What would you rather have? (Need vs Talent) (1 Viewer)

[starks]

I am sitting at 1.05 and in desperate need of RB help see below. I know I should draft Tet but Judkins will be there. I think I can get Burden at 2.01 but also would likely have to reach for Skatt or Tuten.

So would you rather have Judkins and Burden or Tet and Skatt/Tuten?

1qb with .5 ppr

RBs are Jeanty (I have 1.01), Dameon Pierce, sincere McCormick and Benson

WR are JSN, Harrison Jr, Rashee Rice and Odunze

Also have Bowers and loaded at QB so I see myself as a contender with a very young team.

Really want to just hammer RB this draft unless I get incredible value on WR like Egbuka falling to me at 2.01

 

[Gally]

Put in the time and effort to create a combined draft board (all positions ranked together). Then take your highest rated player. Don't force positions. The key to being successful is getting FF starters from the rookie draft. The best chance you have of doing that is taking the best player available regardless of position. Don't limit yourself by forcing a RB because that is your weak spot. Taking a lesser player because he fits a positional need gives you less of a chance of hitting on that pick. I would rather have an excess of quality starters at a position then a crappy rookie at a position of need.

Rookie drafts are a crapshoot as it is. Take the player you think is best. That sounds like you have Tet at the best player. Take him at 1.05. Then at 2.01 take your highest ranked player. If that is Burton then take him. If it's Tuten then take him. Don't force a position.

 

[starks]

Put in the time and effort to create a combined draft board (all positions ranked together). Then take your highest rated player. Don't force positions. The key to being successful is getting FF starters from the rookie draft. The best chance you have of doing that is taking the best player available regardless of position. Don't limit yourself by forcing a RB because that is your weak spot. Taking a lesser player because he fits a positional need gives you less of a chance of hitting on that pick. I would rather have an excess of quality starters at a position then a crappy rookie at a position of need.

Rookie drafts are a crapshoot as it is. Take the player you think is best. That sounds like you have Tet at the best player. Take him at 1.05. Then at 2.01 take your highest ranked player. If that is Burton then take him. If it's Tuten then take him. Don't force a position.

I totally get that and it’s what I have lived by but this is last year of my rebuild and I have accumulated 6 of the top 25 picks and really need rbs especially in this draft class. What’s the point in habe jeanty with 7 great wr when I can only play 3 of them?

 

[Gally]

What’s the point in habe jeanty with 7 great wr when I can only play 3 of them?

Because having great players helps you. Taking lesser talents because you need that position means there is less of a chance that they actually hit. If they don't hit then you get nothing. Give yourself the best chance to obtain players that matter by taking the best player available.

If you have 7 great WR's you can move them for RB depth to fill in but if you take lesser RB's because they are RB's and they don't pan out then you can't do anything.

Bottom line is you need to hit on your draft picks. If you don't do that it doesn't matter what positions you took. The best chance to hit on your picks is to take the best player available.

 

[starks]

Gave up a second to trade up for Henderson. End of thread