Dynasty Debate Article Suggestions

[dlf_kenk]

Open to any suggestions from our loyal brethren...let me know if you have any "Dynasty Debate" questions on who to keep / trade for / value more between two or three players and I'll make it happen.

For free.

[SpaderDude]

I think Jonathan Stewart is an interesting case right now. I've seen many threads urging talent versus situation. He's in your "Players to Buy" article and a lot of people are counting (or at least hoping) on him to bust out. At the same time, he was a part of a historically dreadful offense.

Simple question could be will he or won't he crack top 10 in 2011?

[Schroedess26]

What about RBs around the league? The situations for next year and prospects, might make for a good article,but Ivory, BJE, Stewart are all good cases to look at.

[Risky bidness]

I agree with the players mentioned above. Also, Beanie Wells and Marshawn Lynch are interesting characters.

[dlf_kenk]

Top 12-15 for Stewart? Yes, I think so. Top 10? I think that's probably pushing it.

[NoLogoNeeded]

I'm a huge J Stew fan...the man runs hard...I'd like to see him crack the top 10...maybe because he's on my squad...

[tjaden]

What about young dynasty-quarterbacks like S.Bradford, T.Tebow and the new rookies like R.Mallett, C.Newton or B.Gabbert.
You've a different set of skills (POV) for a rookie QB as for the rookie WR or RB cause you can see pretty fast if a WR or RB is capable (or not).
Take Bradford as an example - are his numbers just average or good for a rookie QB ...? What are the indicators? How long till you can see a young QB has potential or no-potential? If you own Tebow or Bradford - should you draft a Mallett, Newton or Luck (2012) in your rookie draft when the opportunity is there (and all the big shots WR/RB are gone)?
Under which circumstances should you draft a rookie-QB?
However (in most cases) you take a #2QB rather than a rookie-QB as your substitute.


[questions for dynasty and standard-scoring and roster-size (8 bench spots)] EDIT

[Schroedess26]

Wow the QB question doesn't seem like it can be answered. With 6 bench spots do you ever carry a rookie basically? At QB you have to start to be relevant and with only 6 spots you can't roster someone with basically no value like Teabow this last year.

[RichDynastyFB]

Although I just recently joined this forum on an active basis, I have been playing dynasty IDP for the last 5 years, and have been active on other forums during that period.

One issue/trend I see over the last couple years among dynasty leaguers that I consider knowledgeable is the theory that a great stable of WR's can carry a team with average RB's, making the acquisition od WR1's to start in all available roster spots more important than RB1's. The gist of this theory seems to be that a WR1 can carry a dynasty team for 8-10 years, whie a RB1 will be good for only 5-10 years. This gives an owner a 5-yr or so window to develop RB's while maintaining the WR corps to develop a dominant team.

This seems counter-intuitive to the fact that there are only so many RB's to go around, but may be supported by the increasing emergence of RBBC, along with the recent crackdown on hard hits by the NFL, which should only serve to increase the life-span of WR's relative to RB's.

A concrete example of this would be a trade of Hakeem Nicks + 1.06 rookie pick for AP, which was discussed on another boarrd recently. In one camp were owners who felt that it wasn't worth it, since Nicks will be good for another 7-8 years, while AP may have 3-4 years. On the other side were Owners that felt that AP is such a strong talent, and there were enough other viable WRs out there to choose from that it was a no-brainer.

I think the DLF format would be great for an article on this subject, followed by discussion from forum members.

[tstafford]

Although I just recently joined this forum on an active basis, I have been playing dynasty IDP for the last 5 years, and have been active on other forums during that period.

One issue/trend I see over the last couple years among dynasty leaguers that I consider knowledgeable is the theory that a great stable of WR's can carry a team with average RB's, making the acquisition od WR1's to start in all available roster spots more important than RB1's. The gist of this theory seems to be that a WR1 can carry a dynasty team for 8-10 years, whie a RB1 will be good for only 5-10 years. This gives an owner a 5-yr or so window to develop RB's while maintaining the WR corps to develop a dominant team.

This seems counter-intuitive to the fact that there are only so many RB's to go around, but may be supported by the increasing emergence of RBBC, along with the recent crackdown on hard hits by the NFL, which should only serve to increase the life-span of WR's relative to RB's.

A concrete example of this would be a trade of Hakeem Nicks + 1.06 rookie pick for AP, which was discussed on another boarrd recently. In one camp were owners who felt that it wasn't worth it, since Nicks will be good for another 7-8 years, while AP may have 3-4 years. On the other side were Owners that felt that AP is such a strong talent, and there were enough other viable WRs out there to choose from that it was a no-brainer.

I think the DLF format would be great for an article on this subject, followed by discussion from forum members.

That's an interesting debate. Another wrinkle to this would be what impact being in a contract league vs. a keep players forever format would have on this. If you can only keep rookies for say 5 yrs before they become FAs, does that tip the scale back toward the RBs.

[Steelersfan]

Although I just recently joined this forum on an active basis, I have been playing dynasty IDP for the last 5 years, and have been active on other forums during that period.

One issue/trend I see over the last couple years among dynasty leaguers that I consider knowledgeable is the theory that a great stable of WR's can carry a team with average RB's, making the acquisition od WR1's to start in all available roster spots more important than RB1's. The gist of this theory seems to be that a WR1 can carry a dynasty team for 8-10 years, whie a RB1 will be good for only 5-10 years. This gives an owner a 5-yr or so window to develop RB's while maintaining the WR corps to develop a dominant team.

This seems counter-intuitive to the fact that there are only so many RB's to go around, but may be supported by the increasing emergence of RBBC, along with the recent crackdown on hard hits by the NFL, which should only serve to increase the life-span of WR's relative to RB's.

A concrete example of this would be a trade of Hakeem Nicks + 1.06 rookie pick for AP, which was discussed on another boarrd recently. In one camp were owners who felt that it wasn't worth it, since Nicks will be good for another 7-8 years, while AP may have 3-4 years. On the other side were Owners that felt that AP is such a strong talent, and there were enough other viable WRs out there to choose from that it was a no-brainer.

I think the DLF format would be great for an article on this subject, followed by discussion from forum members.

This is a great subject that we have touched on a bit throughout the years. I'm still on the fence so to speak as I think both sides of the debate have valid arguments. I would love to see this discussed further...

[RichDynastyFB]

Although I just recently joined this forum on an active basis, I have been playing dynasty IDP for the last 5 years, and have been active on other forums during that period.

One issue/trend I see over the last couple years among dynasty leaguers that I consider knowledgeable is the theory that a great stable of WR's can carry a team with average RB's, making the acquisition od WR1's to start in all available roster spots more important than RB1's. The gist of this theory seems to be that a WR1 can carry a dynasty team for 8-10 years, while a RB1 will be good for only 5-10 yrs . This gives an owner a 5-yr or so window to develop RB's while maintaining the WR corps to develop a dominant team.

This seems counter-intuitive to the fact that there are only so many RB's to go around, but may be supported by the increasing emergence of RBBC, along with the recent crackdown on hard hits by the NFL, which should only serve to increase the life-span of WR's relative to RB's.

A concrete example of this would be a trade of Hakeem Nicks + 1.06 rookie pick for AP, which was discussed on another boarrd recently. In one camp were owners who felt that it wasn't worth it, since Nicks will be good for another 7-8 years, while AP may have 3-4 years. On the other side were Owners that felt that AP is such a strong talent, and there were enough other viable WRs out there to choose from that it was a no-brainer.

I think the DLF format would be great for an article on this subject, followed by discussion from forum members.

Oops, I meant to RB1 will be good for only 4-5 yrs.

[davlar]

I think The1Rat's topic could work really well.

[kimballtd]

Although I just recently joined this forum on an active basis, I have been playing dynasty IDP for the last 5 years, and have been active on other forums during that period.

One issue/trend I see over the last couple years among dynasty leaguers that I consider knowledgeable is the theory that a great stable of WR's can carry a team with average RB's, making the acquisition od WR1's to start in all available roster spots more important than RB1's. The gist of this theory seems to be that a WR1 can carry a dynasty team for 8-10 years, whie a RB1 will be good for only 5-10 years. This gives an owner a 5-yr or so window to develop RB's while maintaining the WR corps to develop a dominant team.

This seems counter-intuitive to the fact that there are only so many RB's to go around, but may be supported by the increasing emergence of RBBC, along with the recent crackdown on hard hits by the NFL, which should only serve to increase the life-span of WR's relative to RB's.

A concrete example of this would be a trade of Hakeem Nicks + 1.06 rookie pick for AP, which was discussed on another boarrd recently. In one camp were owners who felt that it wasn't worth it, since Nicks will be good for another 7-8 years, while AP may have 3-4 years. On the other side were Owners that felt that AP is such a strong talent, and there were enough other viable WRs out there to choose from that it was a no-brainer.

I think the DLF format would be great for an article on this subject, followed by discussion from forum members.

I like this topic idea too. This is especially relevant to my rookie draft strategies. Do I just draft the BPA or do I go for a RB that might be rated a little bit lower.

[haydn239]

Although I just recently joined this forum on an active basis, I have been playing dynasty IDP for the last 5 years, and have been active on other forums during that period.

One issue/trend I see over the last couple years among dynasty leaguers that I consider knowledgeable is the theory that a great stable of WR's can carry a team with average RB's, making the acquisition od WR1's to start in all available roster spots more important than RB1's. The gist of this theory seems to be that a WR1 can carry a dynasty team for 8-10 years, whie a RB1 will be good for only 5-10 years. This gives an owner a 5-yr or so window to develop RB's while maintaining the WR corps to develop a dominant team.

This seems counter-intuitive to the fact that there are only so many RB's to go around, but may be supported by the increasing emergence of RBBC, along with the recent crackdown on hard hits by the NFL, which should only serve to increase the life-span of WR's relative to RB's.

A concrete example of this would be a trade of Hakeem Nicks + 1.06 rookie pick for AP, which was discussed on another boarrd recently. In one camp were owners who felt that it wasn't worth it, since Nicks will be good for another 7-8 years, while AP may have 3-4 years. On the other side were Owners that felt that AP is such a strong talent, and there were enough other viable WRs out there to choose from that it was a no-brainer.

I think the DLF format would be great for an article on this subject, followed by discussion from forum members.

Very true and very DEBATABLE! I would like to see this as well! nice post!