Trade value of the 1.01 (1 Viewer)

[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 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.

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

 

[cstu]

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

They needed a QB and thought they were good enough at RB. In fact, all the teams before the Vikings thought they were good enough at RB that they could afford to pass on AP.

 

[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.

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

I really hope that isn't a serious question. I also really hope you don't completely base your rankings of a player on the position they are drafted.

 

[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 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.

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

I really hope that isn't a serious question. I also really hope you don't completely base your rankings of a player on the position they are drafted.

Not solely, but it weighs more heavily than any other factor. What do you base you rankings off of more than where they were drafted?

 

[Burning Sensation]

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

They needed a QB and thought they were good enough at RB. In fact, all the teams before the Vikings thought they were good enough at RB that they could afford to pass on AP.

OK, with that said, do you think the Raiders would do the same thing if they knew then what they know now?

 

[gianmarco]

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

They needed a QB and thought they were good enough at RB. In fact, all the teams before the Vikings thought they were good enough at RB that they could afford to pass on AP.

OK, with that said, do you think the Raiders would do the same thing if they knew then what they know now?

I have no idea as the Raiders are a pretty poorly run organization. I would like to say yes, but who knows.

 

[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.

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

I really hope that isn't a serious question. I also really hope you don't completely base your rankings of a player on the position they are drafted.

Not solely, but it weighs more heavily than any other factor. What do you base you rankings off of more than where they were drafted?

It's ok to base your rankings off the draft, but not in the same sense you are. AP's ranking as a RB by scouts doesn't change just because he was drafted #7 vs. #1. It's more in general terms and in relation to others at the same position. Keep in mind that while NFL draft positions are based on scouting, they do not follow them completely in a specific order. This is based on team preferences, positional needs, current rosters, etc. Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

It wouldn't have mattered if AP was drafted #1, #7 or #77 last year. The scouting reports were there and that information was relayed to me by someone who has access to them. I don't know why AP fell to #7, but I knew it was a steal when he was drafted. I also know that even if McFadden were to go #1 overall, it wouldn't make him an equal prospect to AP in any way.

 

[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 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.

If Peterson had the highest score ever, or since OJ, why didnt the Raiders take him #1?

I really hope that isn't a serious question. I also really hope you don't completely base your rankings of a player on the position they are drafted.

Not solely, but it weighs more heavily than any other factor. What do you base you rankings off of more than where they were drafted?

It's ok to base your rankings off the draft, but not in the same sense you are. AP's ranking as a RB by scouts doesn't change just because he was drafted #7 vs. #1. It's more in general terms and in relation to others at the same position. Keep in mind that while NFL draft positions are based on scouting, they do not follow them completely in a specific order. This is based on team preferences, positional needs, current rosters, etc. Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

It wouldn't have mattered if AP was drafted #1, #7 or #77 last year. The scouting reports were there and that information was relayed to me by someone who has access to them. I don't know why AP fell to #7, but I knew it was a steal when he was drafted. I also know that even if McFadden were to go #1 overall, it wouldn't make him an equal prospect to AP in any way.

Yes, it changes were i would take him in a dynasty draft, didnt it change your mind?

 

[moderated]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

 

[Burning Sensation]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

 

[Jedimaster21]

The reason Peterson fell last year was due to:

1) Serious questions about durability and questions about his collar bone...he had broken it and then injured it again in the bowl game

2) A franchise QB being available at the #1 pick for a franchise that is rebuilding

3) Detroit having the Martz offense, Calvin Johnson being the best WR prospect ever, Detroit having Kevin Jones

4) Browns having a serious hole at LT and having Jamal Lewis

5) Bucs having Cadillac

6) Cards paying big money for Edge and a weak offensive line

7) Redskins having Portis

Now, despite reasons 2-7, if there weren't serious injury concerns with Adrian before the draft, he would have gone higher. He's that good. The Raiders could have grabbed him, possibly Cleveland, or even Arizona. I think if a player drops out of the top 10-12 when predicted as a top 5 pick it can be a red flag, but the teams drafting that early usually have so many needs that RB is the least of their worries. This year there are several teams that are in need of a franchise back picking fairly early, so I think McFadden definitely has a chance to be chosen earlier than Peterson. However, when all is said and done, I think it is a lot more likely that he goes 6-15 than 1-5 overall.

 

[Jedimaster21]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

If McFadden is as good as you are saying, that would never happen. I agree with several other posters regarding this situation. IMO, the reason that the 1.1 isn't as valuable is more to do with the players after McFadden than the grade on McFadden as a prospect. There are 2-3 backs behind him that will most likely go in the first round and be in a better situation. So if you can give up 1.1, and get 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 and another player or pick, it is really the way to go.

 

[redman]

The reason Peterson fell last year was due to:1) Serious questions about durability and questions about his collar bone...he had broken it and then injured it again in the bowl game2) A franchise QB being available at the #1 pick for a franchise that is rebuilding3) Detroit having the Martz offense, Calvin Johnson being the best WR prospect ever, Detroit having Kevin Jones4) Browns having a serious hole at LT and having Jamal Lewis5) Bucs having Cadillac6) Cards paying big money for Edge and a weak offensive line7) Redskins having PortisNow, despite reasons 2-7, if there weren't serious injury concerns with Adrian before the draft, he would have gone higher. He's that good. The Raiders could have grabbed him, possibly Cleveland, or even Arizona. I think if a player drops out of the top 10-12 when predicted as a top 5 pick it can be a red flag, but the teams drafting that early usually have so many needs that RB is the least of their worries. This year there are several teams that are in need of a franchise back picking fairly early, so I think McFadden definitely has a chance to be chosen earlier than Peterson. However, when all is said and done, I think it is a lot more likely that he goes 6-15 than 1-5 overall.

Peterson's drop to 7 in hindsight is odd, but there were good reasons for it. I'm sure a couple of those teams would like to have taken a shot at him knowing what they know now, but the truth is all had important needs such that using a pick on a RB would have been painful to them in other ways. Besides, RB's don't tend to make good starting building blocks for teams with a number of different needs and that are in rebuilding mode.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

If McFadden is as good as you are saying, that would never happen. I agree with several other posters regarding this situation. IMO, the reason that the 1.1 isn't as valuable is more to do with the players after McFadden than the grade on McFadden as a prospect. There are 2-3 backs behind him that will most likely go in the first round and be in a better situation. So if you can give up 1.1, and get 1.2, 1.3, or 1.4 and another player or pick, it is really the way to go.

I never said i thought Mcfaden was good. My point all along was i go along with what the scouts say/where players are drafted.Also, as i have said before, talent trumps situation when it comes to dynasty leagues.

 

[gianmarco]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden. Seems to me you are either:1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden. Seems to me you are either:1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

 

[gianmarco]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden. Seems to me you are either:1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

 

[Burning Sensation]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden.

Seems to me you are either:

1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.

2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.

3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.

Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?

Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

There has been? the only one i saw showed the first RB's taken finished 20% better than the 2nd RB's taken, and that was with selective statistics. Lets look at the last eight years drafts, and the 1st and 2nd RB's taken.1st pick...................2nd pick

Adrian Peterson.......Marshawn Lynch

Reggie Bush............Laurence Maroney

Ronnie Brown..........Cedric Benson

Stephen Jackson......Chris Perry

Willis McGahee.........Larry Johnson

William Green..........TJ Duckett

LaDainian TomlinsonDeuce McAllister

Jamal Lewis.............Thomas Jones

I really dont see this as close. Lets you and i start a dynasty league, i get the RB's on the left, you get the ones on the right.

 

[Cookiemonster]

O.K. Burning Sensation has the #1 pick and is overselling it. Can we get away from the argument. We're still on topic, but getting a little catty.

 

[gianmarco]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden.

Seems to me you are either:

1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.

2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.

3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.

Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?

Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

There has been? the only one i saw showed the first RB's taken finished 20% better than the 2nd RB's taken, and that was with selective statistics. Lets look at the last eight years drafts, and the 1st and 2nd RB's taken.1st pick...................2nd pick

Adrian Peterson.......Marshawn Lynch

Reggie Bush............Laurence Maroney

Ronnie Brown..........Cedric Benson

Stephen Jackson......Chris Perry

Willis McGahee.........Larry Johnson

William Green..........TJ Duckett

LaDainian TomlinsonDeuce McAllister

Jamal Lewis.............Thomas Jones

I really dont see this as close. Lets you and i start a dynasty league, i get the RB's on the left, you get the ones on the right.

You're assuming I would just take the 2nd RB drafted since that's the way you judge talent. Let's say, instead of what you have listed, I took:Lynch

Addai

Braylon Edwards

Larry Fitzgerald

Larry Johnson (or Andre Johnson)

TJ Duckett

Michael Vick

Shaun Alexander

You could have ended up with most of those players with either the 2nd or 3rd pick. Is the 1.1 still the clear winner?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden.

Seems to me you are either:

1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.

2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.

3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.

Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?

Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

There has been? the only one i saw showed the first RB's taken finished 20% better than the 2nd RB's taken, and that was with selective statistics. Lets look at the last eight years drafts, and the 1st and 2nd RB's taken.1st pick...................2nd pick

Adrian Peterson.......Marshawn Lynch

Reggie Bush............Laurence Maroney

Ronnie Brown..........Cedric Benson

Stephen Jackson......Chris Perry

Willis McGahee.........Larry Johnson

William Green..........TJ Duckett

LaDainian TomlinsonDeuce McAllister

Jamal Lewis.............Thomas Jones

I really dont see this as close. Lets you and i start a dynasty league, i get the RB's on the left, you get the ones on the right.

The problem with this isn't with who was taken 2nd. It's that you are basing your assessment on the immediate 5 previous years. Those years are still inconclusive. You have no idea whether Lynch is better than Peterson, or if Maroney is better than Bush, or if Johnson is better than McGahee. You need to look at the prior years and when you do, you'll see that the difference between the #1 and #2 picks is almost insignificant. And please, include some objective analysis.

 

[sheerterror]

The reason Peterson fell last year was due to:1) Serious questions about durability and questions about his collar bone...he had broken it and then injured it again in the bowl game2) A franchise QB being available at the #1 pick for a franchise that is rebuilding3) Detroit having the Martz offense, Calvin Johnson being the best WR prospect ever, Detroit having Kevin Jones4) Browns having a serious hole at LT and having Jamal Lewis5) Bucs having Cadillac6) Cards paying big money for Edge and a weak offensive line7) Redskins having PortisNow, despite reasons 2-7, if there weren't serious injury concerns with Adrian before the draft, he would have gone higher. He's that good. The Raiders could have grabbed him, possibly Cleveland, or even Arizona. I think if a player drops out of the top 10-12 when predicted as a top 5 pick it can be a red flag, but the teams drafting that early usually have so many needs that RB is the least of their worries. This year there are several teams that are in need of a franchise back picking fairly early, so I think McFadden definitely has a chance to be chosen earlier than Peterson. However, when all is said and done, I think it is a lot more likely that he goes 6-15 than 1-5 overall.

Peterson's drop to 7 in hindsight is odd, but there were good reasons for it. I'm sure a couple of those teams would like to have taken a shot at him knowing what they know now, but the truth is all had important needs such that using a pick on a RB would have been painful to them in other ways. Besides, RB's don't tend to make good starting building blocks for teams with a number of different needs and that are in rebuilding mode.

This is a great point and is exactly why, IMO, the Jets shouldn't draft Darren McFadden.

 

[Burning Sensation]

O.K. Burning Sensation has the #1 pick and is overselling it. Can we get away from the argument. We're still on topic, but getting a little catty.

For the record, i do have the #1 pick in one of my dynasty leagues. I should also point out that i have every pick other than the 6th in at least one of my four leagues. I am not trying to oversell anything. Truth be told, i was higher on both Bush and AD than i am on Mcfadden, and will be saying the exact same thing in 2021 no matter who the RB's are or what pick i might have. I think people are missing my point here, i am not trying to say Mcfadden is easily the best and there is no way anyone else is close. I am just trying to say just because EBF doesnt like him because of his skinny legs, or Construxboy broke down a tape of one game and didnt like him, that should not influence anyones decision. I am not trying to pick on them specifically, but do you think NFL scouts havnt seen all these things and then some? Not to mention it is their jobs, so they are probably a little better at it then most, yet they still consider him a top 3-5 pick.How do i know they still consider him a top 3-5 pick? The same way everyone else here does. Adam Schefter and Mel Kiper told me, i read about it in the thousand mock drafts i have seen, or some other internet article i have read, etc. The same place EVERYONE here got any information they are spitting out on this messageboard. Some people might say "oh, i like Stewart almost as much, i watched him play, he has the proto typical build, etc." you know what, i doubt anyone who is scouting from home will stick by that if Stewart goes in the 3rd round.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden.

Seems to me you are either:

1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.

2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.

3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.

Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?

Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

There has been? the only one i saw showed the first RB's taken finished 20% better than the 2nd RB's taken, and that was with selective statistics. Lets look at the last eight years drafts, and the 1st and 2nd RB's taken.1st pick...................2nd pick

Adrian Peterson.......Marshawn Lynch

Reggie Bush............Laurence Maroney

Ronnie Brown..........Cedric Benson

Stephen Jackson......Chris Perry

Willis McGahee.........Larry Johnson

William Green..........TJ Duckett

LaDainian TomlinsonDeuce McAllister

Jamal Lewis.............Thomas Jones

I really dont see this as close. Lets you and i start a dynasty league, i get the RB's on the left, you get the ones on the right.

The problem with this isn't with who was taken 2nd. It's that you are basing your assessment on the immediate 5 previous years. Those years are still inconclusive. You have no idea whether Lynch is better than Peterson, or if Maroney is better than Bush, or if Johnson is better than McGahee. You need to look at the prior years and when you do, you'll see that the difference between the #1 and #2 picks is almost insignificant. And please, include some objective analysis.

This thread is about the value of the 1.1 pick in dynasty leagues. The point i am trying to make in this thread is that if you are taking a RB(which most do) with the 1.1, dont overthink it, the NFL scouts do this for a living, take their word for it. Also, what is not objective about posting this decades 1st and 2nd RB's taken? Fact is, if you traded down in most of these years, and didnt get something significant in doing so, you made a BAD trade.

 

[Burning Sensation]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden.

Seems to me you are either:

1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.

2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.

3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.

Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?

Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

There has been? the only one i saw showed the first RB's taken finished 20% better than the 2nd RB's taken, and that was with selective statistics. Lets look at the last eight years drafts, and the 1st and 2nd RB's taken.1st pick...................2nd pick

Adrian Peterson.......Marshawn Lynch

Reggie Bush............Laurence Maroney

Ronnie Brown..........Cedric Benson

Stephen Jackson......Chris Perry

Willis McGahee.........Larry Johnson

William Green..........TJ Duckett

LaDainian TomlinsonDeuce McAllister

Jamal Lewis.............Thomas Jones

I really dont see this as close. Lets you and i start a dynasty league, i get the RB's on the left, you get the ones on the right.

You're assuming I would just take the 2nd RB drafted since that's the way you judge talent. Let's say, instead of what you have listed, I took:Lynch

Addai

Braylon Edwards

Larry Fitzgerald

Larry Johnson (or Andre Johnson)

TJ Duckett

Michael Vick

Shaun Alexander

You could have ended up with most of those players with either the 2nd or 3rd pick. Is the 1.1 still the clear winner?

You could have taken those players, if you are the single best rookie drafter ever, or the luckiest. Do you not see the flaw in your logic here?

You could have also taken:

Calvin Johnson

Deangelo Williams

Caddy Williams

Kevin Jones

Charles Rogers

David Carr

Michael Bennett

Ron Dayne

Doesnt change the fact that if you select the highest RB taken in the draft with the 1.1, which is the point i am trying to make in this thread, you would arguably have six of the top 10 players in fantasy football.

 

[FUBAR]

Here's another question for you? Some said Brady Quinn was the best QB in the draft this past year and many predicted he would at least be a top 5-10 pick. He fell all the way to 22. Does that change his scouting report leading up to the draft? Did yours or anyone else's opinion change of him simply because he fell considerably lower than was predicted?

Yes, my opinion did change of him. Going in the top 5 would have made me feel a lot more comfortable about Quinn.Pre-draft the general public and scouting websites (which are basically just wannabe scouts) had Antonio Pittman ranked WAY higher than what his draft position ended up being, are you telling me your opinion on Pittman and his ability to play at the NFL level didn't change?

I should also say if Jonathan Stewart gets drafted ahead of Mcfadden, i will most likely take Stewart.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Stewart gets drafted ahead of McFadden, you'd likely go Stewart? This after saying that you've "heard" NFL scouts rate McFadden as good if not better than AP? That makes ZERO sense to me. Despite what NFL scouts say and how they rank McFadden, whom you trust more than people on here as you've stated, you'll ignore that and take another guy bc he's drafted higher.On top of that, you are trying to argue how much more valuable the 1.1 is than the other picks, yet you realize that it's even remotely possible that Stewart goes ahead of McFadden.

Seems to me you are either:

1. Not as high on McFadden as you're making it out to be since you'd consider Stewart if he were drafted higher and think it's possible it could happen.

2. Higher on Stewart than you're letting on, thus making your argument that the #1 overall pick is so much better void.

3. Not really sure what you're trying to say.

Just out of curiosity, has anything you've read or heard from NFL scouts mentioned Stewart being anywhere close to McFadden? If not, then how could any team possibly draft Stewart ahead of McFadden? Or do you realize that it's possible for a team to buck a trend and take Stewart first for whatever reason and it still shouldn't change McFadden and Stewart's scouting results? In other words, if McFadden is ranked higher by scouts than Stewart, yet Stewart is drafted before McFadden, it doesn't now make Stewart a higher rated RB.

Based on what i have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden. Based on that, i am high on Mcfadden. However, if something happens between now and the draft that results in Stewart going before Mcfadden, i would probably take Stewart. I know getting drafted higher doesnt mean that player is going to be better, but it sure is a pretty good indication. Definetly better than people on a message board telling me otherwise because he has skinny legs.

It just seems you are being pretty inconsistent in what you're saying. I also think you are trying to argue something that you really haven't shown much proof to defend. There have been a # of posts on here showing why the 1.2 and 1.3 picks have historically resulted in almost the same # of quality players as the 1.1 pick. They have shown that your chances of either hitting or missing are very similar to the 1.1 pick. You have argued against that, claiming the 1.1 pick is significantly better and base that on just taking the highest RB drafted. This is where this all started. I think you are grossly overvaluing the 1.1 pick (maybe bc you own it) when there's been some evidence to show the 1.2 and 1.3 produce very similar results. So, let's say that Stewart, for whatever reason, gets drafted above McFadden and you would take Stewart. So the 1.2 would end up getting McFadden. Would the 1.2 be pretty close in value to the 1.1 then? What if McFadden is the #5 overall pick and Stewart gets taken at 1.7. Would you consider the 1.1 to be that much higher than the 1.2? You seem to base a lot of your decisions on the draft itself and you have asserted the 1.1 is significantly better to own and I'm just trying to gauge how you feel when the 2 contradict each other, i.e. 2 players are drafted right next to each other, does the 1.1 still hold that much more value?

Also, "based on what you have read, it is HIGHLY unlikely Stewart gets draftd higher than Mcfadden". Can you please share what you're reading and where or is it a secret?

There has been? the only one i saw showed the first RB's taken finished 20% better than the 2nd RB's taken, and that was with selective statistics. Lets look at the last eight years drafts, and the 1st and 2nd RB's taken.1st pick...................2nd pick

Adrian Peterson.......Marshawn Lynch

Reggie Bush............Laurence Maroney

Ronnie Brown..........Cedric Benson

Stephen Jackson......Chris Perry

Willis McGahee.........Larry Johnson

William Green..........TJ Duckett

LaDainian TomlinsonDeuce McAllister

Jamal Lewis.............Thomas Jones

I really dont see this as close. Lets you and i start a dynasty league, i get the RB's on the left, you get the ones on the right.

You're assuming I would just take the 2nd RB drafted since that's the way you judge talent. Let's say, instead of what you have listed, I took:Lynch

Addai

Braylon Edwards

Larry Fitzgerald

Larry Johnson (or Andre Johnson)

TJ Duckett

Michael Vick

Shaun Alexander

You could have ended up with most of those players with either the 2nd or 3rd pick. Is the 1.1 still the clear winner?

You could have taken those players, if you are the single best rookie drafter ever, or the luckiest. Do you not see the flaw in your logic here?

You could have also taken:

Calvin Johnson

Deangelo Williams

Caddy Williams

Kevin Jones

Charles Rogers

David Carr

Michael Bennett

Ron Dayne

Doesnt change the fact that if you select the highest RB taken in the draft with the 1.1, which is the point i am trying to make in this thread, you would arguably have six of the top 10 players in fantasy football.

Using the same logic, you could have had:Adrian Peterson

Addai

Braylon Edwards

Stephen Jackson

Larry Johnson

Clinton Portis

LaDainian Tomlinson

Shaun Alexander

With the top pick. Pretty nice team if you're drafting 1.01 each year.

 

[gianmarco]

Doesnt change the fact that if you select the highest RB taken in the draft with the 1.1, which is the point i am trying to make in this thread, you would arguably have six of the top 10 players in fantasy football.

Again, I think you're seriously confusing yourself. I haven't seen a single person in here say to NOT take the highest RB taken in the draft with the 1.1 In fact, after you pointed out who those have been the past few years, it's been a nice recent track record. But, go and look back and find a single person arguing against that.The discussion here isn't about who to take with the 1.1 (which is NOT the point you were trying to make), but that the 1.1 is considerably better than the 1.2 or 1.3. That is the point that is being discussed. Look at the title of the thread. We're trying to determine what the value of the 1.1 is. You have stated in previous posts that you think the difference between the 1.1 and 1.2 is much larger than most. And the point that others have tried to make is that the 1.1 pick isn't always the best player drafted. They are NOT saying that the 1.1 player is a bad pick.You have to remember that you can't have the 1.1 pick every year. Well, you can, but if you do, then you're not doing something right. So the question becomes, if you do indeed have the 1.1, what can you get for it? Is what you're getting worth the drop to the 1.2 or 1.3? Well, historically, as shown by others, you can get just as good of value with those picks as well. Is it a sure thing? Of course not, but neither is the 1.1. Recently, they've had a decent track record, but there are definitely still some misses. Combine that with the potential of getting an even better player and the value difference that you are proposing just really isn't there, IMO.The other thing isn't if you have the 1.1, but what if you are trying to acquire one of those top picks. Is it worth paying the extra price to get that 1.1 or pay a slightly lower price for the 1.2 or 1.3? Again, same points as above.You mentioned in a post above that you would move from the 1.1 to the 1.2 if you were to receive a top 10-15 WR like Holmes or Jennings. And I think you'd be a FOOL to give up one of those WR's to go from the 1.2 to the 1.1 because the value difference between the 2 just isn't that high. If you can get that, then by all means.

 

[womb]

Every year it comes down to this. Even last year. Do I trade 1.01 & for what value?

Last year, most people were cool with a veteran and pick 1.02 or 1.03 (that is ML or CJ). Years before were even murkier.

Honestly, I would not trade it. Period.

You get 1.01 in a dynasty. It is year where you know the top talent is a RB. Almost all scouts believe there is a clear cut top guy in this class. Well, he may not be as talented as the dude from last year or the one from 6 years back, but it is reported he is clear cut the top of his class - at least in his position (the one most valuable to FF). You know you have locked up your RB2 spot for years to come and hope it becomes a RB1 spot.

Yet you trade it down so that you hope you can have a 2 year servicable RB or WR2 and then a lower 1st round pick where you cross your fingers and hope to hell that you are making the right choice? No thank you. I like the track record enough that I would not do the trade unless I get a similar number of years from a guy I would not be doubting the consistency of at this point in time and then picks... Addai?? Lynch??

 

[EBF]

Every year it comes down to this. Even last year. Do I trade 1.01 & for what value? Last year, most people were cool with a veteran and pick 1.02 or 1.03 (that is ML or CJ). Years before were even murkier. Honestly, I would not trade it. Period.You get 1.01 in a dynasty. It is year where you know the top talent is a RB. Almost all scouts believe there is a clear cut top guy in this class. Well, he may not be as talented as the dude from last year or the one from 6 years back, but it is reported he is clear cut the top of his class - at least in his position (the one most valuable to FF). You know you have locked up your RB2 spot for years to come and hope it becomes a RB1 spot. Yet you trade it down so that you hope you can have a 2 year servicable RB or WR2 and then a lower 1st round pick where you cross your fingers and hope to hell that you are making the right choice? No thank you. I like the track record enough that I would not do the trade unless I get a similar number of years from a guy I would not be doubting the consistency of at this point in time and then picks... Addai?? Lynch??

The 1.01 only becomes a solid player about 70% of the time and a stud about 40% of the time.Given that the odds don't appear to be significantly worse for the next two picks, I would definitely move down if I could get the right package of players and picks. McFadden is definitely considered a top tier talent, but Stewart and Mendenhall aren't light years behind him. Almost every source I've seen has those guys ranked between 10-25. We're not talking about JJ Arrington and Julius Jones here. We're taking SOLID first round RBs. Guys who will go in the same general range of the draft as Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Shaun Alexander. I believe that a good first round RB in a good situation stands a very good chance of producing strong numbers. So I wouldn't be the least bit scared to jump down a slot or two if I could find someone who's willing to give up a lot to move down (like the guy mentioned earlier in the thread who gave 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 for 1.01).

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

That's my point.

 

[Burning Sensation]

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.

That's my point.

In what year was there a bigger difference?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

O.K. Burning Sensation has the #1 pick and is overselling it. Can we get away from the argument. We're still on topic, but getting a little catty.

For the record, i do have the #1 pick in one of my dynasty leagues. I should also point out that i have every pick other than the 6th in at least one of my four leagues. I am not trying to oversell anything. Truth be told, i was higher on both Bush and AD than i am on Mcfadden, and will be saying the exact same thing in 2021 no matter who the RB's are or what pick i might have. I think people are missing my point here, i am not trying to say Mcfadden is easily the best and there is no way anyone else is close. I am just trying to say just because EBF doesnt like him because of his skinny legs, or Construxboy broke down a tape of one game and didnt like him, that should not influence anyones decision. I am not trying to pick on them specifically, but do you think NFL scouts havnt seen all these things and then some? Not to mention it is their jobs, so they are probably a little better at it then most, yet they still consider him a top 3-5 pick.

How do i know they still consider him a top 3-5 pick? The same way everyone else here does. Adam Schefter and Mel Kiper told me, i read about it in the thousand mock drafts i have seen, or some other internet article i have read, etc. The same place EVERYONE here got any information they are spitting out on this messageboard. Some people might say "oh, i like Stewart almost as much, i watched him play, he has the proto typical build, etc." you know what, i doubt anyone who is scouting from home will stick by that if Stewart goes in the 3rd round.

Sure, they've seen those things. But if their team is picking 5th and needs a RB and asks the scout who the best guy is available, the scout says McFadden. If the team asks him if McFadden is as good as AD or LT or worth that pick, I bet most scouts say no. The question is whether the team can then trade down to the mid teens and pick up Stewart or Mendenhall. If they can't, or if the coach/owner loves McFadden, they draft him at 5. But judging players based on draft position is a relative method, not an absolute method. A RB at 5 and then no one else until, say 25, would be pretty clear. But a RB drafted at 5, another at 16 and a third at 22 makes the water a little more murky. My opinions only, of course.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

That's my point.

In what year was there a bigger difference?

Both of the last two years, IMO, going into the draft there was a bigger difference between the top RB and the next group.

 

[womb]

Every year it comes down to this. Even last year. Do I trade 1.01 & for what value? Last year, most people were cool with a veteran and pick 1.02 or 1.03 (that is ML or CJ). Years before were even murkier. Honestly, I would not trade it. Period.You get 1.01 in a dynasty. It is year where you know the top talent is a RB. Almost all scouts believe there is a clear cut top guy in this class. Well, he may not be as talented as the dude from last year or the one from 6 years back, but it is reported he is clear cut the top of his class - at least in his position (the one most valuable to FF). You know you have locked up your RB2 spot for years to come and hope it becomes a RB1 spot. Yet you trade it down so that you hope you can have a 2 year servicable RB or WR2 and then a lower 1st round pick where you cross your fingers and hope to hell that you are making the right choice? No thank you. I like the track record enough that I would not do the trade unless I get a similar number of years from a guy I would not be doubting the consistency of at this point in time and then picks... Addai?? Lynch??

The 1.01 only becomes a solid player about 70% of the time and a stud about 40% of the time.Given that the odds don't appear to be significantly worse for the next two picks, I would definitely move down if I could get the right package of players and picks. McFadden is definitely considered a top tier talent, but Stewart and Mendenhall aren't light years behind him. Almost every source I've seen has those guys ranked between 10-25. We're not talking about JJ Arrington and Julius Jones here. We're taking SOLID first round RBs. Guys who will go in the same general range of the draft as Steven Jackson, Larry Johnson, and Shaun Alexander. I believe that a good first round RB in a good situations stands a very good chance of producing strong numbers. So I wouldn't be the least bit scared to jump down a slot or two if I could find someone who's willing to give up a lot to move down (like the guy mentioned earlier in the thread who gave 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 for 1.01).

I hear ya. I am not arguing against it. It is my preference none the less.I will just give a couple of examples why I would go this road:2007 - 1.03 is CJ. The next RB is BJ. 1.06 & 1.07 would have netted me 2 of M. Bush, C. Henry, K. Irons or L. Booker2006 - 1.03 is De Williams or L Maroney. 1.06 & 1.07 would have netted me 2 of MJD, B. Calhoun, J. Norwood or a WR in Jackson or Holmes. 2005 - 1.03 is C. Benson. 1.06 & 1.07 would have netted me 2 of E. Shelton, C. Fason, F. Gore, V Morency or a WR in T. Williamson, B. Edwards or M. Clayton2004 - 1.03 is K. Jones. 1.06 & 1.07 would have netted me 2 of T. Bell, J Jones, C. Perry or a WR named R. Willams - hopefully Roy and not Reggie.2003 and earlier is quite similar. I understand when one thinks they can hit the homerun with this kinda deal. I am sure some people found the right choice in F. Gore which I seriously doubt, or say Lendale White in fact fell a couple of spots and at the end of this year they are feeling cool, or they did in fact choose Edwards over a RB or even Troy Williamson, or it was not DeAngelo, but Joseph Addai at the 3rd pick...No matter what though, 1.01 got production even from Reggie Bush. 1.03 and down is more of a chance play.So, my point. I prefer the historical track record of the production. If someone wants the potential of finding the right guys with perhaps the higher eventual outcome, that is OK. It is just not me. Also, personally speaking... McFadden's competition does not look really to be that close. I give it. Not like last year or not like at the time of LT or even Bush, but there is a undeniable gap.

 

[Burning Sensation]

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.

That's my point.

In what year was there a bigger difference?

Both of the last two years, IMO, going into the draft there was a bigger difference between the top RB and the next group.

I agree with you Bush Maroney, but i am not so sure about last year.

 

[EBF]

It's all about getting value from the picks. Giving 1.01 for 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 isn't such a good idea if you're going to blow the 1.06 and 1.07 selections on second rate RBs, but in a PPR league it gives you a great chance to land one or two solid WRs in addition to your first round RB.

Realistically, I think these things should be evaluated on a year-to-year basis since every prospect is a unique event in history and every draft has its own unique dynamics. I think this year happens to be a great year to move down since it looks like there are three RBs who have immediate 300+ carry potential (McFadden, Stewart, and Mendenhall). You can be at any spot in the top 3 and still be guaranteed to get one of those guys.

A lot of people will point to the fact that McFadden carries the best pre-draft grades as evidence that he's a clear-cut notch above the other two. My counter to that argument is that both Stewart and Mendenhall have much better body types for NFL runners and that both players stand a better chance of being drafted into a good situation since they'll likely go to a better team later in the draft. So while history is on McFadden's side because he's the top-rated RB going into the draft, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has become a stud in the past 15 years.

I think the real problem this year is that most FF owners have short memories, so when they look at a top 10 RB prospect in red-and-white colors they immediately get visions of Adrian Peterson running through their head. Having unrealistic expectations = overvaluing your draft pick.

 

[Burning Sensation]

O.K. Burning Sensation has the #1 pick and is overselling it. Can we get away from the argument. We're still on topic, but getting a little catty.

For the record, i do have the #1 pick in one of my dynasty leagues. I should also point out that i have every pick other than the 6th in at least one of my four leagues. I am not trying to oversell anything. Truth be told, i was higher on both Bush and AD than i am on Mcfadden, and will be saying the exact same thing in 2021 no matter who the RB's are or what pick i might have. I think people are missing my point here, i am not trying to say Mcfadden is easily the best and there is no way anyone else is close. I am just trying to say just because EBF doesnt like him because of his skinny legs, or Construxboy broke down a tape of one game and didnt like him, that should not influence anyones decision. I am not trying to pick on them specifically, but do you think NFL scouts havnt seen all these things and then some? Not to mention it is their jobs, so they are probably a little better at it then most, yet they still consider him a top 3-5 pick.

How do i know they still consider him a top 3-5 pick? The same way everyone else here does. Adam Schefter and Mel Kiper told me, i read about it in the thousand mock drafts i have seen, or some other internet article i have read, etc. The same place EVERYONE here got any information they are spitting out on this messageboard. Some people might say "oh, i like Stewart almost as much, i watched him play, he has the proto typical build, etc." you know what, i doubt anyone who is scouting from home will stick by that if Stewart goes in the 3rd round.

Sure, they've seen those things. But if their team is picking 5th and needs a RB and asks the scout who the best guy is available, the scout says McFadden. If the team asks him if McFadden is as good as AD or LT or worth that pick, I bet most scouts say no. The question is whether the team can then trade down to the mid teens and pick up Stewart or Mendenhall. If they can't, or if the coach/owner loves McFadden, they draft him at 5. But judging players based on draft position is a relative method, not an absolute method. A RB at 5 and then no one else until, say 25, would be pretty clear. But a RB drafted at 5, another at 16 and a third at 22 makes the water a little more murky. My opinions only, of course.

I agree with you here, but i would also be willing to bet if a team asked a scout last year if AD was as good as Tomlinson they would probably say no as well.

 

[Domination]

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.

That's my point.

In what year was there a bigger difference?

Both of the last two years, IMO, going into the draft there was a bigger difference between the top RB and the next group.

I agree with you Bush Maroney, but i am not so sure about last year.

I couldn't agree more. I think that in the end Lynch has a chance to be the best RB taken out of last years draft. No one can discount AP's talent, but he always seems to get hurt or nicked up. I think that CT will actually take some carries away tis year in order to keep Ap fresh. Also, if the end of the year is any indication, Minny had better improve their passing game, because all teams were doing is stacking the box and stopping AP.

 

[Burning Sensation]

It's all about getting value from the picks. Giving 1.01 for 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 isn't such a good idea if you're going to blow the 1.06 and 1.07 selections on second rate RBs, but in a PPR league it gives you a great chance to land one or two solid WRs in addition to your first round RB.

Realistically, I think these things should be evaluated on a year-to-year basis since every prospect is a unique event in history and every draft has its own unique dynamics. I think this year happens to be a great year to move down since it looks like there are three RBs who have immediate 300+ carry potential (McFadden, Stewart, and Mendenhall). You can be at any spot in the top 3 and still be guaranteed to get one of those guys.

A lot of people will point to the fact that McFadden carries the best pre-draft grades as evidence that he's a clear-cut notch above the other two. My counter to that argument is that both Stewart and Mendenhall have much better body types for NFL runners and that both players stand a better chance of being drafted into a good situation since they'll likely go to a better team later in the draft. So while history is on McFadden's side because he's the top-rated RB going into the draft, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has become a stud in the past 15 years.

I think the real problem this year is that most FF owners have short memories, so when they look at a top 10 RB prospect in red-and-white colors they immediately get visions of Adrian Peterson running through their head. Having unrealistic expectations = overvaluing your draft pick.

Which may be true, but despite that, Scouts still consider Mcfadden better than them. They must know something, and i will assume they are right.Now i agree that the team each player goes to will affect how big or little of a difference there is in the players fantasy value.

 

[womb]

It's all about getting value from the picks. Giving 1.01 for 1.03, 1.06, and 1.07 isn't such a good idea if you're going to blow the 1.06 and 1.07 selections on second rate RBs, but in a PPR league it gives you a great chance to land one or two solid WRs in addition to your first round RB.Realistically, I think these things should be evaluated on a year-to-year basis since every prospect is a unique event in history and every draft has its own unique dynamics. I think this year happens to be a great year to move down since it looks like there are three RBs who have immediate 300+ carry potential (McFadden, Stewart, and Mendenhall). You can be at any spot in the top 3 and still be guaranteed to get one of those guys. A lot of people will point to the fact that McFadden carries the best pre-draft grades as evidence that he's a clear-cut notch above the other two. My counter to that argument is that both Stewart and Mendenhall have much better body types for NFL runners and that both players stand a better chance of being drafted into a good situation since they'll likely go to a better team later in the draft. So while history is on McFadden's side because he's the top-rated RB going into the draft, history is also against him since no RB with his body type has become a stud in the past 15 years. I think the real problem this year is that most FF owners have short memories, so when they look at a top 10 RB prospect in red-and-white colors they immediately get visions of Adrian Peterson running through their head. Having unrealistic expectations = overvaluing your draft pick.

Again, I do not disagree & I am not really picturing AD. I will make one last futile attempt to trading below say 1.03. Of all the receivers that could have been considered in that pool (please let me humbly take L. Fitzgerald & C. Johnson out of that picture the only solid WRs I could have found would be Edwards, Holmes, Roy Williams & perhaps Bowe in the last 4 drafts. And call me a homer, but I would have chosen Chad Jackson over Holmes and for some reason I had Mark Clayton & Troy Willamson over Braylon Edwards.Jennings, Evans, Colston, Marshall, etc were not 1.06-1.07 material.1.02... when the gap is narrow like in Ronnie Brown and Caddillac Williams, but then again almost noone wanted to trade 1.02 with 1.01 that year. People were quite happy 1.02 was just as good.1.03... I do not know about it. I remember people taking Kellen Winslow just to be safe. You may be right about McFadden and he may be that exception this year. That may be so. Though, what I read about him from those dudes that call themselves scouts and expert opinion makers that get paid in top sports magazines and networks tell me otherwise. Respectfully, I will choose them at this time. I do not think he will be an exception. Not as good as AD or LT. But not likely to be an exception, at least that is where my money is.

 

[EBF]

I just compiled a quick list of BMI scores for the top 30 RBs in my PPR league. I got all of my heights and weights from NFL.com and used a BMI calculator from the following link: http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/.

The results:

Brian Westbrook - 29.1

LaDainian Tomlinson - 31.7

Clinton Portis - 31.1

Joseph Addai - 29.8

Adrian Peterson - 28.6

Jamal Lewis - 34.2

Frank Gore - 32.9

Marion Barber - 30.0

Willis McGahee - 31.5

Earnest Graham - 33.2

Reggie Bush - 27.5

Maurice Drew - 32.6

Edgerrin James - 29.8

Kenny Watson - 29.6

Steven Jackson - 29.7

Marshawn Lynch - 30.0

Ryan Grant - 29.6

LenDale White - 31.0

Chester Taylor - 29.7

Willie Parker - 30.0

Brandon Jacobs - 32.1

Thomas Jones - 30.8

Ronnie Brown - 31.5

Justin Fargas - 29.0

Adrian Peterson II - 30.1

Fred Taylor - 30.1

Kevin Jones - 30.9

Warrick Dunn - 27.6

DeShaun Foster - 30.1

DeAngelo Williams - 32.0

High: Jamal Lewis 34.2

Low: Reggie Bush 27.5

Average: 30.5

27 out of 30 RBs were between 28.6 and 33.2. That means 90% of the top 30 RBs in 2007 had a BMI between 28.6 and 33.2.

Now let's look at the numbers for this year's top rookie RBs. These were obtained using heights and weights from ESPN.

Darren McFadden - 26.3

Jonathan Stewart - 32.1

Rashard Mendenhall - 31.2

Felix Jones - 27.1

Kevin Smith - 27.8

Ray Rice - 30.3

Jamaal Charles - 27.0

Chris Johnson - 27.9

Steve Slaton - 27.3

It's important to note that these numbers come from ESPN and were probably entered into the system prior to the start of the season. It's quite likely that some of these guys will weigh in several pounds heavier at the combine, which would potentially give them a 1-2 point BMI boost. But based on the numbers we have now, we can draw the following conclusions:

Darren McFadden has the lowest BMI of the elite RB prospects. There isn't a single top 30 RB in the NFL who has a BMI within 1 point of McFadden's. The two closest guys are Reggie Bush and Warrick Dunn. If I'm not mistaken, neither Bush nor Dunn has ever had over 300 carries in a season or finished in the top 10 RBs in non-PPR leagues. The good news for McFadden is that Adrian Peterson is within shouting distance with a BMI of 28.6. However, McFadden will need to be about 18 pounds heavier than his listed weight of 205 to reach a BMI of 28.6 at his listed height of 6'2".

Rashard Mendenhall, Ray Rice, and Jonathan Stewart are all within 1.6 points of the average BMI for the top 30 RBs. On paper, they appear to be the best RBs from the class in terms of body type and are the only players who fall within the ideal 90% range of 28.6 and 33.2.

Jamaal Charles, Felix Jones, Kevin Smith, Chris Johnson, and Steve Slaton are all undersized based on their listed numbers at ESPN. Unless they check in 5-10 pounds heavier at the combine, they should probably be considered longshots to become top 30 NFL RBs.

 

[EBF]

Woops. That was meant to be a new post. :-\

 

[moderated]

Which may be true, but despite that, Scouts still consider Mcfadden better than them. They must know something, and i will assume they are right.Now i agree that the team each player goes to will affect how big or little of a difference there is in the players fantasy value.

For the most part we have no clue what the "real" scouts think until after the NFL draft. The guys getting paid to judge and scout talent for the NFL aren't posting on message boards and don't have websites where they give away their thoughts.Also the combine will be huge for Stewart, if he has a big combine i could see the gap between him and McFadden as almost non-existent.But i completely agree with you that if after the NFL draft we see McFadden go in the top 5 and the guys like Stewart/Mendenhall going 20th or later then the 1.1 gains quite a bit of value vs the 2nd/3rd picks.

 

[FUBAR]

Which may be true, but despite that, Scouts still consider Mcfadden better than them. They must know something, and i will assume they are right.

Now i agree that the team each player goes to will affect how big or little of a difference there is in the players fantasy value.

For the most part we have no clue what the "real" scouts think until after the NFL draft. The guys getting paid to judge and scout talent for the NFL aren't posting on message boards and don't have websites where they give away their thoughts.Also the combine will be huge for Stewart, if he has a big combine i could see the gap between him and McFadden as almost non-existent.

But i completely agree with you that if after the NFL draft we see McFadden go in the top 5 and the guys like Stewart/Mendenhall going 20th or later then the 1.1 gains quite a bit of value vs the 2nd/3rd picks.

I don't know about that. If you're talking 20 or later, you're mostly talking about Dallas, Pittsburgh or Seattle. Dallas will mean a drop but more because that's RBBC, while Pittsburgh or Seattle may mean some will increase that RB's value. You're talking about, for the most part, putting a talented player on a good team, most won't view that as a negative. Then again, this could become LT/Michael Benett, where some people actually prefered Bennett.

 

[comfortably numb]

I just threw my hat into the 1.1 sweepstakes.

16 team IDP

Gave

LJ

Kolby

Meachem

C Grant (DE)

for

1.1

I don't know why I did this

I have

Peterson

Bush

Bush

So 1.1 isn't a need position.

I need WR help as Housh is my main WR.

Figured Peterson and Bush are my main 2, and 1.1 has more trade value than LJ if I wanted to move 1.1 for a proven WR.

"I fought the hype, and, the hype won!"

 

[Burning Sensation]

I just threw my hat into the 1.1 sweepstakes.

16 team IDP

Gave

LJ

Kolby

Meachem

C Grant (DE)

for

1.1

I don't know why I did this

I have

Peterson

Bush

Bush

So 1.1 isn't a need position.

I need WR help as Housh is my main WR.

Figured Peterson and Bush are my main 2, and 1.1 has more trade value than LJ if I wanted to move 1.1 for a proven WR.

"I fought the hype, and, the hype won!"

You did it because you got a great deal.

 

[comfortably numb]

I just threw my hat into the 1.1 sweepstakes.

16 team IDP

Gave

LJ

Kolby

Meachem

C Grant (DE)

for

1.1

I don't know why I did this

I have

Peterson

Bush

Bush

So 1.1 isn't a need position.

I need WR help as Housh is my main WR.

Figured Peterson and Bush are my main 2, and 1.1 has more trade value than LJ if I wanted to move 1.1 for a proven WR.

"I fought the hype, and, the hype won!"

You did it because you got a great deal.

Well, yes, I felt value wise it was right, and I could afford to "miss" even if he busts, being I am secure at RB.

But I do feel I gave away a RB who will finish in the top 10 next year

 

[Riflemen]

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

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

 

[womb]

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

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

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

 

[SayWhat?]

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

Impact of team situation on pick 1.1

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

Crazy.