When does SEA D become Dynasty Draft Relevant? (1 Viewer)

[MountainMan0726]

Assuming that Seattle will be among the top, if not THE top D/ST drafted next year, at which point (round/pick) would it make sense to lock them up in a Dynasty format over a positional player? This defense seems young and on the verge of being a powerhouse for the next 3-5 years, especially when used exclusively at home. For leagues which allow a multiple-year stash or contract, at which point would the value of this D/ST surpass that of say a Nelson, Nicks, Britt, Bush, Turner? How much risk is involved in committing long-term to a Team Defense, with the amount of player/scheme turnover annually? Ie. would you eventually regret being "stuck" with the Seattle D/ST?

 

[SayWhat?]

You'd certainly regret the Seattle D if you're considering them over the types of players that you referenced. There's far too much variance year-to-year for defenses to ever consider one as a core dynasty asset, the Seattle D included.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Never, because there is a defense that comes out of no where every year and lights it up.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

It's a cliche by now but best value is usually picking both defenses & kickers last and maybe play by committee via free agent wire week to week.

 

[biju]

Right now I'd be careful about the Seattle defense. They are scheduled to lose two of their interior linemen (Jason Jones, Alan Branch) which have done a good job in getting interior push in collapsing the pocket. Unless they can re-sign or replace those guys (and 7th round pick Scruggs has looked pretty good in limited snaps) the D-line might regress back to 2011, which was really hit or miss.

 

[packseasontix]

What has Seattle historically scored in fantasy?

Personally I look at Bears, Packers, Pats when going into dynasty because they have historically scored well in fantasy football year in and out. There will be up and down but they are almost always in the top 10 in my league.

I would never consider picking in dynasty based on just last season. I always look back 3-5 years even in re-draft. Anyone can be a breakout but when you have your choice of everyone at the end of the draft I would rather pick a team with historical success even if they are considered bad, ala Packers and Patriots.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Right now I'd be careful about the Seattle defense. They are scheduled to lose two of their interior linemen (Jason Jones, Alan Branch) which have done a good job in getting interior push in collapsing the pocket. Unless they can re-sign or replace those guys (and 7th round pick Scruggs has looked pretty good in limited snaps) the D-line might regress back to 2011, which was really hit or miss.

Jones really wasn't a factor this season. Branch will probably be resigned. It is a position I think they will either draft or address via free agency.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Assuming that Seattle will be among the top, if not THE top D/ST drafted next year, at which point (round/pick) would it make sense to lock them up in a Dynasty format over a positional player? This defense seems young and on the verge of being a powerhouse for the next 3-5 years, especially when used exclusively at home. For leagues which allow a multiple-year stash or contract, at which point would the value of this D/ST surpass that of say a Nelson, Nicks, Britt, Bush, Turner? How much risk is involved in committing long-term to a Team Defense, with the amount of player/scheme turnover annually? Ie. would you eventually regret being "stuck" with the Seattle D/ST?

I would pick them over any of the players you listed. Do what you have to do to get Seattle D/ST and win your league with them.

 

[JohnnyU]

Good NFL defense doesn't always translate into good fantasy defense. Thus the reason why picking a defense is such a crap shoot. Never give up anything significant for a defense and always take your defense with the last or next to last pick. Remember how everyone was tripping over theselves to get the 49'ers defense? Well, they finished 8th in one league I have them and 9th in two others. Is that kind of production worth giving up anything of significance for?

 

[SSOG]

I've warmed to the idea of grabbing defenses higher in startup drafts since going back and looking at my own startups. For instance, here's the 10th and 11th rounds of a 10 team startup I did back in 2007: JP Losman, Matt Jones, Tatum Bell, Jamal Lewis, Ladell Betts, DJ Hackett, NE D/ST, Bobby Wade, Brandon Jones, Mike Bell, Drew Bennett, Alge Crumpler, Reuben Droughns, Kevin Curtis, Chester Taylor, Alex Smith, Ben Watson, Terry Glenn, Jason Campbell, Michael Furrey. It's not a huge stretch to say that New England has proven more valuable than the other 19 players combined. I certainly wish I'd grabbed a top defense instead of nabbing Tatum and Glenn and waiting 8 more rounds for my sleepers (Dallas and Carolina... Woof). I could see grabbing a top defense in the late 8th or early 9th of a 12-team startup (roughly equivalent to 10/11 in a ten team).

Of course, there's a big difference between "when do defenses become fantasy relevant" and "when does Seattle's defense become fantasy relevant". I like Seattle a lot and think they're a top dynasty unit, but I don't think it's fait accompli that they're the #1. I'd definitely take San Fran over them, and I'd have to at least consider Houston, Denver, and Chicago. I'd probably rank them San Fran > Houston > Seattle > Denver > Chicago at this point, but really, after San Fran, I could easily rank the other four in any order.

 

[Hooper31]

Jones really wasn't a factor this season.

Disagree here. He got great push in several games. He didn't get the sacks, but he collapsed the pocket.

Branch will probably be resigned. It is a position I think they will either draft or address via free agency.

I won't be surprised to see both offered single year contracts, but both would probably prefer a multiple year deal. Not sure if they will get one on the open market. Agree that Seattle will address the position in the draft or free agency.