Please Educate Me!

[sbowers9]

I have the 1.3, 1.4 & 1.9 I will take Ingram with my 1.3. I have Javid Best. I am weak at RB.

Now, most of the conventional wisdom I read on this forum says that I should take Leshoure at 1.4. He would be "insurance" and a "handcuff" to Best. In my way of thinking, if I draft Leshoure, instead of having just one RBBC (Best) on my team, I will now have two RBBC's (Best & Leshoure). How is that a good thing? I'm thinking, "What a waste of a 1.4 pick." Why wouldn't I want to take that pick and select another great rookie - one who has a chance of being a feature back. I'm certain that Leshoure won't be a feature back unless Best gets hurt, and that's no way to decide a pick, is it?

Please educate me - I would truly appreciate your opinions.


12 team PPR, 23 rostered, Start 1QB/2-3 RB/3-4 WR/1TE/1 PK/1 DF
QB's – Romo, Garrard, Webb
RB's – L. Blount, Javid Best, Reggie Bush, James Starks, Michael Bush, Mike Goodson
WR's - Maclin, Santonio Holmes, Johnny Knox, Seattle Mike Williams, Steve Breaston, Eddie Royal, Nate Washington, Danario Alexander, Anthony Armstrong, Golden Tate
TE's - Vernon Davis
PK - Adam Vinatieri
DF – Tampa Bay

I have the 1.3, 1.4 & 1.9 and the 3.9 in the 2011 rookie draft. I also have two first round picks in 2012.

[tstafford]

Getting Ingram at the 1.03 is fantastic. Congrats on that. As to the question, I advocate BPA at all picks regardless of roster. I think that's Williams and therefore I'd take him. The 1.04 is a somewhat frustrating pick, I suspect.

[northga]

Owning Best I understand your dilemma but my 1.4 pick is being delivered with the notation inside "Ryan Williams."

[repkllrs]

Ingram/Williams/Thomas/Leshoure is the order I draft rbs

[meineymoe]

On the issue of Handcuffs - that's loser thinking.

To think like a winner, you have to go out and get the players who will be, or have the potential to be, feature players on their teams. Especially that early in a draft.

If you think Best is better than LeShoure, then you already have the player from the Lions that you want. Go look at the other options out there.

Good luck! -oo-

[pdaignau]

To think like a winner, you have to go out and get the players who will be, or have the potential to be, feature players on their teams. Especially that early in a draft.

x2.

I'm not a fan of owning handcuffs and\or multiple RBs in a RBBC situation. I always try to get the best RB available. If they happen to be a handcuff or RBBC for a RB I own, that's great but I don't give that priority.

[BeRanDone]

To think like a winner, you have to go out and get the players who will be, or have the potential to be, feature players on their teams. Especially that early in a draft.

x2.

I'm not a fan of owning handcuffs and\or multiple RBs in a RBBC situation. I always try to get the best RB available. If they happen to be a handcuff or RBBC for a RB I own, that's great but I don't give that priority.

x3

[tidewaterjc]

x4.... i am a drone......

[Tcove]

Handcuffs are great if you have the roster space, as they can get you out of jams during critical runs. But as said well above, they should be valued less than players of superior talent.

[dlf_ericd]

While I agree about the thinking of not usually drafting a handcuff, I still think Leshoure is more talented than Williams. So, in that line of thinking, that's who I would choose. The fact that you also own Best, may be a blessing in disguise. If you take the most talented back & he happens to fall into the starter position due to injury or otherwise, it's better than having a less talented back in the same situation.

If you think Williams is the clear cut starter in Arizona & doesn't have anything to worry about with Wells, then maybe you go that direction...but, I'm all for taking the most talented player first.

[Major_Loser]

I don't know if you can bank on getting Ingram at the 1.03, in all the circles I talk to he is the consensus 1.01 at this point.

[dabearsfan]

I agree with the idea that you have to take whoever you think is the most talented player. This philosophy should hold true in most situations unless the talent gap is close and one of the players has gone to a situation where you know he will not be getting much playing time barring a trade (ie: Toby Gerhart).

[tstafford]

I agree with the idea that you have to take whoever you think is the most talented player. This philosophy should hold true in most situations unless the talent gap is close and one of the players has gone to a situation where you know he will not be getting much playing time barring a trade (ie: Toby Gerhart).

The Gerhart example is a good one. Barring injury, he has zero expectation of getting sufficient touches to be fantasy relevant. It's probably most extreme case of a guy going somewhere and it destroying any fantasy value he might have had. Maybe that's Ryan Mallet this year