steven Jackson + Tatem Bell + Michael Clayton2003: McGahee for LJ + Palmer + Musa SmithI realize leagues are different, but in most years, the trade was at least decent. Even with Peterson, that trade is still looking fair - and few RBs are Peterson.

Let's not do that. I can give embarrasing examples of picks from a picking of my choice.Let me again focus on consensus. One rookie draft average I know is the Zaelots averages that can be found at the sig of spec1alk. It goes back to 2005. Other references would be most welcome.2007 Peterson for Lynch (CJ a close 3rd)+ Bush + Bowe2006 Bush for Maroney (DeAngelo was a close 3rd not Addai) + Vernon Davis + Jay Cutler2005 Ronnie Brown for Caddy + Troy Williamson + Mark ClaytonAs much as Bush was a disappointment & I am a Patriots fan, I am still cool not pulling a trade in each of these 3 years. Though I can not show, I have a feeling Kevin Jones was not the top pick in 2004 and LJ was not 1.02 in 2003.

 

[sparkky]

I'd do the 1 for 2,6,9 deal in a heartbeat. especially this year. I also subscribe to the "not much drop off" theory.

I'd be tempted to take another rb at 6 depending on who was left on the board and where they went.

someone at 4 or 5 may be in love with a qb or wr if they're weak at that position thus pushing another rb down a spot.

I have the 2,5,8 spots in one league and I couldn't DRINK enough to offer that for 1 even with a low second thrown in.

 

[EBF]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player.

Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player.

So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:

The value of 1.01 = .70

The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40

1.40 > .70

This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

 

[Burning Sensation]

EBF and Contruxboy, is it true if you each had the 1.1, that you would take Mcfadden?

What would be the least you would take to trade down to the 1.2, lets say pick wise? Would you trade down from 1.1 to 1.2 for say the 1.6 pick?

 

[EBF]

EBF and Contruxboy, is it true if you each had the 1.1, that you would take Mcfadden?What would be the least you would take to trade down to the 1.2, lets say pick wise? Would you trade down from 1.1 to 1.2 for say the 1.6 pick?

If I had the 1.01 I would try to trade it. It's difficult to say exactly what package of picks I would accept to move down to 1.02. It depends a bit on league setup and scoring requirements. For example, a late first round pick has a lot of value in my PPR leagues. A late first round pick has very little value in my Misfits league (because the scoring is so RB-skewed). I don't see a big difference between McFadden and the guys at 1.02. As I've said before, I think you can make a case that Stewart and Mendenhall are better FF prospects. So it wouldn't take much for me to move down a slot. I would do it for a late first round pick in a PPR. Maybe even an early second round pick depending on which WRs would be available in that range. Realistically though, I would try to find someone who thinks McFadden = Peterson, and I would try to take as much as I could from him.

 

[shamrock84]

I was offered the 1.02 and 1.03 picks which I will take but it's contingent on the guy actually attaining the 1.02 pick. We'll see what happens.

So this actually went through today. I'm very pleased. Guy was very high on McFadden... ended up moving Gore to get the 1.02 and then gave me both 1.02 and 1.03 for 1.01.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I was offered the 1.02 and 1.03 picks which I will take but it's contingent on the guy actually attaining the 1.02 pick. We'll see what happens.

So this actually went through today. I'm very pleased. Guy was very high on McFadden... ended up moving Gore to get the 1.02 and then gave me both 1.02 and 1.03 for 1.01.

I like Mcfadden, but thats crazy!!!Good for you though.

 

[redman]

I was offered the 1.02 and 1.03 picks which I will take but it's contingent on the guy actually attaining the 1.02 pick. We'll see what happens.

So this actually went through today. I'm very pleased. Guy was very high on McFadden... ended up moving Gore to get the 1.02 and then gave me both 1.02 and 1.03 for 1.01.

I like Mcfadden, but thats crazy!!!Good for you though.

Seriously. In all honesty, a straight up trade of Gore for the 1.01 would be questionable. He parlayed a bad trade into a worse one. Wow.

 

[corpcow]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player. Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player. So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:The value of 1.01 = .70The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40 1.40 > .70 This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

While I would rather have the 3 picks myself, this analysis completely ignores the dynamics of value and upside and the cost (in both roster spots and salary/contract years) of carrying 3 players vs. 1. (Edit: err, ok, you said that).Your math is a little curious too - you can't just add the probabilities like that

 

[EBF]

Guy was very high on McFadden... ended up moving Gore to get the 1.02 and then gave me both 1.02 and 1.03 for 1.01.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player. Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player. So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:The value of 1.01 = .70The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40 1.40 > .70 This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

While I would rather have the 3 picks myself, this analysis completely ignores the dynamics of value and upside and the cost (in both roster spots and salary/contract years) of carrying 3 players vs. 1. (Edit: err, ok, you said that).Your math is a little curious too - you can't just add the probabilities like that

Not to mention EBF gives the #9 pick a .4, and the only gives the #1 pick a .7. I have the 1.8(.4) and 1.9(.4) pick in a league, and i would easily give them both for the 1.1(.7), as would anyone else. There is definetly something wrong with EBF's formula.

 

[EBF]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player. Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player. So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:The value of 1.01 = .70The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40 1.40 > .70 This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

While I would rather have the 3 picks myself, this analysis completely ignores the dynamics of value and upside and the cost (in both roster spots and salary/contract years) of carrying 3 players vs. 1. (Edit: err, ok, you said that).Your math is a little curious too - you can't just add the probabilities like that

Not to mention EBF gives the #9 pick a .4, and the only gives the #1 pick a .7. I have the 1.8(.4) and 1.9(.4) pick in a league, and i would easily give them both for the 1.1(.7), as would anyone else. There is definetly something wrong with EBF's formula.

Not really. I did a study on this a few years back and I think my results showed that the odds of a skill player drafted in a given round becoming a solid FF starter are something like:First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%It's true that the top 3-4 picks tend to be significantly more valuable than the rest since that tends to be where the freak of nature RBs are found, but every draft class gives us lots of solid players who don't enter the NFL with extraordinary hype. Frank Gore, Brian Westbrook, Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings, Santonio Holmes, Steve Smith, and Anquan Boldin are a few recent examples. You can do pretty well for yourself in rookie draft without ever having a top 5-6 pick. That said, the value of picks depends on your league setup. The top few picks have increased value in non-PPR leagues that require you to start 2-3 RBs because runners have more value in this setup and it's difficult to get a good RB with a later pick. However, if you play in a more balanced league with PPR scoring then there's not a very big value difference between 1.08 and 1.01. At 1.08 you'll probably be able to draft a first round WR who has a pretty decent shot of becoming a solid starter for you. I pointed out earlier in this thread that the first RB drafted only becomes a solid player about 70% of the time and is not usually the best RB from his draft class. It's just something to consider when you talk about the value of the 1.01 pick. It's not bulletproof by any means.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player. Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player. So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:The value of 1.01 = .70The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40 1.40 > .70 This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

While I would rather have the 3 picks myself, this analysis completely ignores the dynamics of value and upside and the cost (in both roster spots and salary/contract years) of carrying 3 players vs. 1. (Edit: err, ok, you said that).Your math is a little curious too - you can't just add the probabilities like that

Not to mention EBF gives the #9 pick a .4, and the only gives the #1 pick a .7. I have the 1.8(.4) and 1.9(.4) pick in a league, and i would easily give them both for the 1.1(.7), as would anyone else. There is definetly something wrong with EBF's formula.

Not really. I did a study on this a few years back and I think my results showed that the odds of a skill player drafted in a given round becoming a solid FF starter are something like:First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%It's true that the top 3-4 picks tend to be significantly more valuable than the rest since that tends to be where the freak of nature RBs are found, but every draft class gives us lots of solid players who don't enter the NFL with extraordinary hype. Frank Gore, Brian Westbrook, Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings, Santonio Holmes, Steve Smith, and Anquan Boldin are a few recent examples. You can do pretty well for yourself in rookie draft without ever having a top 5-6 pick. That said, the value of picks depends on your league setup. The top few picks have increased value in non-PPR leagues that require you to start 2-3 RBs because runners have more value in this setup and it's difficult to get a good RB with a later pick. However, if you play in a more balanced league with PPR scoring then there's not a very big value difference between 1.08 and 1.01. At 1.08 you'll probably be able to draft a first round WR who has a pretty decent shot of becoming a solid starter for you. I pointed out earlier in this thread that the first RB drafted only becomes a solid player about 70% of the time and is not usually the best RB from his draft class. It's just something to consider when you talk about the value of the 1.01 pick. It's not bulletproof by any means.

Nobody is saying the 1.1 is bulletproof, but it is easily the safest pick, especially when you have a shot at a RB that is selected in the top 10 of the NFL draft. As far as the #1 RB selected not being the best, which spot would you say is better? The 2nd RB selected in the draft, 3rd? Do a little research over the last 8 years and tell me which spot beats this?Adrian PetersonReggie BushRonnie BrownStephen JacksonWillis McGaheeWilliam GreenLaDainian TomlinsonJamal LewisI know we have been over this already, and i also know that all these guys have not, or may not end up being the best. However, you will not find the 2nd, 3rd or 4th RB's taken in the draft to be even close to the first ones taken. Also, are you saying you would trade the 1.1 for the 1.8 and 1.9? ETA, this cant be right:

First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%

I know in the 20+ rookie drafts i have done, there is no way the numbers are close to this. I would love to see any kind of research that proves this to be correct.

 

[EBF]

Nobody is saying the 1.1 is bulletproof, but it is easily the safest pick, especially when you have a shot at a RB that is selected in the top 10 of the NFL draft. As far as the #1 RB selected not being the best, which spot would you say is better? The 2nd RB selected in the draft, 3rd? Do a little research over the last 8 years and tell me which spot beats this?

You missed my point completely. The RB1 only has about a 40% chance of becoming the best RB from his class. He has better odds than any of the other RBs drafted, but more often than not will not become the best RB drafted. So for all the hype over Darren McFadden, historical trends say he probably won't be the best RB from this class when all is said and done. That doesn't mean his odds aren't better than Stewart's or Mendenhall's. They're better, but certainly not by enough to justify some of the trades people are making involving the 1.01 and 1.02/1.03.

I know we have been over this already, and i also know that all these guys have not, or may not end up being the best. However, you will not find the 2nd, 3rd or 4th RB's taken in the draft to be even close to the first ones taken.

I think I went over this earlier in the thread. The gap between RB1 and RB2 doesn't appear to be all that huge. The big difference is that RB1 seems to give you a slightly better chance at that superstud Peterson/Tomlinson/Edge/Faulk type. But the overall success rate is fairly comparable.

One more thing, are you saying you would trade the 1.1 for the 1.8 and 1.9?

It depends on the league. I wouldn't consider it in a RB-heavy league like Misfits or Zealots because the only way to dominate in those leagues is by having dominant RBs and you stand a much better chance of getting a dominant RB in the first few picks than you do in the late first round. But in a balanced PPR league with flexibile starting requirements I think you can make a pretty decent case that 1.08 and 1.09 are about equal in value to 1.01. Would I trade 1.01 for 1.08 and 1.09? No, because I know I could get a better deal than that.

 

[el centro]

I was offered the 1.02 and 1.03 picks which I will take but it's contingent on the guy actually attaining the 1.02 pick. We'll see what happens.

So this actually went through today. I'm very pleased. Guy was very high on McFadden... ended up moving Gore to get the 1.02 and then gave me both 1.02 and 1.03 for 1.01.

I'd love to get a trade like that once in a while. Seems like I gotta poke & prod for the slightest of deals - too many sharks in these leagues (incl EBF)

 

[EBF]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player. Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player. So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:The value of 1.01 = .70The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40 1.40 > .70 This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

While I would rather have the 3 picks myself, this analysis completely ignores the dynamics of value and upside and the cost (in both roster spots and salary/contract years) of carrying 3 players vs. 1. (Edit: err, ok, you said that).Your math is a little curious too - you can't just add the probabilities like that

Not to mention EBF gives the #9 pick a .4, and the only gives the #1 pick a .7. I have the 1.8(.4) and 1.9(.4) pick in a league, and i would easily give them both for the 1.1(.7), as would anyone else. There is definetly something wrong with EBF's formula.

Not really. I did a study on this a few years back and I think my results showed that the odds of a skill player drafted in a given round becoming a solid FF starter are something like:First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%It's true that the top 3-4 picks tend to be significantly more valuable than the rest since that tends to be where the freak of nature RBs are found, but every draft class gives us lots of solid players who don't enter the NFL with extraordinary hype. Frank Gore, Brian Westbrook, Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings, Santonio Holmes, Steve Smith, and Anquan Boldin are a few recent examples. You can do pretty well for yourself in rookie draft without ever having a top 5-6 pick. That said, the value of picks depends on your league setup. The top few picks have increased value in non-PPR leagues that require you to start 2-3 RBs because runners have more value in this setup and it's difficult to get a good RB with a later pick. However, if you play in a more balanced league with PPR scoring then there's not a very big value difference between 1.08 and 1.01. At 1.08 you'll probably be able to draft a first round WR who has a pretty decent shot of becoming a solid starter for you. I pointed out earlier in this thread that the first RB drafted only becomes a solid player about 70% of the time and is not usually the best RB from his draft class. It's just something to consider when you talk about the value of the 1.01 pick. It's not bulletproof by any means.

Nobody is saying the 1.1 is bulletproof, but it is easily the safest pick, especially when you have a shot at a RB that is selected in the top 10 of the NFL draft. As far as the #1 RB selected not being the best, which spot would you say is better? The 2nd RB selected in the draft, 3rd? Do a little research over the last 8 years and tell me which spot beats this?Adrian PetersonReggie BushRonnie BrownStephen JacksonWillis McGaheeWilliam GreenLaDainian TomlinsonJamal LewisI know we have been over this already, and i also know that all these guys have not, or may not end up being the best. However, you will not find the 2nd, 3rd or 4th RB's taken in the draft to be even close to the first ones taken. Also, are you saying you would trade the 1.1 for the 1.8 and 1.9? ETA, this cant be right:

First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%

I know in the 20+ rookie drafts i have done, there is no way the numbers are close to this. I would love to see any kind of research that proves this to be correct.

I'm talking NFL draft, not rookie draft.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Nobody is saying the 1.1 is bulletproof, but it is easily the safest pick, especially when you have a shot at a RB that is selected in the top 10 of the NFL draft. As far as the #1 RB selected not being the best, which spot would you say is better? The 2nd RB selected in the draft, 3rd? Do a little research over the last 8 years and tell me which spot beats this?

You missed my point completely. The RB1 only has about a 40% chance of becoming the best RB from his class. He has better odds than any of the other RBs drafted, but more often than not will not become the best RB drafted. So for all the hype over Darren McFadden, historical trends say he probably won't be the best RB from this class when all is said and done.

That doesn't mean his odds aren't better than Stewart's or Mendenhall's. They're better, but certainly not by enough to justify some of the trades people are making involving the 1.01 and 1.02/1.03.

I know we have been over this already, and i also know that all these guys have not, or may not end up being the best. However, you will not find the 2nd, 3rd or 4th RB's taken in the draft to be even close to the first ones taken.

I think I went over this earlier in the thread. The gap between RB1 and RB2 doesn't appear to be all that huge. The big difference is that RB1 seems to give you a slightly better chance at that superstud Peterson/Tomlinson/Edge/Faulk type. But the overall success rate is fairly comparable.

One more thing, are you saying you would trade the 1.1 for the 1.8 and 1.9?

It depends on the league. I wouldn't consider it in a RB-heavy league like Misfits or Zealots because the only way to dominate in those leagues is by having dominant RBs and you stand a much better chance of getting a dominant RB in the first few picks than you do in the late first round. But in a balanced PPR league with flexibile starting requirements I think you can make a pretty decent case that 1.08 and 1.09 are about equal in value to 1.01. Would I traded 1.01 for 1.08 and 1.09? No, because I know I could get a better deal than that.

I didnt miss your point, i just disagree with it. Since odds are Mcfadden will not be the best RB in the class, who will be? Unless you know that, Mcfadden is the best/safest pick. Trading down to the 1.2 and a guy with a 25% chance or less of being that guy is not worth a 1.10 or 1.11 pick. As far as trading the 1.1 for the 1.2 and 1.3, we completly agree, i would take that trade instantly.

I dont have any facts to back it up, but i would be willing to bet that in most years, you would not trade the player that went 1.1 in your past rookie drafts for the players that went 1.8 and 1.9.

 

[Burning Sensation]

I don't want to get into the mathematics of this too much because that would require a lot of explanation and would be somewhat different for every particular league format, but I think it's best to look at rookie picks as probabilities. Each rookie pick represents a prospect. Each prospect represents a probability of becoming a useful player. Based on the rough numbers presented in this thread, a guy like McFadden has about a 70% chance of becoming a good player. The RB2 has about a 60-65% chance. Assuming that there will still be first round WRs on the board at 1.06 and 1.09, those picks probably represent about a 40-50% chance of becoming a good player. So if you were to ignore upside (too complicated to factor in right now), you would get something like this:The value of 1.01 = .70The value of 1.02 + 1.06 + 1.09 = .60 + .40 + .40 = 1.40 1.40 > .70 This is a pretty rough sketch of the actual mathematics at work here, but I honestly think you'd have to be a fool to trade 1.02, 1.06, and 1.09 for 1.01. In fact, you could make a pretty strong argument that 1.02 and 1.09 are worth more than 1.01 even without the inclusion of the 1.06 pick.

While I would rather have the 3 picks myself, this analysis completely ignores the dynamics of value and upside and the cost (in both roster spots and salary/contract years) of carrying 3 players vs. 1. (Edit: err, ok, you said that).Your math is a little curious too - you can't just add the probabilities like that

Not to mention EBF gives the #9 pick a .4, and the only gives the #1 pick a .7. I have the 1.8(.4) and 1.9(.4) pick in a league, and i would easily give them both for the 1.1(.7), as would anyone else. There is definetly something wrong with EBF's formula.

Not really. I did a study on this a few years back and I think my results showed that the odds of a skill player drafted in a given round becoming a solid FF starter are something like:First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%It's true that the top 3-4 picks tend to be significantly more valuable than the rest since that tends to be where the freak of nature RBs are found, but every draft class gives us lots of solid players who don't enter the NFL with extraordinary hype. Frank Gore, Brian Westbrook, Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Greg Jennings, Santonio Holmes, Steve Smith, and Anquan Boldin are a few recent examples. You can do pretty well for yourself in rookie draft without ever having a top 5-6 pick. That said, the value of picks depends on your league setup. The top few picks have increased value in non-PPR leagues that require you to start 2-3 RBs because runners have more value in this setup and it's difficult to get a good RB with a later pick. However, if you play in a more balanced league with PPR scoring then there's not a very big value difference between 1.08 and 1.01. At 1.08 you'll probably be able to draft a first round WR who has a pretty decent shot of becoming a solid starter for you. I pointed out earlier in this thread that the first RB drafted only becomes a solid player about 70% of the time and is not usually the best RB from his draft class. It's just something to consider when you talk about the value of the 1.01 pick. It's not bulletproof by any means.

Nobody is saying the 1.1 is bulletproof, but it is easily the safest pick, especially when you have a shot at a RB that is selected in the top 10 of the NFL draft. As far as the #1 RB selected not being the best, which spot would you say is better? The 2nd RB selected in the draft, 3rd? Do a little research over the last 8 years and tell me which spot beats this?Adrian PetersonReggie BushRonnie BrownStephen JacksonWillis McGaheeWilliam GreenLaDainian TomlinsonJamal LewisI know we have been over this already, and i also know that all these guys have not, or may not end up being the best. However, you will not find the 2nd, 3rd or 4th RB's taken in the draft to be even close to the first ones taken. Also, are you saying you would trade the 1.1 for the 1.8 and 1.9? ETA, this cant be right:

First Round - 50-60%Second Round - 35%Third Round - 30%

I know in the 20+ rookie drafts i have done, there is no way the numbers are close to this. I would love to see any kind of research that proves this to be correct.

I'm talking NFL draft, not rookie draft.

Sorry, i misunderstood, although, that still doesnt seem right.

 

[EBF]

I didnt miss your point, i just disagree with it. Since odds are Mcfadden will not be the best RB in the class, who will be? Unless you know that, Mcfadden is the best/safest pick. Trading down to the 1.2 and a guy with a 25% chance or less of being that guy is not worth a 1.10 or 1.11 pick.

It depends on your league setup and the depth in the draft. 1.11 and 1.10 are pretty valuable in a PPR league and would probably be enough to tilt the trade scenario in favor of the 1.02/1.11 side. It's kind of a moot point though since lots of owners assume that 1.01 is far more valuable than 1.02 and 1.11, meaning you can almost certainly reap a bigger bounty to move down (at the very least you could probably get 1.02, 1.11, and another high pick or solid prospect).

I dont have any facts to back it up, but i would be willing to bet that in most years, you would not trade the player that went 1.1 in your past rookie drafts for the players that went 1.8 and 1.9.

You might think so, but I took a look at my oldest dynasty league and it looks like it's close to 50/50 in a given year. Steven Jackson vs. Eli Manning/Roy WilliamsKevin Jones vs. Roy Williams/Reggie WilliamsCarnell Williams vs. Ryan Moats/Braylon EdwardsRonnie Brown vs. Frank Gore/Mike WilliamsReggie Bush vs. Matt Leinart/Brian CalhounReggie Bush vs. Jay Cutler/Vince YoungAdrian Peterson vs. Robert Meachem/Brady QuinnAdrian Peterson vs. Dwayne Bowe/Brady Quinn2004: Looks like a 1-1 split. I'd take Roy and Reggie over KJ in a dynasty, but I'd take Jackson over Roy and Eli. 2005: Looks like a 0-2 split. Edwards is worth more than Caddy. Gore is worth more than Ronnie.2006: Looks like a 2-0 split. Bush is worth more than either package. 2007: Looks like a 2-0 split. Peterson is worth more than either package. However, it's somewhat premature to judge this class. Bowe had a standout rookie year. Quinn and Meachem still have the potential to be studs. All in all it looks like the 1.01 beats 1.08/1.09 5-3. But the gap isn't necessarily huge and it looks like you have a pretty good shot at getting an impact player if you go WR/WR at 1.08 and 1.09. I don't recommend ever taking a QB in the top 15 of your rookie draft since the upside isn't worth the risk when there are quality WRs on the board. I think in a PPR league I would do okay going WR/WR against RB1 in the long run. I would probably lose in seasons when there's a Peterson or Tomlinson type player, but I would reel in a pretty steady bounty of solid FF WRs who can start for my team and help me win games. Most FF owners are pretty short-sighted and I think the staggering success of Adrian Peterson has caused a lot of people to assume that the RB1 is going to step in and become an instant stud when in reality recent history says there's a 30% chance of a total bust and a 60% chance that he won't be the best RB from his class. As I've been saying for quite some time, I think the shark move this year if you own the 1.01 is to capitalize on this flawed thinking and try to reap a bounty of prospects and/or picks. It looks like a lot of FF owners are offering up hideously bad deals to get the 1.01 this year.

 

[Burning Sensation]

EBF, i agree that there are people out there who will overvalue the 1.1 this year becasue of AD, and if i had a chance to take advantage of such a person, i would do so in a second. While it is highly unikely that Mcfadden will live up to what AD did last year, i see people undervaluing him because of this also. He doesnt need to be the 2nd coming of Peterson to be an elite RB, and a fantasy stud.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

You might think so, but I took a look at my oldest dynasty league and it looks like it's close to 50/50 in a given year. Steven Jackson vs. Eli Manning/Roy WilliamsKevin Jones vs. Roy Williams/Reggie WilliamsCarnell Williams vs. Ryan Moats/Braylon EdwardsRonnie Brown vs. Frank Gore/Mike WilliamsReggie Bush vs. Matt Leinart/Brian CalhounReggie Bush vs. Jay Cutler/Vince YoungAdrian Peterson vs. Robert Meachem/Brady QuinnAdrian Peterson vs. Dwayne Bowe/Brady Quinn2004: Looks like a 1-1 split. I'd take Roy and Reggie over KJ in a dynasty, but I'd take Jackson over Roy and Eli. 2005: Looks like a 0-2 split. Edwards is worth more than Caddy. Gore is worth more than Ronnie.2006: Looks like a 2-0 split. Bush is worth more than either package. 2007: Looks like a 2-0 split. Peterson is worth more than either package. However, it's somewhat premature to judge this class. Bowe had a standout rookie year. Quinn and Meachem still have the potential to be studs. All in all it looks like the 1.01 beats 1.08/1.09 5-3. But the gap isn't necessarily huge and it looks like you have a pretty good shot at getting an impact player if you go WR/WR at 1.08 and 1.09. I don't recommend ever taking a QB in the top 15 of your rookie draft since the upside isn't worth the risk when there are quality WRs on the board. I think in a PPR league I would do okay going WR/WR against RB1 in the long run. I would probably lose in seasons when there's a Peterson or Tomlinson type player, but I would reel in a pretty steady bounty of solid FF WRs who can start for my team and help me win games. Most FF owners are pretty short-sighted and I think the staggering success of Adrian Peterson has caused a lot of people to assume that the RB1 is going to step in and become an instant stud when in reality recent history says there's a 30% chance of a total bust and a 60% chance that he won't be the best RB from his class. As I've been saying for quite some time, I think the shark move this year if you own the 1.01 is to capitalize on this flawed thinking and try to reap a bounty of prospects and/or picks. It looks like a lot of FF owners are offering up hideously bad deals to get the 1.01 this year.

Interesting. But doesn't it really depend on the point-in-time when you assess value. If you looked at the same analysis 1 year after each draft, I think you would have come to a different conclusion in your assessment of 1.01 vs. 1.08/1.09. You wouldn't have rated Edwards over Caddy, or Gore over Ronnie. That would have made it a 7-1 advantage. So yeah, if you "buy and hold" for perpetuity, this is a good snapshot - but it ignores the exit value you could've had at an earlier time.

 

[EBF]

He doesnt need to be the 2nd coming of Peterson to be an elite RB, and a fantasy stud.

You'll get no argument from me there. But with 3-4 legitimate first round talents in the pool this year and with the question marks surrounding McFadden's game, I think it's a very good year to explore the possibilities of trading down if you hold the 1.01 pick. It's worth noting and remembering that, based on the height and weight data we have right now, there's a not a single top 20 RB in the NFL with a BMI as low as McFadden's. So while history is on his side because he'll be the first RB taken, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has ever become an FF stud in the past 15 years. I've said this before, but it's going to be an interesting class to track. McFadden has all the hype, but the worst body type. Mendenhall and Stewart don't have quite as much hype, but they have ideal body types. It will be curious to see whether the opinions of the NFL scouts prevail over the physical considerations. I have my doubts.

 

[Burning Sensation]

He doesnt need to be the 2nd coming of Peterson to be an elite RB, and a fantasy stud.

You'll get no argument from me there. But with 3-4 legitimate first round talents in the pool this year and with the question marks surrounding McFadden's game, I think it's a very good year to explore the possibilities of trading down if you hold the 1.01 pick. It's worth noting and remembering that, based on the height and weight data we have right now, there's a not a single top 20 RB in the NFL with a BMI as low as McFadden's. So while history is on his side because he'll be the first RB taken, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has ever become an FF stud in the past 15 years.

I've said this before, but it's going to be an interesting class to track. McFadden has all the hype, but the worst body type. Mendenhall and Stewart don't have quite as much hype, but they have ideal body types. It will be curious to see whether the opinions of the NFL scouts prevail over the physical considerations. I have my doubts.

The fact the the "experts" know these three players body types, yet still have Mcfadden ranked #1 tells me the guy must be REALLY special.Anyway, i dont think we are that far off with our thoughts on the situation, although we are far enough off that when Mcfadden blows up, i will bump this thread.

 

[EBF]

You might think so, but I took a look at my oldest dynasty league and it looks like it's close to 50/50 in a given year. Steven Jackson vs. Eli Manning/Roy WilliamsKevin Jones vs. Roy Williams/Reggie WilliamsCarnell Williams vs. Ryan Moats/Braylon EdwardsRonnie Brown vs. Frank Gore/Mike WilliamsReggie Bush vs. Matt Leinart/Brian CalhounReggie Bush vs. Jay Cutler/Vince YoungAdrian Peterson vs. Robert Meachem/Brady QuinnAdrian Peterson vs. Dwayne Bowe/Brady Quinn2004: Looks like a 1-1 split. I'd take Roy and Reggie over KJ in a dynasty, but I'd take Jackson over Roy and Eli. 2005: Looks like a 0-2 split. Edwards is worth more than Caddy. Gore is worth more than Ronnie.2006: Looks like a 2-0 split. Bush is worth more than either package. 2007: Looks like a 2-0 split. Peterson is worth more than either package. However, it's somewhat premature to judge this class. Bowe had a standout rookie year. Quinn and Meachem still have the potential to be studs. All in all it looks like the 1.01 beats 1.08/1.09 5-3. But the gap isn't necessarily huge and it looks like you have a pretty good shot at getting an impact player if you go WR/WR at 1.08 and 1.09. I don't recommend ever taking a QB in the top 15 of your rookie draft since the upside isn't worth the risk when there are quality WRs on the board. I think in a PPR league I would do okay going WR/WR against RB1 in the long run. I would probably lose in seasons when there's a Peterson or Tomlinson type player, but I would reel in a pretty steady bounty of solid FF WRs who can start for my team and help me win games. Most FF owners are pretty short-sighted and I think the staggering success of Adrian Peterson has caused a lot of people to assume that the RB1 is going to step in and become an instant stud when in reality recent history says there's a 30% chance of a total bust and a 60% chance that he won't be the best RB from his class. As I've been saying for quite some time, I think the shark move this year if you own the 1.01 is to capitalize on this flawed thinking and try to reap a bounty of prospects and/or picks. It looks like a lot of FF owners are offering up hideously bad deals to get the 1.01 this year.

Interesting. But doesn't it really depend on the point-in-time when you assess value. If you looked at the same analysis 1 year after each draft, I think you would have come to a different conclusion in your assessment of 1.01 vs. 1.08/1.09. You wouldn't have rated Edwards over Caddy, or Gore over Ronnie. That would have made it a 7-1 advantage. So yeah, if you "buy and hold" for perpetuity, this is a good snapshot - but it ignores the exit value you could've had at an earlier time.

That's a good point. Caddy, KJ, and Ronnie were all considered top 10 dynasty RB at one point in time. One of the curious paradoxes about highly-drafted rookie RBs is that they tend to be undervalued entering their rookie season, but if they show even the slightest signs of becoming a stud as a rookie then they will immediately vault up into the consensus top 10-15 dynasty backs. This happens every year without fail. I've never really understood it. If you're going to fail to include a first round rookie RB in your top 20 dynasty backs because he "hasn't proven anything" then why are you going to move him into your top 10 on the basis of a handful of games? Any decent NFL RB can have a few good games! A few good games means nothing and should have a very small effect on your perception of a player. And yet you can bet that once Mendenhall or Stewart rips off a couple 100 yard games next season his value with skyrocket and he'll be considered a top 12 dynasty back by all the people who don't have him inside their top 20 right now. It doesn't make any sense. Where you rank a RB before his rookie season should generally be about the same as where you rank him after his rookie season unless he significantly outperfoms expectations (Bradshaw, MJD, Peterson). There's a foolish tendency to prematurely anoint any early draft pick as a star once he shows some signs of life. We saw this last year with the lofty dynasty rankings of Leinart, VY, Cutler, Bush, Addai, MJD, Maroney, and Davis. Granted, many of those guys are solid players, but most of them have thus far failed to live up to their 2007 preseason hype. I would argue that only Addai, MJD, and Cutler were worth the picks owners used on them last year (you can add Bush to that list in a PPR). What does this mean? I think it means what you're suggesting. Sometimes the best move isn't to hold the prospect, but rather to trade him once his value spikes. The trouble with the "draft to trade" strategy is that you have to know who to sell and who to hold. If you had "sold high" on Tomlinson after his rookie season then you'd be kicking yourself. If you had "sold high" on Caddy after his rookie season then you'd be glad you got rid of him when he still had major value. Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy for us to look back on things and say Tomlinson was cleary a stud talent and Caddy was clearly a fraud, but they were both chosen at 1.05 in their respective draft classes and their rookie seasons were virtually identical. How are you supposed to know who to sell and who to keep? Therein lies the rub. In my experience, very few dynasty owners trade their top 3 rookie RBs after their rookie season. Once your rookie tantalizes you with a few impressive games during his first season, you're probably going to succumb to optimism and assume that he's not a mirage. Then you're going to be left holding the bag in the cases when you're mistaken and your player is the next William Green, Anthony Thomas, Julius Jones, or Michael Bennett. So I think the "draft and hold" reflects the reality of most leagues when it comes to top tier rookies. Most owners are looking at those guys as long-term franchise players and not as trade fodder.

 

[EBF]

He doesnt need to be the 2nd coming of Peterson to be an elite RB, and a fantasy stud.

You'll get no argument from me there. But with 3-4 legitimate first round talents in the pool this year and with the question marks surrounding McFadden's game, I think it's a very good year to explore the possibilities of trading down if you hold the 1.01 pick. It's worth noting and remembering that, based on the height and weight data we have right now, there's a not a single top 20 RB in the NFL with a BMI as low as McFadden's. So while history is on his side because he'll be the first RB taken, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has ever become an FF stud in the past 15 years.

I've said this before, but it's going to be an interesting class to track. McFadden has all the hype, but the worst body type. Mendenhall and Stewart don't have quite as much hype, but they have ideal body types. It will be curious to see whether the opinions of the NFL scouts prevail over the physical considerations. I have my doubts.

The fact the the "experts" know these three players body types, yet still have Mcfadden ranked #1 tells me the guy must be REALLY special.Anyway, i dont think we are that far off with our thoughts on the situation, although we are far enough off that when Mcfadden blows up, i will bump this thread.

I think the thing with McFadden is that he might have more NFL value than FF value. There's no doubt that he has some serious big play skills, but his body type brings in question his ability to be a bell cow runner at the pro level. It's pretty hard for a RB to become an uber stud at the NFL level unless he's getting a massive workload. So while the NFL scouts aren't necessarily wrong for being excited about him, I'm not convinced that the FF community should be quick to follow their lead in this case. What you're getting with McFadden probably isn't quite what you'd expect if all you did was look at his draft position and press clippings. He has considerable RBBC risk.

 

[cstu]

He doesnt need to be the 2nd coming of Peterson to be an elite RB, and a fantasy stud.

You'll get no argument from me there. But with 3-4 legitimate first round talents in the pool this year and with the question marks surrounding McFadden's game, I think it's a very good year to explore the possibilities of trading down if you hold the 1.01 pick. It's worth noting and remembering that, based on the height and weight data we have right now, there's a not a single top 20 RB in the NFL with a BMI as low as McFadden's. So while history is on his side because he'll be the first RB taken, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has ever become an FF stud in the past 15 years.

I've said this before, but it's going to be an interesting class to track. McFadden has all the hype, but the worst body type. Mendenhall and Stewart don't have quite as much hype, but they have ideal body types. It will be curious to see whether the opinions of the NFL scouts prevail over the physical considerations. I have my doubts.

The fact the the "experts" know these three players body types, yet still have Mcfadden ranked #1 tells me the guy must be REALLY special.Anyway, i dont think we are that far off with our thoughts on the situation, although we are far enough off that when Mcfadden blows up, i will bump this thread.

I think the thing with McFadden is that he might have more NFL value than FF value. There's no doubt that he has some serious big play skills, but his body type brings in question his ability to be a bell cow runner at the pro level. It's pretty hard for a RB to become an uber stud at the NFL level unless he's getting a massive workload. So while the NFL scouts aren't necessarily wrong for being excited about him, I'm not convinced that the FF community should be quick to follow their lead in this case. What you're getting with McFadden probably isn't quite what you'd expect if all you did was look at his draft position and press clippings. He has considerable RBBC risk.

What weight are you using for McFadden? I put in 6-2, 215 at the BMI is 27.6, which is higher than Bush. His weight is listed all over the place between 205 and 215. I just don't see him being 205 by the time the season starts.

 

[EBF]

He doesnt need to be the 2nd coming of Peterson to be an elite RB, and a fantasy stud.

You'll get no argument from me there. But with 3-4 legitimate first round talents in the pool this year and with the question marks surrounding McFadden's game, I think it's a very good year to explore the possibilities of trading down if you hold the 1.01 pick. It's worth noting and remembering that, based on the height and weight data we have right now, there's a not a single top 20 RB in the NFL with a BMI as low as McFadden's. So while history is on his side because he'll be the first RB taken, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has ever become an FF stud in the past 15 years.

I've said this before, but it's going to be an interesting class to track. McFadden has all the hype, but the worst body type. Mendenhall and Stewart don't have quite as much hype, but they have ideal body types. It will be curious to see whether the opinions of the NFL scouts prevail over the physical considerations. I have my doubts.

The fact the the "experts" know these three players body types, yet still have Mcfadden ranked #1 tells me the guy must be REALLY special.Anyway, i dont think we are that far off with our thoughts on the situation, although we are far enough off that when Mcfadden blows up, i will bump this thread.

I think the thing with McFadden is that he might have more NFL value than FF value. There's no doubt that he has some serious big play skills, but his body type brings in question his ability to be a bell cow runner at the pro level. It's pretty hard for a RB to become an uber stud at the NFL level unless he's getting a massive workload. So while the NFL scouts aren't necessarily wrong for being excited about him, I'm not convinced that the FF community should be quick to follow their lead in this case. What you're getting with McFadden probably isn't quite what you'd expect if all you did was look at his draft position and press clippings. He has considerable RBBC risk.

What weight are you using for McFadden? I put in 6-2, 215 at the BMI is 27.6, which is higher than Bush. His weight is listed all over the place between 205 and 215. I just don't see him being 205 by the time the season starts.

I used NFL.com for measurements from NFL players and ESPN for measurements for college prospects. McFadden is listed at 6'2" 205 by ESPN. Whether or not that holds up at the combine remains to be seen.

 

[Moonlight]

1.01 was traded for 1.04, 1.09 and 1.10 in one my leagues 2 days ago.