Does this forum overvalue youth (or, more specifically, rookie picks)?

[Jaysof]

Hello, everyone. This is my first year playing dynasty, but I've played redraft for nine years now. Obviously dynasty is a completely different landscape from redraft, but one of the first things I noticed when I joined this forum was the valuation of rookie picks versus proven players.

Generally, I'm not talking about high 1st round picks. The Barkleys, Guices, and Pennys of the world deserve their price. However, according to this Rotoworld articlehttp://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/7 ... -hit-rates, first round picks have a hit rate (with a generous definition of hit, as all that is necessary for a pick to be counted as a success is one top 24 season for a RB/WR or a top 12 season for QB/TE) of under 50%. If you remove one-hit wonders, the figure drops to 30%. Second round picks have a success rate of around 31%. The figure drops to 7% for players drafted in the third round or later. Then there's this numberFire article https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/190 ... aft-picks# by JJ Zachariason about how dynasty owners generally overvalue rookie picks.

This is a legitimate question, I'm not trying to push any narrative. This is my first time playing dynasty so I'm legitimately curious if anyone else here agrees that rookie picks are generally overvalued on this format. Specifically, I'm talking about average to below average flex players like Chris Thompson, Kenny Stills, etc. versus 2nd round picks, because I see a lot of people saying they'd take any second or even a third over those players (I chose those two specifically because those were two threads I saw recently). Is someone like Nyheim Hines or Kalen Ballage, who might have more upside (or perhaps we just value unproven potential over proven mediocrity?) really more valuable than veterans who have shown they can be startable fantasy options?

[GridironGuerilla]

Short version. Yes. Yes they do.

[jcc6fd]

Short version. Yes. Yes they do.

Came here to say this. Short answer is yes. You reference Hines and Ballage, they're both more valuable according to Mizelle's ADP utility than Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, Marquise Lee, Paul Richardson, Allen Hurns, Pierre Garcon, Marshawn Lynch, Gio, Tom Brady, and Jordan Reed. I'm going to go ahead and plant my flag and say neither of those guys will help anyone outside at 16+ team league win anything, while all of those vets will contribute in 12 team leagues. Everyone wants their shot catching lightning in a bottle and youth insults value against lack of opportunity (but typically not bad performance). Take advantage and win championships by buying the Larry Fitzgeralds of the world for Hines.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Someone here made a decent argument that while 1st round rookies bust, so do "established" players at a similar rate. I forgot who and where that argument was made.

I think small sample size players are wildly overvalued. There's nothing wrong with valuing youth, but when the value gets exponentially inflated due to a handful of good games is when major problems arise.

[Phaded]

Short version. Yes. Yes they do.

Mhm.

[Friction]

Youth- resounding yes.
1st rd picks- resounding yes
2nd rd picks- yes, to some extent. Lots of people want to be the one to hit on the next DJ, Howard, or in some drafts, Hunt/Kamara. There is a lot of validation with that. I think enough people realize that the low success rate on a second is real, far more than they do with a first. As far as valuing guys like Chris Thompson, that is a whole thread in itself, which has and will be discussed plenty on here. Shiny toy syndrome, new car smell, out with the old-in with the new; Pick your cliche. On this forum and throughout many leagues, many choose youth and the search of a budding, true Dynasty over winning consistently. I think we all could work on finding a competitive balance between the two concepts though, since this is, well, Dynasty Football.

[qazxswedcvfrtgbnhyuj]

Generally yes.

I think one of the reasons people do so (or I know it is when I catch myself overvaluing picks) is because they feel that betting on a rookie that has yet to have a shot (and could therefore still break out, unlikely or not) makes more sense than to just hold someone that is a depth bench player that may help you in a bye week, but probably won't win you any championships either.

In other words rookies often present the much higher upside simply for not having been on a NFL field before, while the veteran other guys are all known factors with often unexciting (though not necessarily bad) prospects.

[thebeast]

The answer is yes. But it’s because hitting on a Kamara can be franchise changing, drafting a Gurley can win you your league. You can buy all the Stills and Chris Thompson’s you like but guys like that probably won’t get you over the hump and will keep you in a middling pergatory.

[IR1]

Rookie fever is real(and fun). On rebuild teams I try to get as many picks, and chances on a hit as I can. In compete now teams, I tend to move some of my picks for win now players, hopefully young.

[FantasyFreak]

The answer is yes. But it’s because hitting on a Kamara can be franchise changing, drafting a Gurley can win you your league. You can buy all the Stills and Chris Thompson’s you like but guys like that probably won’t get you over the hump and will keep you in a middling pergatory.

Well said. The rookie draft is sometimes the cheapest you will ever get a player, and sometimes the most expensive. Some are more risk averse than others, but drafting Kamara and Hunt last year with non premium rookie picks could have totally shifted a teams fortune, so the allure is there because it is real. All depends whether you pick the right guys.

[Farley]

The answer is yes. But it’s because hitting on a Kamara can be franchise changing, drafting a Gurley can win you your league. You can buy all the Stills and Chris Thompson’s you like but guys like that probably won’t get you over the hump and will keep you in a middling pergatory.

And that's why "youth" or lottery tickets are not actually overvalued.

If the rookie doesn't work out, cast him aside and grab a Stills or Chris Thompson from the wire because those type guys are picked up all the time in-season.

[Plank]

There is plenty of push back vs the youth and trading picks for accomplished vets around here .. don't let them fool ya ..

[DLF3000]

The answer is yes. But it’s because hitting on a Kamara can be franchise changing, drafting a Gurley can win you your league. You can buy all the Stills and Chris Thompson’s you like but guys like that probably won’t get you over the hump and will keep you in a middling purgatory.

Story of my dynasty life so far!

Forget the odds a moment - besides trade fleecing there is no cheaper and faster way to change the future of your team and dominate than nailing a few rookie picks, in any round, but especially in the first two rounds. Busting on one or both of these early picks will leave you middling or worse for years.

I've had Stills off and on over the years. Nice, solid player who helps keep me in the playoff hunt, maybe worth a 2nd - decent amount of vets like that, and you do need some depth to get to the playoffs.

But give me a 2nd round rookie pick steal and franchise-changer David Johnson every time instead so I can win *championships.*

To me, that's not overvaluing youth. That's simply the reality of winning your league.

[jomaed]

Generally yes.

I think one of the reasons people do so (or I know it is when I catch myself overvaluing picks) is because they feel that betting on a rookie that has yet to have a shot (and could therefore still break out, unlikely or not) makes more sense than to just hold someone that is a depth bench player that may help you in a bye week, but probably won't win you any championships either.

In other words rookies often present the much higher upside simply for not having been on a NFL field before, while the veteran other guys are all known factors with often unexciting (though not necessarily bad) prospects.

Exactly. Chasing the unkown.

[moishetreats]

Absolutely not.

There are different ways to construct a team and win a championship. One of those ways is based on hitting on rookies. That's not definitively the best or the only way, but it's viable. Those who post on here championing youth prefer that method of roster construction.

Two caveats: (1) That's not the only voice that you read here (BUT, it is a dynasty forum, so no surprise that it gets tilted that way). (2) Some people love the dream of having every young stud in the league and never shift into win-now mode. They are the ones who over-value youth.

But, in general, no -- it's not over-valuing but rather advocating for a particular strategy.

What you DO get here is a disproportionate number of people on the forum who employ that strategy.