Trade value of the 1.01 (2 Viewers)

[EBF]

Just to add for reference for others:In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson 2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin JohnsonAs you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys. I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often. I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

 

[FUBAR]

Just to add for reference for others:In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson 2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin JohnsonAs you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys. I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often. I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

It looks like there's only 2 years where the 1.02 or 1.03 outplayed the 1.01.

 

[EBF]

Just to add for reference for others:In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson 2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin JohnsonAs you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys. I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often. I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

It looks like there's only 2 years where the 1.02 or 1.03 outplayed the 1.01.

That's not quite how I see it.In 2003, Charles Rogers and Willis McGahee were considered the two best talents. Larry Johnson has outplayed McGahee and Andre Johnson has outplayed Rogers. In 2004, there was no clear consensus 1.01. Different guys went first depending on owner preference. I would argue that Larry Fitzgerald is the best player from that group, although a case can also be made for Steven Jackson. Braylon Edwards is the best player from the 2005 group. He went no higher than 4th in most leagues. Joseph Addai is the most valuable player from the 2006 group. He wasn't a top 2 pick in most of my leagues. 2007 is the only year where the clear 1.01 has become the clear MVP. And no one ever doubted ADP's talent. They only doubted his durability. As good as he is, the jury is still out on whether or not he can hold up to the beating. It's conceivable that Lynch or CJ will be the better long-term value.

 

[the 'boys]

just wondering what you guys think of this deal. i wont be able to keep the guys im trading, already have too many keepers so i'm packaing them with the 11th overall (bbd) for #1 overall (longhorns)

Offers:

TE Antonio Gates, SD $18

DL Jared Allen, KC $3

DB Terrence McGee, BUF $21

DB DeAngelo Hall, ATL $4

2008 Draft Pick - Round 1 (via Buffalo Bills Dynasty revisted)

2008 Draft Pick - Round 3 (via TheChamp32)

2008 Draft Pick - Round 9 (via Buffalo Bills Dynasty revisted)

2008 Draft Pick - Round 18 (via Warplay Jr & Sr.)

For:

2008 Draft Pick - Round 1

2008 Draft Pick - Round 4 (via Warplay Jr & Sr.)

2008 Draft Pick - Round 7 (via the 'Boys)

2008 Draft Pick - Round 17 (via Warplay Jr & Sr.)

fair offeR?

 

[redman]

Just to add for reference for others:

In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.

I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson

2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald

2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards

2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White

2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin Johnson

As you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys.

I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often.

I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

It looks like there's only 2 years where the 1.02 or 1.03 outplayed the 1.01.

That's not quite how I see it.In 2003, Charles Rogers and Willis McGahee were considered the two best talents. Larry Johnson has outplayed McGahee and Andre Johnson has outplayed Rogers.

In 2004, there was no clear consensus 1.01. Different guys went first depending on owner preference. I would argue that Larry Fitzgerald is the best player from that group, although a case can also be made for Steven Jackson.

Braylon Edwards is the best player from the 2005 group. He went no higher than 4th in most leagues.

Joseph Addai is the most valuable player from the 2006 group. He wasn't a top 2 pick in most of my leagues.

2007 is the only year where the clear 1.01 has become the clear MVP. And no one ever doubted ADP's talent. They only doubted his durability. As good as he is, the jury is still out on whether or not he can hold up to the beating. It's conceivable that Lynch or CJ will be the better long-term value.

As an aside, 2003 was one ugly first round. Check out the first round from that year in one of my dynasty leagues (I joined the following year, BTW):1.01 QB Byron Leftwich

1.02 RB Larry Johnson

1.03 WR Charles Rogers

1.04 WR Andre Johnson

1.05 RB Willis McGahee

1.06 QB Kyle Boller

1.07 QB Carson Palmer

1.08 RB Justin Fargas

1.09 WR Bryant Johnson

1.10 RB Chris Brown

1.11 RB Onterio Smith

1.12 WR Kelly Washington

1.13 QB Rex Grossman

1.14 RB Musa Smith

 

[cstu]

Just to add for reference for others:

In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.

I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson

2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald

2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards

2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White

2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin Johnson

As you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys.

I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often.

I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

It looks like there's only 2 years where the 1.02 or 1.03 outplayed the 1.01.

That's not quite how I see it.In 2003, Charles Rogers and Willis McGahee were considered the two best talents. Larry Johnson has outplayed McGahee and Andre Johnson has outplayed Rogers.

In 2004, there was no clear consensus 1.01. Different guys went first depending on owner preference. I would argue that Larry Fitzgerald is the best player from that group, although a case can also be made for Steven Jackson.

Braylon Edwards is the best player from the 2005 group. He went no higher than 4th in most leagues.

Joseph Addai is the most valuable player from the 2006 group. He wasn't a top 2 pick in most of my leagues.

2007 is the only year where the clear 1.01 has become the clear MVP. And no one ever doubted ADP's talent. They only doubted his durability. As good as he is, the jury is still out on whether or not he can hold up to the beating. It's conceivable that Lynch or CJ will be the better long-term value.

As an aside, 2003 was one ugly first round. Check out the first round from that year in one of my dynasty leagues (I joined the following year, BTW):1.01 QB Byron Leftwich

1.02 RB Larry Johnson

1.03 WR Charles Rogers

1.04 WR Andre Johnson

1.05 RB Willis McGahee

1.06 QB Kyle Boller

1.07 QB Carson Palmer

1.08 RB Justin Fargas

1.09 WR Bryant Johnson

1.10 RB Chris Brown

1.11 RB Onterio Smith

1.12 WR Kelly Washington

1.13 QB Rex Grossman

1.14 RB Musa Smith

Not sure why Leftwich went at 1.01 or Boller at 1.06, but 4 hits out of the top 7 isn't bad. The rest is pathetic though.

 

[EBF]

Regarding 2003:

People forget that Chris Brown was once upon a time considered a top 15 dynasty back and a future stud. So while we think of him as a bust these days, he did have a 1,000 yard season and a high trade value. If you were savvy you could've gotten something nice for him.

It's still a little early to put a final grade on that group. Fargas emerged as a decent player this past season and Musa Smith is another guy who could potentially put up some stats.

All in all, I don't think that group is any worse than average. Heck, Brandon Jackson, Robert Meachem, Dwayne Jarrett, Jamarcus Russell, KJenny Irons, and Michael Bush were first round picks in one of my leagues last year. They haven't yielded anything yet.

 

[redman]

Just to add for reference for others:

In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.

I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson

2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald

2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards

2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White

2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin Johnson

As you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys.

I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often.

I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

It looks like there's only 2 years where the 1.02 or 1.03 outplayed the 1.01.

That's not quite how I see it.In 2003, Charles Rogers and Willis McGahee were considered the two best talents. Larry Johnson has outplayed McGahee and Andre Johnson has outplayed Rogers.

In 2004, there was no clear consensus 1.01. Different guys went first depending on owner preference. I would argue that Larry Fitzgerald is the best player from that group, although a case can also be made for Steven Jackson.

Braylon Edwards is the best player from the 2005 group. He went no higher than 4th in most leagues.

Joseph Addai is the most valuable player from the 2006 group. He wasn't a top 2 pick in most of my leagues.

2007 is the only year where the clear 1.01 has become the clear MVP. And no one ever doubted ADP's talent. They only doubted his durability. As good as he is, the jury is still out on whether or not he can hold up to the beating. It's conceivable that Lynch or CJ will be the better long-term value.

As an aside, 2003 was one ugly first round. Check out the first round from that year in one of my dynasty leagues (I joined the following year, BTW):1.01 QB Byron Leftwich

1.02 RB Larry Johnson

1.03 WR Charles Rogers

1.04 WR Andre Johnson

1.05 RB Willis McGahee

1.06 QB Kyle Boller

1.07 QB Carson Palmer

1.08 RB Justin Fargas

1.09 WR Bryant Johnson

1.10 RB Chris Brown

1.11 RB Onterio Smith

1.12 WR Kelly Washington

1.13 QB Rex Grossman

1.14 RB Musa Smith

Not sure why Leftwich went at 1.01 or Boller at 1.06, but 4 hits out of the top 7 isn't bad. The rest is pathetic though.

I'm pretty sure it was team need in both cases. FYI the same guy had the first two picks; another guy had 4 & 7 (great picks); and another had 11 and 12.

 

[corpcow]

1.01 QB Byron Leftwich1.02 RB Larry Johnson1.03 WR Charles Rogers1.04 WR Andre Johnson1.05 RB Willis McGahee1.06 QB Kyle Boller1.07 QB Carson Palmer1.08 RB Justin Fargas 1.09 WR Bryant Johnson1.10 RB Chris Brown1.11 RB Onterio Smith1.12 WR Kelly Washington1.13 QB Rex Grossman1.14 RB Musa Smith

Leftwich and Boller over Palmer? Interesting.

 

[corpcow]

Regarding 2003eople forget that Chris Brown was once upon a time considered a top 15 dynasty back and a future stud. So while we think of him as a bust these days, he did have a 1,000 yard season and a high trade value. If you were savvy you could've gotten something nice for him. It's still a little early to put a final grade on that group. Fargas emerged as a decent player this past season and Musa Smith is another guy who could potentially put up some stats. All in all, I don't think that group is any worse than average. Heck, Brandon Jackson, Robert Meachem, Dwayne Jarrett, Jamarcus Russell, KJenny Irons, and Michael Bush were first round picks in one of my leagues last year. They haven't yielded anything yet.

 

[Bizkiteer]

1.01 QB Byron Leftwich1.02 RB Larry Johnson1.03 WR Charles Rogers1.04 WR Andre Johnson1.05 RB Willis McGahee1.06 QB Kyle Boller1.07 QB Carson Palmer1.08 RB Justin Fargas 1.09 WR Bryant Johnson1.10 RB Chris Brown1.11 RB Onterio Smith1.12 WR Kelly Washington1.13 QB Rex Grossman1.14 RB Musa Smith

Leftwich and Boller over Palmer? Interesting.

Remember, Palmer was coming in and it was known he was going to sit for a year. Easy to forget now, but if the owner needed a starter...

 

[corpcow]

1.01 QB Byron Leftwich1.02 RB Larry Johnson1.03 WR Charles Rogers1.04 WR Andre Johnson1.05 RB Willis McGahee1.06 QB Kyle Boller1.07 QB Carson Palmer1.08 RB Justin Fargas 1.09 WR Bryant Johnson1.10 RB Chris Brown1.11 RB Onterio Smith1.12 WR Kelly Washington1.13 QB Rex Grossman1.14 RB Musa Smith

Leftwich and Boller over Palmer? Interesting.

Remember, Palmer was coming in and it was known he was going to sit for a year. Easy to forget now, but if the owner needed a starter...

Fair point, but more often than not you're in trouble starting a rookie anyway

 

[cstu]

1.01 QB Byron Leftwich1.02 RB Larry Johnson1.03 WR Charles Rogers1.04 WR Andre Johnson1.05 RB Willis McGahee1.06 QB Kyle Boller1.07 QB Carson Palmer1.08 RB Justin Fargas 1.09 WR Bryant Johnson1.10 RB Chris Brown1.11 RB Onterio Smith1.12 WR Kelly Washington1.13 QB Rex Grossman1.14 RB Musa Smith

Leftwich and Boller over Palmer? Interesting.

Remember, Palmer was coming in and it was known he was going to sit for a year. Easy to forget now, but if the owner needed a starter...

Fair point, but more often than not you're in trouble starting a rookie anyway

It's also not that hard to get a QB for the 1.06. Probably a lazy owner.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Just to add for reference for others:

In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.

I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson

2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald

2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards

2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White

2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin Johnson

As you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys.

I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often.

I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

This isnt true, and i think you are proving it with your data. If you just trust the NFL scouts and dont listen to hype on a message board, you are hitting 100%. Owners of the 1.1 should just take the highest RB drafted in the NFL draft, as i will be doing this year with Mcfadden. Assuming you did this each year, you would have ened up with the following players..2003 - Willis Mcagahee

2004 - Steven Jackson

2005 - Ronnie Brown

2006 - Reggie Bush

2007 - Adrian Peterson

One could argue that each of these players is the best from their class, from a fantasy football perspective. Well, with the possible exception of Bush, but i think the verdict is still out on that(Addai probably is better right now)

Point being, dont buy into the hype. The 1.1 pick is the pick to have, and the difference between it and the 1.2 is probably bigger than most think. This of course is assuming you dont try to get cute and take a player that is not the top RB drafted in the NFL. Need more proof, ask the guys who took Michael Bennett over LT because he went to a better situation.

 

[EBF]

Just to add for reference for others:

In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.

I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson

2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald

2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards

2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White

2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin Johnson

As you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys.

I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often.

I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

This isnt true, and i think you are proving it with your data. If you just trust the NFL scouts and dont listen to hype on a message board, you are hitting 100%. Owners of the 1.1 should just take the highest RB drafted in the NFL draft, as i will be doing this year with Mcfadden. Assuming you did this each year, you would have ened up with the following players..2003 - Willis Mcagahee

2004 - Steven Jackson

2005 - Ronnie Brown

2006 - Reggie Bush

2007 - Adrian Peterson

One could argue that each of these players is the best from their class, from a fantasy football perspective. Well, with the possible exception of Bush, but i think the verdict is still out on that(Addai probably is better right now)

Point being, dont buy into the hype. The 1.1 pick is the pick to have, and the difference between it and the 1.2 is probably bigger than most think. This of course is assuming you dont try to get cute and take a player that is not the top RB drafted in the NFL. Need more proof, ask the guys who took Michael Bennett over LT because he went to a better situation.

That's definitely a pretty good batting average. I'm not sitting here saying the 1.01 is worthless. But in my defense, let's look at the best RBs drafted in a given year vs. the earliest taken:2007 - Adrian Peterson/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush/Joseph Addai

2005 - Ronnie Brown/Frank Gore

2004 - Steven Jackson/Steven Jackson

2003 - Willis McGahee/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Edgerrin James/Edgerrin James

1998 - Curtis Enis/Fred Taylor (Ahman Green)

1997 - Warrick Dunn/Tiki Barber

1996 - Lawrence Phillips/Eddie George

1995 - Ki-Jana Carter/Curtis Martin

1994 - Marshall Faulk/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Garrison Hearst/Jerome Bettis

A few observations:

The first RB taken in the draft usually becomes a good player. William Green, Curtis Enis, Ki-Jana Carter, and Lawrence Phillips are the only guys on this list that qualify as true busts in my opinion. That leaves 11/15, which is a success rate of about 70%.

The first RB taken in the draft has only become the best RB from his draft class 5/15 times by my count. It's close with a few of these guys, but I'm sticking with that figure of 5. So recent history says the first RB taken in the draft usually doesn't end up as the best RB from his draft. He only becomes the best RB from his class 33% of the time.

I would say 6 of these guys qualify as studs (Peterson, Jackson, Tomlinson, Lewis, James, and Faulk). That's a 40% success rate.

Now let's look at the 2nd RB taken in the draft vs. the best RB from his class:

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Laurence Maroney/Joseph Addai

2005 - Cedric Benson/Frank Gore

2004 - Chris Perry/Steven Jackson

2003 - Larry Johnson/Larry Johnson

2002 - TJ Duckett/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - Deuce McAllister/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Thomas Jones/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

1998 - Fred Taylor/Fred Taylor (or Ahman Green)

1997 - Antowain Smith/Tiki Barber

1996 - Tim Biakabutuka/Eddie George

1995 - Tyrone Wheatley/Curtis Martin

1994 - Greg Hill/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Jerome Bettis/Jerome Bettis

It looks like the second RB taken also usually becomes a good player. The only outright busts I count here are Cedric Benson, Chris Perry, TJ Duckett, Tim Biakabutuka, and Greg Hill. That leaves 10/15, which is a success rate of 66%. However, the general quality appears to be slightly lower here and some of these guys toe the line between bust and success (Wheatley, Antowain, T. Jones).

By my count three of these guys ended up becoming the best RB from their class (Bettis, Taylor, and LJ). That's a success rate of 20%.

I would say 5-6 of these guys qualify as studs (Bettis, Taylor, Ricky, Deuce, LJ, and maybe Lynch). We'll say that's 5.5 studs out of 15, which is a success rate of about 37%.

Head-to-head comparison of RB1 vs. RB2

Success rate: 70% vs. 67%

Best in class rate: 33% vs. 20%

Stud rate: 40% vs. 37%

This admittedly isn't the greatest data set and the criteria I've used to separate players are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like there's a huge advantage between the RB1 and RB2. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that you have a better shot at a super stud (Faulk, Edge, LT, ADP) at RB1 than you do at RB2 (LJ?). Interestingly, three of those guys were top 5 picks and the other (Peterson) would have been if not for injury issues.

What does all this mean for us this year? If you trust the data:

Darren McFadden will probably be a good player in the NFL.

Darren McFadden probably won't be the best RB from this class (although his odds are better than anyone else's).

It's tough to really quantify the difference between 1.01 and 1.02/1.03 using historical data. There is a difference, but I'm not convinced that it's as huge as you're implying. Realistically, this is one of those things that should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This year I think the decision really comes down to whether or not you believe in McFadden and/or to what extent you believe in the other first round RBs. Personally, I feel there are some latent risk factors with McFadden (his abnormal build and the potential of going to an atrocious team) that bump his actual value beneath his perceived value. That coupled with the fact that the other first round RBs (Mendenhall and Stewart) have a better body type for the pro game and will probably land on better teams has me thinking that this could be one of thse years where someone emerges from the mid-late first to become the best RB in his class ala Shaun Alexander, Eddie George, and Larry Johnson.

We'll see. If Darren McFadden is truly a transcendent talent then he'll probably win out in the long run regardless of situation. But if he's merely good then he'll probably be passed by another good back who winds up on a better team.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Just to add for reference for others:

In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.

I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson

2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald

2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards

2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White

2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin Johnson

As you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys.

I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often.

I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

This isnt true, and i think you are proving it with your data. If you just trust the NFL scouts and dont listen to hype on a message board, you are hitting 100%. Owners of the 1.1 should just take the highest RB drafted in the NFL draft, as i will be doing this year with Mcfadden. Assuming you did this each year, you would have ened up with the following players..2003 - Willis Mcagahee

2004 - Steven Jackson

2005 - Ronnie Brown

2006 - Reggie Bush

2007 - Adrian Peterson

One could argue that each of these players is the best from their class, from a fantasy football perspective. Well, with the possible exception of Bush, but i think the verdict is still out on that(Addai probably is better right now)

Point being, dont buy into the hype. The 1.1 pick is the pick to have, and the difference between it and the 1.2 is probably bigger than most think. This of course is assuming you dont try to get cute and take a player that is not the top RB drafted in the NFL. Need more proof, ask the guys who took Michael Bennett over LT because he went to a better situation.

That's definitely a pretty good batting average. I'm not sitting here saying the 1.01 is worthless. But in my defense, let's look at the best RBs drafted in a given year vs. the earliest taken:2007 - Adrian Peterson/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush/Joseph Addai

2005 - Ronnie Brown/Frank Gore

2004 - Steven Jackson/Steven Jackson

2003 - Willis McGahee/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Edgerrin James/Edgerrin James

1998 - Curtis Enis/Fred Taylor (Ahman Green)

1997 - Warrick Dunn/Tiki Barber

1996 - Lawrence Phillips/Eddie George

1995 - Ki-Jana Carter/Curtis Martin

1994 - Marshall Faulk/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Garrison Hearst/Jerome Bettis

A few observations:

The first RB taken in the draft usually becomes a good player. William Green, Curtis Enis, Ki-Jana Carter, and Lawrence Phillips are the only guys on this list that qualify as true busts in my opinion. That leaves 11/15, which is a success rate of about 70%.

The first RB taken in the draft has only become the best RB from his draft class 5/15 times by my count. It's close with a few of these guys, but I'm sticking with that figure of 5. So recent history says the first RB taken in the draft usually doesn't end up as the best RB from his draft. He only becomes the best RB from his class 33% of the time.

I would say 6 of these guys qualify as studs (Peterson, Jackson, Tomlinson, Lewis, James, and Faulk). That's a 40% success rate.

Now let's look at the 2nd RB taken in the draft vs. the best RB from his class:

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Laurence Maroney/Joseph Addai

2005 - Cedric Benson/Frank Gore

2004 - Chris Perry/Steven Jackson

2003 - Larry Johnson/Larry Johnson

2002 - TJ Duckett/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - Deuce McAllister/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Thomas Jones/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

1998 - Fred Taylor/Fred Taylor (or Ahman Green)

1997 - Antowain Smith/Tiki Barber

1996 - Tim Biakabutuka/Eddie George

1995 - Tyrone Wheatley/Curtis Martin

1994 - Greg Hill/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Jerome Bettis/Jerome Bettis

It looks like the second RB taken also usually becomes a good player. The only outright busts I count here are Cedric Benson, Chris Perry, TJ Duckett, Tim Biakabutuka, and Greg Hill. That leaves 10/15, which is a success rate of 66%. However, the general quality appears to be slightly lower here and some of these guys toe the line between bust and success (Wheatley, Antowain, T. Jones).

By my count three of these guys ended up becoming the best RB from their class (Bettis, Taylor, and LJ). That's a success rate of 20%.

I would say 5-6 of these guys qualify as studs (Bettis, Taylor, Ricky, Deuce, LJ, and maybe Lynch). We'll say that's 5.5 studs out of 15, which is a success rate of about 37%.

Head-to-head comparison of RB1 vs. RB2

Success rate: 70% vs. 67%

Best in class rate: 33% vs. 20%

Stud rate: 40% vs. 37%

This admittedly isn't the greatest data set and the criteria I've used to separate players are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like there's a huge advantage between the RB1 and RB2. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that you have a better shot at a super stud (Faulk, Edge, LT, ADP) at RB1 than you do at RB2 (LJ?). Interestingly, three of those guys were top 5 picks and the other (Peterson) would have been if not for injury issues.

What does all this mean for us this year? If you trust the data:

Darren McFadden will probably be a good player in the NFL.

Darren McFadden probably won't be the best RB from this class (although his odds are better than anyone else's).

It's tough to really quantify the difference between 1.01 and 1.02/1.03 using historical data. There is a difference, but I'm not convinced that it's as huge as you're implying. Realistically, this is one of those things that should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This year I think the decision really comes down to whether or not you believe in McFadden and/or to what extent you believe in the other first round RBs. Personally, I feel there are some latent risk factors with McFadden (his abnormal build and the potential of going to an atrocious team) that bump his actual value beneath his perceived value. That coupled with the fact that the other first round RBs (Mendenhall and Stewart) have a better body type for the pro game and will probably land on better teams has me thinking that this could be one of thse years where someone emerges from the mid-late first to become the best RB in his class ala Shaun Alexander, Eddie George, and Larry Johnson.

We'll see. If Darren McFadden is truly a transcendent talent then he'll probably win out in the long run regardless of situation. But if he's merely good then he'll probably be passed by another good back who winds up on a better team.

I have a feeling, and there is no way i am going to do the numbers, but that top list has probably doubled, if not tripled that 2nd list in fantasy points over their careers.

 

[redman]

1.01 QB Byron Leftwich1.02 RB Larry Johnson1.03 WR Charles Rogers1.04 WR Andre Johnson1.05 RB Willis McGahee1.06 QB Kyle Boller1.07 QB Carson Palmer1.08 RB Justin Fargas 1.09 WR Bryant Johnson1.10 RB Chris Brown1.11 RB Onterio Smith1.12 WR Kelly Washington1.13 QB Rex Grossman1.14 RB Musa Smith

Leftwich and Boller over Palmer? Interesting.

Remember, Palmer was coming in and it was known he was going to sit for a year. Easy to forget now, but if the owner needed a starter...

Let's' also not forget that, at that point, the Bengals were still "the Bengals".

 

[BuckeyeArt]

That's definitely a pretty good batting average. I'm not sitting here saying the 1.01 is worthless. But in my defense, let's look at the best RBs drafted in a given year vs. the earliest taken:

2007 - Adrian Peterson/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush/Joseph Addai

2005 - Ronnie Brown/Frank Gore

2004 - Steven Jackson/Steven Jackson

2003 - Willis McGahee/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Edgerrin James/Edgerrin James

1998 - Curtis Enis/Fred Taylor (Ahman Green)

1997 - Warrick Dunn/Tiki Barber

1996 - Lawrence Phillips/Eddie George

1995 - Ki-Jana Carter/Curtis Martin

1994 - Marshall Faulk/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Garrison Hearst/Jerome Bettis

A few observations:

The first RB taken in the draft usually becomes a good player. William Green, Curtis Enis, Ki-Jana Carter, and Lawrence Phillips are the only guys on this list that qualify as true busts in my opinion. That leaves 11/15, which is a success rate of about 70%.

The first RB taken in the draft has only become the best RB from his draft class 5/15 times by my count. It's close with a few of these guys, but I'm sticking with that figure of 5. So recent history says the first RB taken in the draft usually doesn't end up as the best RB from his draft. He only becomes the best RB from his class 33% of the time.

I would say 6 of these guys qualify as studs (Peterson, Jackson, Tomlinson, Lewis, James, and Faulk). That's a 40% success rate.

Now let's look at the 2nd RB taken in the draft vs. the best RB from his class:

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Laurence Maroney/Joseph Addai

2005 - Cedric Benson/Frank Gore

2004 - Chris Perry/Steven Jackson

2003 - Larry Johnson/Larry Johnson

2002 - TJ Duckett/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - Deuce McAllister/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Thomas Jones/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

1998 - Fred Taylor/Fred Taylor (or Ahman Green)

1997 - Antowain Smith/Tiki Barber

1996 - Tim Biakabutuka/Eddie George

1995 - Tyrone Wheatley/Curtis Martin

1994 - Greg Hill/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Jerome Bettis/Jerome Bettis

It looks like the second RB taken also usually becomes a good player. The only outright busts I count here are Cedric Benson, Chris Perry, TJ Duckett, Tim Biakabutuka, and Greg Hill. That leaves 10/15, which is a success rate of 66%. However, the general quality appears to be slightly lower here and some of these guys toe the line between bust and success (Wheatley, Antowain, T. Jones).

By my count three of these guys ended up becoming the best RB from their class (Bettis, Taylor, and LJ). That's a success rate of 20%.

I would say 5-6 of these guys qualify as studs (Bettis, Taylor, Ricky, Deuce, LJ, and maybe Lynch). We'll say that's 5.5 studs out of 15, which is a success rate of about 37%.

Head-to-head comparison of RB1 vs. RB2

Success rate: 70% vs. 67%

Best in class rate: 33% vs. 20%

Stud rate: 40% vs. 37%

This admittedly isn't the greatest data set and the criteria I've used to separate players are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like there's a huge advantage between the RB1 and RB2. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that you have a better shot at a super stud (Faulk, Edge, LT, ADP) at RB1 than you do at RB2 (LJ?). Interestingly, three of those guys were top 5 picks and the other (Peterson) would have been if not for injury issues.

What does all this mean for us this year? If you trust the data:

Darren McFadden will probably be a good player in the NFL.

Darren McFadden probably won't be the best RB from this class (although his odds are better than anyone else's).

It's tough to really quantify the difference between 1.01 and 1.02/1.03 using historical data. There is a difference, but I'm not convinced that it's as huge as you're implying. Realistically, this is one of those things that should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This year I think the decision really comes down to whether or not you believe in McFadden and/or to what extent you believe in the other first round RBs. Personally, I feel there are some latent risk factors with McFadden (his abnormal build and the potential of going to an atrocious team) that bump his actual value beneath his perceived value. That coupled with the fact that the other first round RBs (Mendenhall and Stewart) have a better body type for the pro game and will probably land on better teams has me thinking that this could be one of thse years where someone emerges from the mid-late first to become the best RB in his class ala Shaun Alexander, Eddie George, and Larry Johnson.

We'll see. If Darren McFadden is truly a transcendent talent then he'll probably win out in the long run regardless of situation. But if he's merely good then he'll probably be passed by another good back who winds up on a better team.

I have a feeling, and there is no way i am going to do the numbers, but that top list has probably doubled, if not tripled that 2nd list in fantasy points over their careers.

Nice work EBF. I'm going to add some objective numbers to the results.I looked at each RB's median fantasy finish over the best consecutive 5 year period of their career. This eliminates anyone after the 2003 draft. It's too hard to assess their careers so far. The only inconclusive results in players prior to 2004 occurs in 2003 - McGahee and LJ. There were some players who were no longer in FBG's database but they were obviously failures (**).

Here are the results for the 1st picks (median finish, year, player):

11 - 2003 - Willis McGahee

43 - 2002 - William Green

3 - 2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson

16 - 2000 - Jamal Lewis

10 - 1999 - Edgerrin James

** - 1998 - Curtis Enis

19 - 1997 - Warrick Dunn

** - 1996 - Lawrence Phillips

** - 1995 - Ki-Jana Carter

2 - 1994 - Marshall Faulk

17 - 1993 - Garrison Hearst

And the 2nd picks:

26 - 2003 - Larry Johnson

36 - 2002 - TJ Duckett

13 - 2001 - Deuce McAllister

21 - 2000 - Thomas Jones

9 - 1999 - Ricky Williams

11 - 1998 - Fred Taylor

19 - 1997 - Antowain Smith

** - 1996 - Tim Biakabutuka

37 - 1995 - Tyrone Wheatley

** - 1994 - Greg Hill

7 - 1993 - Jerome Bettis

So, the median of the 1st picks is 17th with a high of 2. The median of the 2nd picks is 21 with a high of 7. Not a lot of difference. Also, if you remove McGahee and LJ, the medians become 18 for the 1st picks and 20 for the 2nd picks. Even closer. If you group them by fantasy production (1 - 12 is a #1, 13 - 24 is a #2), then the 1st picks have 4 #1's and 3 #2's. The 2nd picks have 3 #1's and 3 #2's.

So, unless you're smarter than the NFL, there just isn't much difference between the #1 and #2 RB chosen.

 

[gianmarco]

That's definitely a pretty good batting average. I'm not sitting here saying the 1.01 is worthless. But in my defense, let's look at the best RBs drafted in a given year vs. the earliest taken:

2007 - Adrian Peterson/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush/Joseph Addai

2005 - Ronnie Brown/Frank Gore

2004 - Steven Jackson/Steven Jackson

2003 - Willis McGahee/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Edgerrin James/Edgerrin James

1998 - Curtis Enis/Fred Taylor (Ahman Green)

1997 - Warrick Dunn/Tiki Barber

1996 - Lawrence Phillips/Eddie George

1995 - Ki-Jana Carter/Curtis Martin

1994 - Marshall Faulk/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Garrison Hearst/Jerome Bettis

A few observations:

The first RB taken in the draft usually becomes a good player. William Green, Curtis Enis, Ki-Jana Carter, and Lawrence Phillips are the only guys on this list that qualify as true busts in my opinion. That leaves 11/15, which is a success rate of about 70%.

The first RB taken in the draft has only become the best RB from his draft class 5/15 times by my count. It's close with a few of these guys, but I'm sticking with that figure of 5. So recent history says the first RB taken in the draft usually doesn't end up as the best RB from his draft. He only becomes the best RB from his class 33% of the time.

I would say 6 of these guys qualify as studs (Peterson, Jackson, Tomlinson, Lewis, James, and Faulk). That's a 40% success rate.

Now let's look at the 2nd RB taken in the draft vs. the best RB from his class:

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Laurence Maroney/Joseph Addai

2005 - Cedric Benson/Frank Gore

2004 - Chris Perry/Steven Jackson

2003 - Larry Johnson/Larry Johnson

2002 - TJ Duckett/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - Deuce McAllister/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Thomas Jones/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

1998 - Fred Taylor/Fred Taylor (or Ahman Green)

1997 - Antowain Smith/Tiki Barber

1996 - Tim Biakabutuka/Eddie George

1995 - Tyrone Wheatley/Curtis Martin

1994 - Greg Hill/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Jerome Bettis/Jerome Bettis

It looks like the second RB taken also usually becomes a good player. The only outright busts I count here are Cedric Benson, Chris Perry, TJ Duckett, Tim Biakabutuka, and Greg Hill. That leaves 10/15, which is a success rate of 66%. However, the general quality appears to be slightly lower here and some of these guys toe the line between bust and success (Wheatley, Antowain, T. Jones).

By my count three of these guys ended up becoming the best RB from their class (Bettis, Taylor, and LJ). That's a success rate of 20%.

I would say 5-6 of these guys qualify as studs (Bettis, Taylor, Ricky, Deuce, LJ, and maybe Lynch). We'll say that's 5.5 studs out of 15, which is a success rate of about 37%.

Head-to-head comparison of RB1 vs. RB2

Success rate: 70% vs. 67%

Best in class rate: 33% vs. 20%

Stud rate: 40% vs. 37%

This admittedly isn't the greatest data set and the criteria I've used to separate players are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like there's a huge advantage between the RB1 and RB2. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that you have a better shot at a super stud (Faulk, Edge, LT, ADP) at RB1 than you do at RB2 (LJ?). Interestingly, three of those guys were top 5 picks and the other (Peterson) would have been if not for injury issues.

What does all this mean for us this year? If you trust the data:

Darren McFadden will probably be a good player in the NFL.

Darren McFadden probably won't be the best RB from this class (although his odds are better than anyone else's).

It's tough to really quantify the difference between 1.01 and 1.02/1.03 using historical data. There is a difference, but I'm not convinced that it's as huge as you're implying. Realistically, this is one of those things that should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This year I think the decision really comes down to whether or not you believe in McFadden and/or to what extent you believe in the other first round RBs. Personally, I feel there are some latent risk factors with McFadden (his abnormal build and the potential of going to an atrocious team) that bump his actual value beneath his perceived value. That coupled with the fact that the other first round RBs (Mendenhall and Stewart) have a better body type for the pro game and will probably land on better teams has me thinking that this could be one of thse years where someone emerges from the mid-late first to become the best RB in his class ala Shaun Alexander, Eddie George, and Larry Johnson.

We'll see. If Darren McFadden is truly a transcendent talent then he'll probably win out in the long run regardless of situation. But if he's merely good then he'll probably be passed by another good back who winds up on a better team. :(

I have a feeling, and there is no way i am going to do the numbers, but that top list has probably doubled, if not tripled that 2nd list in fantasy points over their careers.

Nice work EBF. I'm going to add some objective numbers to the results.I looked at each RB's median fantasy finish over the best consecutive 5 year period of their career. This eliminates anyone after the 2003 draft. It's too hard to assess their careers so far. The only inconclusive results in players prior to 2004 occurs in 2003 - McGahee and LJ. There were some players who were no longer in FBG's database but they were obviously failures (**).

Here are the results for the 1st picks (median finish, year, player):

11 - 2003 - Willis McGahee

43 - 2002 - William Green

3 - 2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson

16 - 2000 - Jamal Lewis

10 - 1999 - Edgerrin James

** - 1998 - Curtis Enis

19 - 1997 - Warrick Dunn

** - 1996 - Lawrence Phillips

** - 1995 - Ki-Jana Carter

2 - 1994 - Marshall Faulk

17 - 1993 - Garrison Hearst

And the 2nd picks:

26 - 2003 - Larry Johnson

36 - 2002 - TJ Duckett

13 - 2001 - Deuce McAllister

21 - 2000 - Thomas Jones

9 - 1999 - Ricky Williams

11 - 1998 - Fred Taylor

19 - 1997 - Antowain Smith

** - 1996 - Tim Biakabutuka

37 - 1995 - Tyrone Wheatley

** - 1994 - Greg Hill

7 - 1993 - Jerome Bettis

So, the median of the 1st picks is 17th with a high of 2. The median of the 2nd picks is 21 with a high of 7. Not a lot of difference. Also, if you remove McGahee and LJ, the medians become 18 for the 1st picks and 20 for the 2nd picks. Even closer. If you group them by fantasy production (1 - 12 is a #1, 13 - 24 is a #2), then the 1st picks have 4 #1's and 3 #2's. The 2nd picks have 3 #1's and 3 #2's.

So, unless you're smarter than the NFL, there just isn't much difference between the #1 and #2 RB chosen.

 

[Spike]

Just to add for reference for others:In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson 2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin JohnsonAs you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys. I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often. I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

2005 - How has Benson turned out? He was the consensus 1.03 in FF rookie drafts. It's really not a sure thing.2007 - Peterson looks to have been the right guy.So he's 2 instances in the last 3 years were making the trade and getting the 1.01 might not have been such a bad idea after all.

 

[Burning Sensation]

That's definitely a pretty good batting average. I'm not sitting here saying the 1.01 is worthless. But in my defense, let's look at the best RBs drafted in a given year vs. the earliest taken:

2007 - Adrian Peterson/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush/Joseph Addai

2005 - Ronnie Brown/Frank Gore

2004 - Steven Jackson/Steven Jackson

2003 - Willis McGahee/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Edgerrin James/Edgerrin James

1998 - Curtis Enis/Fred Taylor (Ahman Green)

1997 - Warrick Dunn/Tiki Barber

1996 - Lawrence Phillips/Eddie George

1995 - Ki-Jana Carter/Curtis Martin

1994 - Marshall Faulk/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Garrison Hearst/Jerome Bettis

A few observations:

The first RB taken in the draft usually becomes a good player. William Green, Curtis Enis, Ki-Jana Carter, and Lawrence Phillips are the only guys on this list that qualify as true busts in my opinion. That leaves 11/15, which is a success rate of about 70%.

The first RB taken in the draft has only become the best RB from his draft class 5/15 times by my count. It's close with a few of these guys, but I'm sticking with that figure of 5. So recent history says the first RB taken in the draft usually doesn't end up as the best RB from his draft. He only becomes the best RB from his class 33% of the time.

I would say 6 of these guys qualify as studs (Peterson, Jackson, Tomlinson, Lewis, James, and Faulk). That's a 40% success rate.

Now let's look at the 2nd RB taken in the draft vs. the best RB from his class:

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Laurence Maroney/Joseph Addai

2005 - Cedric Benson/Frank Gore

2004 - Chris Perry/Steven Jackson

2003 - Larry Johnson/Larry Johnson

2002 - TJ Duckett/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - Deuce McAllister/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Thomas Jones/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

1998 - Fred Taylor/Fred Taylor (or Ahman Green)

1997 - Antowain Smith/Tiki Barber

1996 - Tim Biakabutuka/Eddie George

1995 - Tyrone Wheatley/Curtis Martin

1994 - Greg Hill/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Jerome Bettis/Jerome Bettis

It looks like the second RB taken also usually becomes a good player. The only outright busts I count here are Cedric Benson, Chris Perry, TJ Duckett, Tim Biakabutuka, and Greg Hill. That leaves 10/15, which is a success rate of 66%. However, the general quality appears to be slightly lower here and some of these guys toe the line between bust and success (Wheatley, Antowain, T. Jones).

By my count three of these guys ended up becoming the best RB from their class (Bettis, Taylor, and LJ). That's a success rate of 20%.

I would say 5-6 of these guys qualify as studs (Bettis, Taylor, Ricky, Deuce, LJ, and maybe Lynch). We'll say that's 5.5 studs out of 15, which is a success rate of about 37%.

Head-to-head comparison of RB1 vs. RB2

Success rate: 70% vs. 67%

Best in class rate: 33% vs. 20%

Stud rate: 40% vs. 37%

This admittedly isn't the greatest data set and the criteria I've used to separate players are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like there's a huge advantage between the RB1 and RB2. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that you have a better shot at a super stud (Faulk, Edge, LT, ADP) at RB1 than you do at RB2 (LJ?). Interestingly, three of those guys were top 5 picks and the other (Peterson) would have been if not for injury issues.

What does all this mean for us this year? If you trust the data:

Darren McFadden will probably be a good player in the NFL.

Darren McFadden probably won't be the best RB from this class (although his odds are better than anyone else's).

It's tough to really quantify the difference between 1.01 and 1.02/1.03 using historical data. There is a difference, but I'm not convinced that it's as huge as you're implying. Realistically, this is one of those things that should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This year I think the decision really comes down to whether or not you believe in McFadden and/or to what extent you believe in the other first round RBs. Personally, I feel there are some latent risk factors with McFadden (his abnormal build and the potential of going to an atrocious team) that bump his actual value beneath his perceived value. That coupled with the fact that the other first round RBs (Mendenhall and Stewart) have a better body type for the pro game and will probably land on better teams has me thinking that this could be one of thse years where someone emerges from the mid-late first to become the best RB in his class ala Shaun Alexander, Eddie George, and Larry Johnson.

We'll see. If Darren McFadden is truly a transcendent talent then he'll probably win out in the long run regardless of situation. But if he's merely good then he'll probably be passed by another good back who winds up on a better team.

I have a feeling, and there is no way i am going to do the numbers, but that top list has probably doubled, if not tripled that 2nd list in fantasy points over their careers.

Nice work EBF. I'm going to add some objective numbers to the results.I looked at each RB's median fantasy finish over the best consecutive 5 year period of their career. This eliminates anyone after the 2003 draft. It's too hard to assess their careers so far. The only inconclusive results in players prior to 2004 occurs in 2003 - McGahee and LJ. There were some players who were no longer in FBG's database but they were obviously failures (**).

Here are the results for the 1st picks (median finish, year, player):

11 - 2003 - Willis McGahee

43 - 2002 - William Green

3 - 2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson

16 - 2000 - Jamal Lewis

10 - 1999 - Edgerrin James

** - 1998 - Curtis Enis

19 - 1997 - Warrick Dunn

** - 1996 - Lawrence Phillips

** - 1995 - Ki-Jana Carter

2 - 1994 - Marshall Faulk

17 - 1993 - Garrison Hearst

And the 2nd picks:

26 - 2003 - Larry Johnson

36 - 2002 - TJ Duckett

13 - 2001 - Deuce McAllister

21 - 2000 - Thomas Jones

9 - 1999 - Ricky Williams

11 - 1998 - Fred Taylor

19 - 1997 - Antowain Smith

** - 1996 - Tim Biakabutuka

37 - 1995 - Tyrone Wheatley

** - 1994 - Greg Hill

7 - 1993 - Jerome Bettis

So, the median of the 1st picks is 17th with a high of 2. The median of the 2nd picks is 21 with a high of 7. Not a lot of difference. Also, if you remove McGahee and LJ, the medians become 18 for the 1st picks and 20 for the 2nd picks. Even closer. If you group them by fantasy production (1 - 12 is a #1, 13 - 24 is a #2), then the 1st picks have 4 #1's and 3 #2's. The 2nd picks have 3 #1's and 3 #2's.

So, unless you're smarter than the NFL, there just isn't much difference between the #1 and #2 RB chosen.

You dont see 20% as a big difference? Lets not forget the last four years, which group of RB's would you prefer on your fantasy team:Group 1:

Chris Perry

Cedric Benson

Laurence Maroney

Marshawn Lynch

OR

Group 2:

Stephen Jackson

Ronnie Brown

Reggie Bush

Adrian Peterson

 

[EBF]

That's definitely a pretty good batting average. I'm not sitting here saying the 1.01 is worthless. But in my defense, let's look at the best RBs drafted in a given year vs. the earliest taken:

2007 - Adrian Peterson/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Reggie Bush/Joseph Addai

2005 - Ronnie Brown/Frank Gore

2004 - Steven Jackson/Steven Jackson

2003 - Willis McGahee/Larry Johnson

2002 - William Green/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Jamal Lewis/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Edgerrin James/Edgerrin James

1998 - Curtis Enis/Fred Taylor (Ahman Green)

1997 - Warrick Dunn/Tiki Barber

1996 - Lawrence Phillips/Eddie George

1995 - Ki-Jana Carter/Curtis Martin

1994 - Marshall Faulk/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Garrison Hearst/Jerome Bettis

A few observations:

The first RB taken in the draft usually becomes a good player. William Green, Curtis Enis, Ki-Jana Carter, and Lawrence Phillips are the only guys on this list that qualify as true busts in my opinion. That leaves 11/15, which is a success rate of about 70%.

The first RB taken in the draft has only become the best RB from his draft class 5/15 times by my count. It's close with a few of these guys, but I'm sticking with that figure of 5. So recent history says the first RB taken in the draft usually doesn't end up as the best RB from his draft. He only becomes the best RB from his class 33% of the time.

I would say 6 of these guys qualify as studs (Peterson, Jackson, Tomlinson, Lewis, James, and Faulk). That's a 40% success rate.

Now let's look at the 2nd RB taken in the draft vs. the best RB from his class:

2007 - Marshawn Lynch/Adrian Peterson

2006 - Laurence Maroney/Joseph Addai

2005 - Cedric Benson/Frank Gore

2004 - Chris Perry/Steven Jackson

2003 - Larry Johnson/Larry Johnson

2002 - TJ Duckett/Clinton Portis (or Brian Westbrook)

2001 - Deuce McAllister/LaDainian Tomlinson

2000 - Thomas Jones/Shaun Alexander

1999 - Ricky Williams/Edgerrin James

1998 - Fred Taylor/Fred Taylor (or Ahman Green)

1997 - Antowain Smith/Tiki Barber

1996 - Tim Biakabutuka/Eddie George

1995 - Tyrone Wheatley/Curtis Martin

1994 - Greg Hill/Marshall Faulk

1993 - Jerome Bettis/Jerome Bettis

It looks like the second RB taken also usually becomes a good player. The only outright busts I count here are Cedric Benson, Chris Perry, TJ Duckett, Tim Biakabutuka, and Greg Hill. That leaves 10/15, which is a success rate of 66%. However, the general quality appears to be slightly lower here and some of these guys toe the line between bust and success (Wheatley, Antowain, T. Jones).

By my count three of these guys ended up becoming the best RB from their class (Bettis, Taylor, and LJ). That's a success rate of 20%.

I would say 5-6 of these guys qualify as studs (Bettis, Taylor, Ricky, Deuce, LJ, and maybe Lynch). We'll say that's 5.5 studs out of 15, which is a success rate of about 37%.

Head-to-head comparison of RB1 vs. RB2

Success rate: 70% vs. 67%

Best in class rate: 33% vs. 20%

Stud rate: 40% vs. 37%

This admittedly isn't the greatest data set and the criteria I've used to separate players are somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like there's a huge advantage between the RB1 and RB2. The only thing that really jumps out at me is that you have a better shot at a super stud (Faulk, Edge, LT, ADP) at RB1 than you do at RB2 (LJ?). Interestingly, three of those guys were top 5 picks and the other (Peterson) would have been if not for injury issues.

What does all this mean for us this year? If you trust the data:

Darren McFadden will probably be a good player in the NFL.

Darren McFadden probably won't be the best RB from this class (although his odds are better than anyone else's).

It's tough to really quantify the difference between 1.01 and 1.02/1.03 using historical data. There is a difference, but I'm not convinced that it's as huge as you're implying. Realistically, this is one of those things that should probably be handled on a case-by-case basis.

This year I think the decision really comes down to whether or not you believe in McFadden and/or to what extent you believe in the other first round RBs. Personally, I feel there are some latent risk factors with McFadden (his abnormal build and the potential of going to an atrocious team) that bump his actual value beneath his perceived value. That coupled with the fact that the other first round RBs (Mendenhall and Stewart) have a better body type for the pro game and will probably land on better teams has me thinking that this could be one of thse years where someone emerges from the mid-late first to become the best RB in his class ala Shaun Alexander, Eddie George, and Larry Johnson.

We'll see. If Darren McFadden is truly a transcendent talent then he'll probably win out in the long run regardless of situation. But if he's merely good then he'll probably be passed by another good back who winds up on a better team.

I have a feeling, and there is no way i am going to do the numbers, but that top list has probably doubled, if not tripled that 2nd list in fantasy points over their careers.

Nice work EBF. I'm going to add some objective numbers to the results.I looked at each RB's median fantasy finish over the best consecutive 5 year period of their career. This eliminates anyone after the 2003 draft. It's too hard to assess their careers so far. The only inconclusive results in players prior to 2004 occurs in 2003 - McGahee and LJ. There were some players who were no longer in FBG's database but they were obviously failures (**).

Here are the results for the 1st picks (median finish, year, player):

11 - 2003 - Willis McGahee

43 - 2002 - William Green

3 - 2001 - LaDainian Tomlinson

16 - 2000 - Jamal Lewis

10 - 1999 - Edgerrin James

** - 1998 - Curtis Enis

19 - 1997 - Warrick Dunn

** - 1996 - Lawrence Phillips

** - 1995 - Ki-Jana Carter

2 - 1994 - Marshall Faulk

17 - 1993 - Garrison Hearst

And the 2nd picks:

26 - 2003 - Larry Johnson

36 - 2002 - TJ Duckett

13 - 2001 - Deuce McAllister

21 - 2000 - Thomas Jones

9 - 1999 - Ricky Williams

11 - 1998 - Fred Taylor

19 - 1997 - Antowain Smith

** - 1996 - Tim Biakabutuka

37 - 1995 - Tyrone Wheatley

** - 1994 - Greg Hill

7 - 1993 - Jerome Bettis

So, the median of the 1st picks is 17th with a high of 2. The median of the 2nd picks is 21 with a high of 7. Not a lot of difference. Also, if you remove McGahee and LJ, the medians become 18 for the 1st picks and 20 for the 2nd picks. Even closer. If you group them by fantasy production (1 - 12 is a #1, 13 - 24 is a #2), then the 1st picks have 4 #1's and 3 #2's. The 2nd picks have 3 #1's and 3 #2's.

So, unless you're smarter than the NFL, there just isn't much difference between the #1 and #2 RB chosen.

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

[EBF]

Just to add for reference for others:In one of my dynasty leagues, the 1.1 pick was just traded for the 1.3, 1.6, and 1.7.I personally think giving up all those picks for the 1.1 was way too much, but he has his heart set on McFadden. Of note, he still owns the 1.8 as well.

Yea, the guy getting 1.01 got skinned here. 1.03 is comparable in value. Adding in 1.06 and 1.07 makes it a landslide.

At 1.03 you're going to end up in all liklihood with Mendenhall or Stewart at worst. We don't know which teams they'll play for, but I can't see how that's such a huge step down from McFadden, who I do like too BTW.

Aye. This is something I touched on earlier. The real value in a rookie draft is typically in the first 3-4 picks. Consider recent seasons:2003 - Charles Rogers, Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Andre Johnson 2004 - Steven Jackson, Kevin Jones, Larry Fitzgerald2005 - Carnell Williams, Ronnie Brown, Cedric Benson, Braylon Edwards2006 - Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, LenDale White2007 - Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Calvin JohnsonAs you can see, you're in pretty good shape most seasons if you have a top 3 rookie pick and you take either a first round RB or a top 5 WR. There doesn't appear to be a huge advantage in having the 1.01 in most of these years since the consensus top rookie is often outplayed by the 1.02 or 1.03 guys. I think where people are going wrong is in assuming that McFadden will become a Peterson type at the next level. Run DMC has some nice skills and I think he'll make a positive impact for whichever NFL team drafts him, but it's craziness to expect him to immediately become a Pro Bowl starter and All-Pro type player like ADP. That just doesn't happen very often. I think people are being blinded by Peterson's early success and I would definitely try to capitalize on this if I owned the top pick this year.

2005 - How has Benson turned out? He was the consensus 1.03 in FF rookie drafts. It's really not a sure thing.2007 - Peterson looks to have been the right guy.So he's 2 instances in the last 3 years were making the trade and getting the 1.01 might not have been such a bad idea after all.

What about 1.06 and 1.07?In 2005 you very realistically could've gotten Braylon Edwards and/or Frank Gore with those picks.

 

[bucki4life]

In an 10 team, keep 8 league, I just offered picks 1.05 and 1.10 for the top pick.

 

[Burning Sensation]

In an 10 team, keep 8 league, I just offered picks 1.05 and 1.10 for the top pick.

That guy would be nuts to take that, especially in a 10 team league.

 

[bucki4life]

In an 10 team, keep 8 league, I just offered picks 1.05 and 1.10 for the top pick.

That guy would be nuts to take that, especially in a 10 team league.

It's an initial offer and will be enough to get the conversation started, which is how this league works.I am curious why you say he would be nuts though.

 

[Burning Sensation]

In an 10 team, keep 8 league, I just offered picks 1.05 and 1.10 for the top pick.

That guy would be nuts to take that, especially in a 10 team league.

It's an initial offer and will be enough to get the conversation started, which is how this league works.I am curious why you say he would be nuts though.

Because Mcfadden is far more valuable than Ray Rice and Desean Jackson.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

BS,

We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?

TIA.

 

[Burning Sensation]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

The response to that trade was your most reasonable post in this thread. Come on, you know what I mean.

 

[bucki4life]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

Maybe I shouldn't have posted (or provided more details) in this thread to avoid confusing BS.My offer wasn't made in a dynasty league and our draft isn't a rookie only draft.

 

[Burning Sensation]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

The response to that trade was your most reasonable post in this thread. Come on, you know what I mean.

No, i dont, please quote anythng that i have said that was far fetched or unreasonable? What have i said that you disagree with?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

The response to that trade was your most reasonable post in this thread. Come on, you know what I mean.

No, i dont, please quote anythng that i have said that was far fetched or unreasonable? What have i said that you disagree with?

Forget it. It's not worth the hijack. Carry on.

 

[Burning Sensation]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

The response to that trade was your most reasonable post in this thread. Come on, you know what I mean.

No, i dont, please quote anythng that i have said that was far fetched or unreasonable? What have i said that you disagree with?

Forget it. It's not worth the hijack. Carry on.

I figured that to be your response, couldnt find anything, could you? Now who is making blind statements.Anyway, historical data, and NFL scouts are on Mcfaddens side, unless you can get something to really make it worth it, you are better of taking your chances on Mcfadden with the 1.1.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

BS, We understand you have the 1.01 pick this year and you want it to be as valuable as year's past and you want McFadden to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but can you please stop blindly defending your own situation in this thread?TIA.

Blindly? How am i defending my own situation? Would anyone trade the 1.1 for the 1.5 and 1.10?

The response to that trade was your most reasonable post in this thread. Come on, you know what I mean.

No, i dont, please quote anythng that i have said that was far fetched or unreasonable? What have i said that you disagree with?

Forget it. It's not worth the hijack. Carry on.

I figured that to be your response, couldnt find anything, could you? Now who is making blind statements.Anyway, historical data, and NFL scouts are on Mcfaddens side, unless you can get something to really make it worth it, you are better of taking your chances on Mcfadden with the 1.1.

I didn't want to quote the whole thread. Have you provided that link where scouts say McFadden is better than Peterson?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Gave up Berrian and the 1.02 to move up to the 1.01...

Maybe a little too much since alot of people believe Stewart will be a great back in his own right; but i think Mcfadden will be worth it.

There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have.

What scouts say he is better than AD?

The ones that are projecting DM to go in the first four picks of the draft.

Uhh..you know that where a player goes in the draft does not necessarily translate to his projected ability, right? Different years, different teams, different needs. Are you saying that if McFadden is drafted in the first 6 picks then that makes him better than Peterson?

Umm, no. Are you saying that Mcfadden is not ranked by NFL scouts this year as high as AD was last year?

The only reason AD went as low as #7 was his injury history. If it were based on talent alone, Peterson would have been a #1 and teams would have been clamoring to trade up for it. Aside from that, RB has been devalued for the last several years because so many teams have found their backups to be legitimate and more people seem to be realizing that maybe the line has more to do with things than RB talent (see P.Holmes/LJ). Most everybody thought Peterson had LT2 type talent, but most also figured that he would likely never make it through an entire 16 game season (and so far those arguments seem to hold at least a little water). After years of devaluing RBs, Peterson comes in and makes a splash like that, and at least for now, RB value has surged a little.

I doubt that has much to do with it. Bush went #2 the year before. Fact is real NFL scouts, not message board "experts", think Mcfadden is an elite talent, worthy of a top 5 pick. That is enough for me, and there isnt much a wanna be scout here on the message board is going to say to change my mind.

You have any sources to back up the fact that NFL scouts have him ranked as high if not higher than Peterson? If I'm not mistaken, Peterson was ranked about as high as you can be at the RB spot by scouts. Just curious where you're getting the info.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Gave up Berrian and the 1.02 to move up to the 1.01...

Maybe a little too much since alot of people believe Stewart will be a great back in his own right; but i think Mcfadden will be worth it.

There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have.

What scouts say he is better than AD?

The ones that are projecting DM to go in the first four picks of the draft.

Uhh..you know that where a player goes in the draft does not necessarily translate to his projected ability, right? Different years, different teams, different needs. Are you saying that if McFadden is drafted in the first 6 picks then that makes him better than Peterson?

Umm, no. Are you saying that Mcfadden is not ranked by NFL scouts this year as high as AD was last year?

The only reason AD went as low as #7 was his injury history. If it were based on talent alone, Peterson would have been a #1 and teams would have been clamoring to trade up for it. Aside from that, RB has been devalued for the last several years because so many teams have found their backups to be legitimate and more people seem to be realizing that maybe the line has more to do with things than RB talent (see P.Holmes/LJ). Most everybody thought Peterson had LT2 type talent, but most also figured that he would likely never make it through an entire 16 game season (and so far those arguments seem to hold at least a little water). After years of devaluing RBs, Peterson comes in and makes a splash like that, and at least for now, RB value has surged a little.

I doubt that has much to do with it. Bush went #2 the year before. Fact is real NFL scouts, not message board "experts", think Mcfadden is an elite talent, worthy of a top 5 pick. That is enough for me, and there isnt much a wanna be scout here on the message board is going to say to change my mind.

You have any sources to back up the fact that NFL scouts have him ranked as high if not higher than Peterson? If I'm not mistaken, Peterson was ranked about as high as you can be at the RB spot by scouts. Just curious where you're getting the info.

You don't have to be an NFL scout to see that McFadden is not the prospect that Peterson was. At 6-2 and 205, his build creates a lot of questions. He also doesn't have the short area quickness that Peterson has, or the power to break tackles. He was shut down in college by several good defenses, and just doesn't seem to make something out of nothing the way that Peterson can. Remember, in the NFL there will be many players that have the same speed/acceleration that DMac has. McFadden is a great prospect, but Felix Jones averaged more yards per carry and looked almost as impressive. I am also very curious to see some reports that McFadden is the better prospect. I really don't mean to pile on here, but would really like to see a few that have him ranked higher. Personally, I just don't see it.

 

[Burning Sensation]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

 

[gianmarco]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

 

[Burning Sensation]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

 

[moderated]

With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

I don't think anyone is saying they wouldn't take McFadden. Every draft class is different, many feel in this years RB class that the difference between McFadden and Stewart/Mend isn't as big as the difference in other years.

 

[gianmarco]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

First of all, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. I haven't seen a single person here advocate taking someone ahead of McFadden. The 2 points that are trying to be made as I see them from several people (and that I agree with) are:1. McFadden isn't the "lock" he's being made out to be. There are #1 picks that do fail at times. It is possible he will not be a stud in the NFL.

2. The RB's behind him are talented enough, although currently ranked lower, to be as good if not better than McFadden in the NFL.

When you combine those 2 points as well as the historical data that has been provided in several different posts by several different people, the 1.1 really is not THAT much better than the 1.2 or 1.3. It's NOT saying that the 1.1 shouldn't be McFadden.

Secondly, you stated " i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts".

Well, I would disagree. I don't have any direct links, but I know some people that subscribe and pay for specific scouting and draft services, and AP was one of the highest ranking RB's of all time and was described as the best RB prospect to come out since OJ. I'm not talking about media lip service or your standard #1 RB hype you read about on message boards or see on ESPN. What we're hearing about McFadden is similar to the stuff we hear every year about the top guys coming in (Reggie Bush, Brown, etc.). Yeah, we hear how "special" they are, etc, but it's really no different than most years.

But the talk about AP was different last year and I'm not hearing that same stuff about McFadden. I don't think people realize the hype around AP from the people that matter (NFL scouts, etc.) was different for AP than it was from the rest of the #1 RB's that usually come out each year. Now, just because I'm not aware of it doesn't mean it's not being said about McFadden, but if you have that information from NFL scouts, then please provide it. Otherwise, I honestly just don't buy it and don't believe it.

 

[Burning Sensation]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

First of all, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. I haven't seen a single person here advocate taking someone ahead of McFadden. The 2 points that are trying to be made as I see them from several people (and that I agree with) are:1. McFadden isn't the "lock" he's being made out to be. There are #1 picks that do fail at times. It is possible he will not be a stud in the NFL.

2. The RB's behind him are talented enough, although currently ranked lower, to be as good if not better than McFadden in the NFL.

When you combine those 2 points as well as the historical data that has been provided in several different posts by several different people, the 1.1 really is not THAT much better than the 1.2 or 1.3. It's NOT saying that the 1.1 shouldn't be McFadden.

Secondly, you stated " i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts".

Well, I would disagree. I don't have any direct links, but I know some people that subscribe and pay for specific scouting and draft services, and AP was one of the highest ranking RB's of all time and was described as the best RB prospect to come out since OJ. I'm not talking about media lip service or your standard #1 RB hype. What we're hearing about McFadden is similar to the stuff we hear every year about the top guys coming in (Reggie Bush, Brown, etc.). Yeah, we hear how "special" they are, etc. But the talk about AP was different last year and I'm not hearing that same stuff about McFadden. That doesn't mean it's not being said, but if you have that information from NFL scouts, then please provide it. Otherwise, I honestly just don't buy it and don't believe it.

I dont remember reading anything like that BEFORE the season started. If i recall correctly, i remember EBF, one of the guys saying Mcfadden is not that far ahead of the rest of the class said the same thing about Peterson and Lynch last year.

 

[Crippler]

Just to add a little to EBF's excellent post. I know that he took the best possible situation in each case IMO.

I know back in LT's draft year that there were owners out there that took Micheal Bennett 1st overall. In one of my leagues, we draft before the day before the NFL draft just for round 1. Back in LT's draft year he was the 2nd RB taken behind Deuce McAllister. So while he was #1, he was not a clear cut #1 back than

Same with McGahee/LJ as Kevin Jones went #1 a few times. McGahee was the #3RB in the early draft and the pick was called the bust of the draft at the time.

Jamal Lewis and Shaun Alexander also had Ron Dayne and Thomas Jones that went #1 in some drafts. The early draft league 1st year was the next year and this one saw Dayne and Jones go 1 and 2 with Lewis 3 and Alexander 4.

I have found that on a whole the early draft has done better than ones doing it after the draft because I find situation changes everything and that RB's really rise.

 

[ssg paul]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

If you look at the #1 rookie pick poll thread, about 25% took Stewart first, with a couple of votes for F. Jones and Mendenhall.

 

[EBF]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

I never said I wouldn't take McFadden at 1.01. However, I would certainly consider all the alternatives just like I did last year when I took Peterson first. I don't personally believe that McFadden is the slam dunk FF stud most draft pundits are touting him as. Does he have a chance to be great? Sure. Is he a lock to be a star? Not by any means.I've already laid out McFadden's negatives several times, but I'm sure I'll be making these points a lot over the next few months, so I might as well repeat them:

- McFadden has a bad body for an NFL RB. Most of the best runners in the NFL are short and stocky. There's evidence to suggest that 5'9"-5'11" and 215-225 pounds is the ideal range and that the NFL is shifting towards backs who are built sturdy and low to the ground. McFadden is both tall and light, which is a double whammy. And while a lot of people will say he's going to gain weight, I think that's a bad assumption. It's pretty clear from looking at his frame that he'll never be as bulky as someone like Steven Jackson or even Adrian Peterson. If he succeeds in becoming a star, he'll be the first RB with his body type in the past 10 years to become a stud. The fact that he has to defy history to fulfill his hype concerns me.

- McFadden doesn't flash great lateral quickness or power. He's VERY good at finding a seam and accelerating. Once he gets moving he's a real threat to go the distance. But he's not very slippery behind the line, you rarely see him shake someone in the open field, and he doesn't have the strong base needed to push the pile and defeat tacklers at the point of attack. NFL defenders are a different breed and I think McFadden is going to struggle to abuse those guys like he abused the SEC.

This is going to be a very interesting draft class to follow. Basically, you have one elite RB prospect with a great pedigree and a very poor body type competing against two RBs with a good pedigree and an ideal body type (Rashard Mendenhall & Jonathan Stewart). Whether or not the latter two backs become better pro players than Run DMC should offer some clues as to the importance of physical traits towards RB success. I've often touted the idea that function follows form at the RB position and that success at RB is largely predictable by looking at the height, weight, and combine numbers. This crop will be a great test of that hypothesis.

As for your question, I will probably have McFadden ranked as my 1.01 when all is said and done, but I will certainly take a long look at the other elite runners. I think the shark move right now is to try to get a king's ransom for moving down to 1.02 or 1.03. You'll still get a high quality first round RB and you should also be able to add another elite prospect.

 

[SayWhat?]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

First of all, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. I haven't seen a single person here advocate taking someone ahead of McFadden. The 2 points that are trying to be made as I see them from several people (and that I agree with) are:1. McFadden isn't the "lock" he's being made out to be. There are #1 picks that do fail at times. It is possible he will not be a stud in the NFL.

2. The RB's behind him are talented enough, although currently ranked lower, to be as good if not better than McFadden in the NFL.

When you combine those 2 points as well as the historical data that has been provided in several different posts by several different people, the 1.1 really is not THAT much better than the 1.2 or 1.3. It's NOT saying that the 1.1 shouldn't be McFadden.

Secondly, you stated " i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts".

Well, I would disagree. I don't have any direct links, but I know some people that subscribe and pay for specific scouting and draft services, and AP was one of the highest ranking RB's of all time and was described as the best RB prospect to come out since OJ. I'm not talking about media lip service or your standard #1 RB hype you read about on message boards or see on ESPN. What we're hearing about McFadden is similar to the stuff we hear every year about the top guys coming in (Reggie Bush, Brown, etc.). Yeah, we hear how "special" they are, etc, but it's really no different than most years.

But the talk about AP was different last year and I'm not hearing that same stuff about McFadden. I don't think people realize the hype around AP from the people that matter (NFL scouts, etc.) was different for AP than it was from the rest of the #1 RB's that usually come out each year. Now, just because I'm not aware of it doesn't mean it's not being said about McFadden, but if you have that information from NFL scouts, then please provide it. Otherwise, I honestly just don't buy it and don't believe it.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the bolded part cracked me up. So he has to provide links from scouts this year on McFadden (or not comment on the matter), but has to take your word for what you "know" from last year regarding AD even though you don't have any links? Interesting.

 

[gianmarco]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

First of all, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. I haven't seen a single person here advocate taking someone ahead of McFadden. The 2 points that are trying to be made as I see them from several people (and that I agree with) are:1. McFadden isn't the "lock" he's being made out to be. There are #1 picks that do fail at times. It is possible he will not be a stud in the NFL.

2. The RB's behind him are talented enough, although currently ranked lower, to be as good if not better than McFadden in the NFL.

When you combine those 2 points as well as the historical data that has been provided in several different posts by several different people, the 1.1 really is not THAT much better than the 1.2 or 1.3. It's NOT saying that the 1.1 shouldn't be McFadden.

Secondly, you stated " i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts".

Well, I would disagree. I don't have any direct links, but I know some people that subscribe and pay for specific scouting and draft services, and AP was one of the highest ranking RB's of all time and was described as the best RB prospect to come out since OJ. I'm not talking about media lip service or your standard #1 RB hype. What we're hearing about McFadden is similar to the stuff we hear every year about the top guys coming in (Reggie Bush, Brown, etc.). Yeah, we hear how "special" they are, etc. But the talk about AP was different last year and I'm not hearing that same stuff about McFadden. That doesn't mean it's not being said, but if you have that information from NFL scouts, then please provide it. Otherwise, I honestly just don't buy it and don't believe it.

I dont remember reading anything like that BEFORE the season started. If i recall correctly, i remember EBF, one of the guys saying Mcfadden is not that far ahead of the rest of the class said the same thing about Peterson and Lynch last year.

Well, I'm not making it up, and yes, it was before the draft. Again, I wish I had a link for it, but I don't. I can see if I can track it down. I know it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between all the deafening hype, but I made it a point to target AP in both of my dynasty leagues and got him. I did NOT do the same for Bush the year before or will be doing the same for McFadden this year.

 

[EBF]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

First of all, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. I haven't seen a single person here advocate taking someone ahead of McFadden. The 2 points that are trying to be made as I see them from several people (and that I agree with) are:1. McFadden isn't the "lock" he's being made out to be. There are #1 picks that do fail at times. It is possible he will not be a stud in the NFL.

2. The RB's behind him are talented enough, although currently ranked lower, to be as good if not better than McFadden in the NFL.

When you combine those 2 points as well as the historical data that has been provided in several different posts by several different people, the 1.1 really is not THAT much better than the 1.2 or 1.3. It's NOT saying that the 1.1 shouldn't be McFadden.

Secondly, you stated " i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts".

Well, I would disagree. I don't have any direct links, but I know some people that subscribe and pay for specific scouting and draft services, and AP was one of the highest ranking RB's of all time and was described as the best RB prospect to come out since OJ. I'm not talking about media lip service or your standard #1 RB hype. What we're hearing about McFadden is similar to the stuff we hear every year about the top guys coming in (Reggie Bush, Brown, etc.). Yeah, we hear how "special" they are, etc. But the talk about AP was different last year and I'm not hearing that same stuff about McFadden. That doesn't mean it's not being said, but if you have that information from NFL scouts, then please provide it. Otherwise, I honestly just don't buy it and don't believe it.

I dont remember reading anything like that BEFORE the season started. If i recall correctly, i remember EBF, one of the guys saying Mcfadden is not that far ahead of the rest of the class said the same thing about Peterson and Lynch last year.

Peterson isn't THAT much better than Lynch. Lynch had a solid rookie year on a miserable offensive football team and is currently a top 10 dynasty back. You have to realize that the main question regarding Peterson was DURABILITY. He hasn't been able to stay healthy throughout his career. He had a great rookie year and is obviously a sick talent, but even a pair of 200+ yard games doesn't change the fact that he still got hurt this season. The main reason to consider Lynch over Peterson is that Lynch has a stronger build and seems more likely to hold up to the pounding in the NFL (although in fairness, he also got hurt last season).

At any rate, I ultimately had Peterson ranked as a surefire stud talent and I can point to me taking him ahead of Calvin Johnson in a PPR rookie draft if you don't believe me.

I don't feel that way about McFadden. He doesn't have AP's quickness or running strength.

 

[gianmarco]

What does Peterson have to do with this years draft?

I never said that Mcfadden was going to be better than AD.

Im not sure the point you guys are trying to make. Are you saying that Mcfadden shouldnt be the 1.1 this year?

No, you didn't say he was going to be better than AD. But you are saying that he's about on par with AD and that NFL scouts are rating him as high or higher than AD was rated last year. I don't think that's true and I was asking if you have any sources for this information and if so, could you please let us see.I don't think there's much argument that McFadden is the consensus #1 this year. But to compare him to AD and say he's as good if not possibly better just isn't true. And this is why a lot of people are overvaluing the 1.1 this year because they are equating it to the same success that those who got Peterson this year had.

p.s.--What does Peterson have to do with this years draft, as you asked above? Plenty, especially since YOU were the one who initially brought it up in post 67.

"There is alot of talk around here about how close Mcfadden is to the rest of the RB class. For whatever reason people have, wether it is because people are comparing him to AD, his skinny legs, bar fights etc., fact is NFL scouts are as high on him, if not higher than AD last year. Am i saying he is better than AD, or that he will even be the best of this class, no, but i am certainly going to take the word of NFL scouts over people on a football message board. Especially considering the bias people have here based on picks and players they have."

I dont have any direct links, so i shouldnt have stated it as truth. However, i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts, and with the exception of maybe Reggie Bush, probably the highest grades for RB's in a while. With that said, why would anyone even consider NOT taking Mcfadden with the 1.1 in their rookie drafts. EBF and ConstruxBoy(or anyone else who disgrees with me), who would you take with the 1.1?

First of all, I don't think you're understanding what they are saying. I haven't seen a single person here advocate taking someone ahead of McFadden. The 2 points that are trying to be made as I see them from several people (and that I agree with) are:1. McFadden isn't the "lock" he's being made out to be. There are #1 picks that do fail at times. It is possible he will not be a stud in the NFL.

2. The RB's behind him are talented enough, although currently ranked lower, to be as good if not better than McFadden in the NFL.

When you combine those 2 points as well as the historical data that has been provided in several different posts by several different people, the 1.1 really is not THAT much better than the 1.2 or 1.3. It's NOT saying that the 1.1 shouldn't be McFadden.

Secondly, you stated " i dont think many would disagree that Peterson and Mcfadden have similar grades going into their drafts".

Well, I would disagree. I don't have any direct links, but I know some people that subscribe and pay for specific scouting and draft services, and AP was one of the highest ranking RB's of all time and was described as the best RB prospect to come out since OJ. I'm not talking about media lip service or your standard #1 RB hype you read about on message boards or see on ESPN. What we're hearing about McFadden is similar to the stuff we hear every year about the top guys coming in (Reggie Bush, Brown, etc.). Yeah, we hear how "special" they are, etc, but it's really no different than most years.

But the talk about AP was different last year and I'm not hearing that same stuff about McFadden. I don't think people realize the hype around AP from the people that matter (NFL scouts, etc.) was different for AP than it was from the rest of the #1 RB's that usually come out each year. Now, just because I'm not aware of it doesn't mean it's not being said about McFadden, but if you have that information from NFL scouts, then please provide it. Otherwise, I honestly just don't buy it and don't believe it.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but the bolded part cracked me up. So he has to provide links from scouts this year on McFadden (or not comment on the matter), but has to take your word for what you "know" from last year regarding AD even though you don't have any links? Interesting.

He doesn't have to do anything. But it's a little difficult to go back and find links for comments BEFORE the 2007 draft after the fact. I also stated that I got this information from someone who has a paid subscription to scouting services. I will try and see if he can get some of that information next time I talk to him. But, if he has this information available on McFadden, which should be readily available now since this is the time you'd see it for the 2008 draft, then I'm just asking for him to provide it or at least state where he's getting it from. I've also said that it may be there, but that I just haven't seen or heard any of it.