Would you rather have the #1 rookie pick or (1 Viewer)

[Righetti]

the consensus #1 rookie pick in dynasty leagues has been a dissapointment more often as they have been a super stud. We debate them all off-season and within a few weeks it seems like everybody has been proven wrong.

Just the last few years I can think of three guys (Reggie Bush, McFadden and Cadillac) who have not just outplayed by many guys from their same year but were in years where another guy has become an absolute stud.

This isnt' always the case of course as ADP was obviously worth the hype

so it got me to thinking

dynasty rookie draft you can have one of the following options

1) the #1 pick. you have the pick of the litter, pick the guy you think would work out best

2) you get the #2 pick in a dynasty draft after the season is done where you can draft any of the players who just completed their rookie year.

to be clear..

you can either take the #1 pick before the season starts or you get the #2 pick after the season (assuming you are drafting with people who know what they are doing.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

the consensus #1 rookie pick in dynasty leagues has been a dissapointment more often as they have been a super stud. We debate them all off-season and within a few weeks it seems like everybody has been proven wrong.Just the last few years I can think of three guys (Reggie Bush, McFadden and Cadillac) who have not just outplayed by many guys from their same year but were in years where another guy has become an absolute stud.This isnt' always the case of course as ADP was obviously worth the hypeso it got me to thinkingdynasty rookie draft you can have one of the following options1) the #1 pick. you have the pick of the litter, pick the guy you think would work out best2) you sign right now for the 2nd best guy.

How do we determine the 2nd best guy? Are you forced to take the guy who finished 2nd in FP?

 

[SSOG]

How do we determine the 2nd best guy? Are you forced to take the guy who finished 2nd in FP?

I voted "the second best guy", but then thought about this after the fact. If Mike Walker winds up with more fantasy points than Percy Harvin and Michael Crabtree, am I stuck with him?If I had the choice between the #1 pick and we drafted rookies before the season started or the #2 pick and we drafted rookies after the season was over, I would take the #2 pick after the season, because more data is always a good thing. It's not like any rookie class has ever been so shallow that it's only produced 1 fantasy stud, anyway. Even in the ADP year, there was still Calvin Johnson.

 

[Righetti]

I guess to be clear..

you can either take the #1 pick before the season starts or you get the #2 pick after the season (assuming you are drafting with people who know what they are doing.)

 

[Righetti]

the consensus #1 rookie pick in dynasty leagues has been a dissapointment more often as they have been a super stud. We debate them all off-season and within a few weeks it seems like everybody has been proven wrong.Just the last few years I can think of three guys (Reggie Bush, McFadden and Cadillac) who have not just outplayed by many guys from their same year but were in years where another guy has become an absolute stud.This isnt' always the case of course as ADP was obviously worth the hypeso it got me to thinkingdynasty rookie draft you can have one of the following options1) the #1 pick. you have the pick of the litter, pick the guy you think would work out best2) you sign right now for the 2nd best guy.

How do we determine the 2nd best guy? Are you forced to take the guy who finished 2nd in FP?

assume there is a draft after the season and you have the #2 pick.

 

[Righetti]

How do we determine the 2nd best guy? Are you forced to take the guy who finished 2nd in FP?

I voted "the second best guy", but then thought about this after the fact. If Mike Walker winds up with more fantasy points than Percy Harvin and Michael Crabtree, am I stuck with him?If I had the choice between the #1 pick and we drafted rookies before the season started or the #2 pick and we drafted rookies after the season was over, I would take the #2 pick after the season, because more data is always a good thing. It's not like any rookie class has ever been so shallow that it's only produced 1 fantasy stud, anyway. Even in the ADP year, there was still Calvin Johnson.

yes exactly like this

 

[belljr]

#1 - I took RB over Caddy

ETA: I change my vote according to the info above. I didn't realize we were drafting after #2 was established

 

[DoubleG]

I guess to be clear..

you can either take the #1 pick before the season starts or you get the #2 pick after the season (assuming you are drafting with people who know what they are doing.)

So I get, for this past season (only this past year? keeper/dynatsy or redraft?) either:

A) The guy whom I would have picked at #1

or

B) They guy who, in retrospect, had the 2nd best season, fantasy wise (but he would have been on my team the entire year?)

Sorry - I'd love to answer the question, but I still don't understand it.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

How do we determine the 2nd best guy? Are you forced to take the guy who finished 2nd in FP?

I voted "the second best guy", but then thought about this after the fact. If Mike Walker winds up with more fantasy points than Percy Harvin and Michael Crabtree, am I stuck with him?If I had the choice between the #1 pick and we drafted rookies before the season started or the #2 pick and we drafted rookies after the season was over, I would take the #2 pick after the season, because more data is always a good thing. It's not like any rookie class has ever been so shallow that it's only produced 1 fantasy stud, anyway. Even in the ADP year, there was still Calvin Johnson.

Except a lot of people would have taken Marshawn Lynch instead, both before and after the season. Point being yes it's more data to analyze, but you not only still have a chance at making the incorrect choice, but you're also limiting your team's ceiling by never getting that head and shoulders, #1 ultra nucleus guy, like an AD.I think I'd rather take the shot at hitting the home run upfront then settle for the silver medal on the back end. Of course last year, the postseason #2 pick probably would have been Chris Johnson in a lot of cases (Forte being #1).

 

[Righetti]

I guess to be clear..

you can either take the #1 pick before the season starts or you get the #2 pick after the season (assuming you are drafting with people who know what they are doing.)

So I get, for this past season (only this past year? keeper/dynatsy or redraft?) either:

A) The guy whom I would have picked at #1

or

B) They guy who, in retrospect, had the 2nd best season, fantasy wise (but he would have been on my team the entire year?)

Sorry - I'd love to answer the question, but I still don't understand it.

lets take the 2010 seasonyou either get 1.01 in a rookie dynasty draft or at the conclusion of the season you get 1.02 in a draft of players that just completed their rookie year.

 

[DoubleG]

I guess to be clear..

you can either take the #1 pick before the season starts or you get the #2 pick after the season (assuming you are drafting with people who know what they are doing.)

So I get, for this past season (only this past year? keeper/dynatsy or redraft?) either:

A) The guy whom I would have picked at #1

or

B) They guy who, in retrospect, had the 2nd best season, fantasy wise (but he would have been on my team the entire year?)

Sorry - I'd love to answer the question, but I still don't understand it.

lets take the 2010 seasonyou either get 1.01 in a rookie dynasty draft or at the conclusion of the season you get 1.02 in a draft of players that just completed their rookie year.

Okay cool - sorry, I kinda got it when I reread your OP a 3rd time. Obviously, more information is better, so I'll take the 1.02 of guys that just completed their rookie season.

In the dynasty league I'm in, I had the first 2 picks (non-PPR) - I took Moreno (technically) at 1.01 and Wells at 1.02. If I would have only had 1, I would have taken Moreno at the time. Currently, I like Wells much better and if given the choice, I would take Wells in a second.

I think the advantage of waiting until after their rookie season is all the "but will that/how will that transfer to the NFL" discussion that goes on about rookies is, to an extent, been answered. How will RBs handle the larger, faster tacklers they face? Will all of their skills translate well, or only some of them? Will they "play as fast" in the NFL as they did in college? Will they still be able to make guys miss or break tackles? Can they stay healthy? Will they learn pass protection and block effectively?

 

[Righetti]

Okay cool - sorry, I kinda got it when I reread your OP a 3rd time. Obviously, more information is better, so I'll take the 1.02 of guys that just completed their rookie season. In the dynasty league I'm in, I had the first 2 picks (non-PPR) - I took Moreno (technically) at 1.01 and Wells at 1.02. If I would have only had 1, I would have taken Moreno at the time. Currently, I like Wells much better and if given the choice, I would take Wells in a second. I think the advantage of waiting until after their rookie season is all the "but will that/how will that transfer to the NFL" discussion that goes on about rookies is, to an extent, been answered. How will RBs handle the larger, faster tacklers they face? Will all of their skills translate well, or only some of them? Will they "play as fast" in the NFL as they did in college? Will they still be able to make guys miss or break tackles? Can they stay healthy? Will they learn pass protection and block effectively?

sorry for it not being clear, it was kind of hard to put into words although I knew what I meantI agree with you about having had a chance to see how well they have adjusted after the season but by going with option #2 you would have lost out on ADP and SJAX (I think he was the concensus #1 that year) but would not have gotten stuck with Reggie Bush, McFadden or Caddy.as a previous poster said you are giving up the opportunity for the homerun and getting something that is a 'sure thing'

 

[Righetti]

who were the concensus #1 picks over the last 4 years and a few guys who could be taken ahead of them in a new dynasty draft.

2008- McFadden

2007- ADP

2006- Reggie Bush

2005- Caddilac

2004- SJax (don't remember but he may have been)

 

[Righetti]

Even one year might not be enough

Take last year as an example

Before the season: McFadden

After the season: Forte

After this season: CJ3

and Ray Rice could be up there also

in the 2006

Before the '06 season: Reggie Bush

After the season: Joseph Addai

After the next season: DeAngelo Williams

After this season: MJD

 

[SSOG]

as a previous poster said you are giving up the opportunity for the homerun and getting something that is a 'sure thing'

No you aren't- there are almost always multiple "home runs" in a single draft.

 

[tomarken]

I'd take the 1.02 pick after the season every single time.

However, I think the ROI on that pick might not be as great as you would think (compared to taking the 1.01 before the season). 1.02 after the season isn't necessarily a sure bet to be a dynasty stud.

 

[SSOG]

1.02 after the season isn't necessarily a sure bet to be a dynasty stud.

No... but it's a much surer thing than the #1 overall before the season.Another way to look at it is that the only way you can possibly lose is if the preseason #1 would also be the postseason #1. If someone else steps forward as the consensus best guy in the class, then either you like someone else better than the preseason #1 by that point and you come out ahead... or you don't, you take the preseason #1 guy again, and you break even.So... if the preseason #1 = the postseason #1, you take a loss (although not a huge loss- it's never like there's only one stud in any given class). If the preseason #1 != the postseason #1, then you break even or come out ahead. Since I suspect the no-brainer #1 going into a season is rarely the no-brainer #1 coming out of the season, taking the #2 after the season should be a slam dunk.

 

[editor47]

I'd take the 1.02 pick after the season every single time.

However, I think the ROI on that pick might not be as great as you would think (compared to taking the 1.01 before the season). 1.02 after the season isn't necessarily a sure bet to be a dynasty stud.

no, but you're not obligated to take the no. 2 scorer. you can pick and chose for future success.here's why: 1999, i think it was.

first year in an existing keeper league.

pick 1 and 3. i pick enis and leaf. pick 2-moss. pick 4-p. manning.

how many championships do you think i'd have won if i could have that do over?

 

[tomarken]

1.02 after the season isn't necessarily a sure bet to be a dynasty stud.

No... but it's a much surer thing than the #1 overall before the season.Another way to look at it is that the only way you can possibly lose is if the preseason #1 would also be the postseason #1. If someone else steps forward as the consensus best guy in the class, then either you like someone else better than the preseason #1 by that point and you come out ahead... or you don't, you take the preseason #1 guy again, and you break even.So... if the preseason #1 = the postseason #1, you take a loss (although not a huge loss- it's never like there's only one stud in any given class). If the preseason #1 != the postseason #1, then you break even or come out ahead. Since I suspect the no-brainer #1 going into a season is rarely the no-brainer #1 coming out of the season, taking the #2 after the season should be a slam dunk.

I may have worded my post poorly. I agree that 1.02 after the season is better than 1.01 before the season. But I think a lot of people would think it's like this:1.02 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.01while I think it would really be more like this:1.02 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.01

 

[tomarken]

I'd take the 1.02 pick after the season every single time.

However, I think the ROI on that pick might not be as great as you would think (compared to taking the 1.01 before the season). 1.02 after the season isn't necessarily a sure bet to be a dynasty stud.

no, but you're not obligated to take the no. 2 scorer. you can pick and chose for future success.

Oh, I know. But it's likely that you'd end up taking something close to the #2 scorer anyway. What else would you base the decision on? Most of the value of waiting until the end of the year to pick is that you can see how they performed.My point is, whoever you would take with that pick, for whatever reason you would take them, is not a sure bet to be a dynasty stud. It's still better than the 1.01 before the season, but not a lock.

 

[FUBAR]

Even one year might not be enough

Yeah, but that's kind of the point I think.Let's take a quick look at the years.2009 - Moreno vs. Wells, Crabtree or Harvin2008 - McFadden vs. Matt Ryan, Forte, DeSean Jackson or Eddie Royal2007 - AD vs. Calvin or Lynch2006 - Bush vs. VY, Colston or Addai?2005 - RB/Caddy/Benson vs. the same or Braylon2004 - SJax vs. Fitzgerald or KJ2003 - McGahee vs. AJ/Rogers/PalmerOverall, #2 may be a little more valuable but only because too often RBs go 1.01

 

[Righetti]

as a previous poster said you are giving up the opportunity for the homerun and getting something that is a 'sure thing'

No you aren't- there are almost always multiple "home runs" in a single draft.

interestingafter 1 season2008. CJ3 goes #1 and Forte would have gone #2 (maybe reversed)2007. ADP would have gone #1 and you would pick between CJ2 and Lynch 2006. Adai may have gone #1, you may still have picked Bush 2nd since MJD and DWill didn't get great for another season

 

[Sinrj]

as a previous poster said you are giving up the opportunity for the homerun and getting something that is a 'sure thing'

No you aren't- there are almost always multiple "home runs" in a single draft.

interestingafter 1 season2008. CJ3 goes #1 and Forte would have gone #2 (maybe reversed)2007. ADP would have gone #1 and you would pick between CJ2 and Lynch 2006. Adai may have gone #1, you may still have picked Bush 2nd since MJD and DWill didn't get great for another season

Neither is safer. When you draft you are forced to take a decision with the info you have. The fact that there's more info after the first year doesn't make it safer. Do the same thing every year for the same class and you will probably get a different player each year.

 

[SSOG]

as a previous poster said you are giving up the opportunity for the homerun and getting something that is a 'sure thing'

No you aren't- there are almost always multiple "home runs" in a single draft.

interestingafter 1 season2008. CJ3 goes #1 and Forte would have gone #2 (maybe reversed)2007. ADP would have gone #1 and you would pick between CJ2 and Lynch 2006. Adai may have gone #1, you may still have picked Bush 2nd since MJD and DWill didn't get great for another season

I would have taken MJD #1 overall after four games in Jacksonville, that's how quickly he impressed me. You say that he "didn't do great" for another season, but as a rookie he put up almost 1400 yards, 15 TDs, and 46 receptions in a limited role. His 228 fantasy points didn't just rank him #1 among rookies (even above Joseph Addai), they ranked him 8th out of all RBs, regardless of experience.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I wonder where the beak is. It seems like it would be between 3 and 4.

Run the poll again at #1 (before) vs #3 (after).

 

[FUBAR]

I wonder where the beak is. It seems like it would be between 3 and 4. Run the poll again at #1 (before) vs #3 (after).

or a second poll where we choose how low we would trade pick 1.01 for.