Dynasty Rookie Draft Advice...

[Perchoutofwater]

Kind of an absurd amount of picks, but here's how i rank the first 6

 

Matthews

Spiller/Bryant - close call, maybe bryant in ppr/ spiller in non - don't have to make the decision anyway

Best

Tate

Hardesty

 

It wouldn't be crazy to take Bradford at 6 but no way would i take him at 3.

 

This would be the advice I would give.

[BearBroncos]

i can't state more strongly how wrong this line of thinking is.

 

you keep following this line of thinking to its conclusion, and you end up with a team of Matt Fortes and Steve Slatons. Is that your ultimate goal? a team full of one year production guys based on situation?

 

how you don't draft a dynasty team based 90% on talent and 10% on situation is beyond me.

 

if you want to argue that Tate is more talented than Matthews or Spiller, then that's fine. But i don't think you'll last long in that argument.

 

Draft based on talent. Forget need. Forget situation. I'll take a team full of Jonathan Stewarts and keep racking up those top three draft picks every single year while until my team explodes. So be it. But I'd much rather have a team with Matthews and Spiller than a team full of Tates.

 

Even in a dynasty league, it's human nature to look at the first year prodcution which is good at times and bad at other times. Tate has the best opportuntiy for first year production with the neck injury to Slaton and his inability to hold the dang football. Mathews, whislt probably in the best long term scenario, is in a pass, run, pass, pass, pass style offense, along with sharing carries with Sproles.

 

BTW, I'm not saying your wrong here. I am, however, saying that depending on your lineup, sometimes you need to look at situational setups to make your team at least compeditive until your rookies get into a position to be productive to your team.

 

Heck, the only reason I drafted Bradford was because the only QB I had (with production value) was McNabb. Granted, I think McNabb will do me fine this year under Shanahan, but the bye week I needed someone to offer me at least some potential points. Plus I need a QB that will be a decent replacement maybe 2 years down the road when McNabb is gone so I looked at this year situation whilst looking at my future QB situation.

[G.K.Trey]

Even in a dynasty league, it's human nature to look at the first year prodcution which is good at times and bad at other times. Tate has the best opportuntiy for first year production with the neck injury to Slaton and his inability to hold the dang football. Mathews, whislt probably in the best long term scenario, is in a pass, run, pass, pass, pass style offense, along with sharing carries with Sproles.

 

BTW, I'm not saying your wrong here. I am, however, saying that depending on your lineup, sometimes you need to look at situational setups to make your team at least compeditive until your rookies get into a position to be productive to your team.

 

Heck, the only reason I drafted Bradford was because the only QB I had (with production value) was McNabb. Granted, I think McNabb will do me fine this year under Shanahan, but the bye week I needed someone to offer me at least some potential points. Plus I need a QB that will be a decent replacement maybe 2 years down the road when McNabb is gone so I looked at this year situation whilst looking at my future QB situation.

 

 

I do not see this as being true . SD had ,last season , 519 pass attempts. Which places them 24th in the league, they had 427 rushing attempts which puts them at 19th in the league. So I think its more perception then reality.

[BearBroncos]

I do not see this as being true . SD had ,last season , 519 pass attempts. Which places them 24th in the league, they had 427 rushing attempts which puts them at 19th in the league. So I think its more perception then reality.

 

I over exaggerated a little, but they ran 44% of the time meaning they ran 4.4 times out of 10 plays. Looking back, it was primarily their production that sucked.

 

Houston in 2008 when they had good production out of their backs ran 48% of the time. I honestly thought the disparity was much greater than memory serves. Guess I should run the numbers before arbitrary spouting out.

[G.K.Trey]

I over exaggerated a little, but they ran 44% of the time meaning they ran 4.4 times out of 10 plays. Looking back, it was primarily their production that sucked.

 

Houston in 2008 when they had good production out of their backs ran 48% of the time. I honestly thought the disparity was much greater than memory serves. Guess I should run the numbers before arbitrary spouting out.

 

I was pointing it out because I believe it was the performance , not the opportunity , that was to blame in S.D.