Quick Dynasty Rookie Draft Structure Question - A) Snake or B) NFL-style

[Dibbles]

I'm just wondering how you all typically conduct Rookie drafts in dynasty leagues every year:

A) Typical snake draft where the last team picking in the first round gets the first pick in the second round

B) Like the NFL - where each round starts back over with the first team

I've been involved with both (and seen good arguments for both) but I'd love to compile some more info and opinions if possible. Thanks so much.

[FiremanEd]

I don't see why Snake would be considered for a rookie draft, and I'd be interested to hear the argument you found valid for it.

[Goddard]

Snake for startups and NFL-style for rookie drafts. Unless you're doing auction, there really shouldn't be any other option.

[RB6]

There are no good arguments for a snake draft after the startup.

[FiremanEd]

Just going to note that the poll and context is not clearly outlined, which will lead to split results. You should have clearly outlined 'Startup Draft' or 'Rookie Draft'. When you say 'every year' that to me implies Rookie Draft, but it is not going to be clear enough to avoid butchered results on the poll (and feedback).

Startup Draft = Auction or Snake Draft
Rookie Draft = NFL Style

[Dibbles]

I don't see why Snake would be considered for a rookie draft, and I'd be interested to hear the argument you found valid for it.

Agreed - the data and arguments I have seen and heard press that the weight of the top 6 rookie picks far outweigh basically everything else after them - so somewhat "punishing" the very early first rounders by snaking back was actually shown/believed to provide better balance across teams and allow for more fair/competitive play. The stuff I saw said you can't compare NFL with dynasty because there are VERY minimal skill players that matter in fantasy every year (average of 5-6), whereas NFL obviously has very deep non-fantasy-relevant talent. I realize this doesn't make intuitive sense whatsoever, as the best teams would be getting two of the top 13-15 picks, but again, the weight of the first 6 rookie picks were shown to slingshot the scales heavily in the favor of the worst teams/early first round pickers, where it greatly hurt team balance to start back over at the first pick. I will try and find the data I saw, but it was a while ago. And to me, this is the point of dynasty - to potentially slingshot the early first round pickers to become more competitive in future years. Also, many dynasty leagues I know (and do not play in) do snake rookie drafts so I'll be interested if the vote results indicate as much. I'm in 100% agreement with you (and Goddard) that NFL-style is the only way to go in rookie drafts, but I'm getting pressure from some league-mates that are calling out some of the above arguments.

[bjd5211]

Startup = Snake

Annual Rookie Draft = Fixed order.

[Dibbles]

Just going to note that the poll and context is not clearly outlined, which will lead to split results. You should have clearly outlined 'Startup Draft' or 'Rookie Draft'. When you say 'every year' that to me implies Rookie Draft, but it is not going to be clear enough to avoid butchered results on the poll (and feedback).

Startup Draft = Auction or Snake Draft
Rookie Draft = NFL Style

Thanks, just fixed it.

[AussieMate]

Snake in rookie draft is just plain dumb.

[Dibbles]

I unfortunately think the data I saw is behind a paywall that I no longer have access to. Still looking. I remember the analysis showed that only 6 guys on average make measurable premium fantasy impacts in that same year in which they were drafted. Players 7 through whatever on average are eventually dropped, picked up, dropped and then eventually some of them will rise to become fantasy mainstays in later years - but it was very rare that more than 6 players made immediate meaningful fantasy impacts in year 1. And I think the data was analyzing pretty shallow rosters, which doesn't necessarily foot with the masses here. It pressed that tanking/rebuilding teams would quickly slingshot to dominant teams in 1-2 years if following an NFL-style draft structure because they likely obtain 2-3 of the very minimal 12-ish players that will actually prove near-term relevant - and it pressed that this flip-flopping wasn't in the true spirit of "dynasty." Goes against everything I believe in but the data was indeed interesting.

[thebeast]

I unfortunately think the data I saw is behind a paywall that I no longer have access to. Still looking. I remember the analysis showed that only 6 guys on average make measurable premium fantasy impacts in that same year in which they were drafted. Players 7 through whatever on average are eventually dropped, picked up, dropped and then eventually some of them will rise to become fantasy mainstays in later years - but it was very rare that more than 6 players made immediate meaningful fantasy impacts in year 1. And I think the data was analyzing pretty shallow rosters, which doesn't necessarily foot with the masses here. It pressed that tanking/rebuilding teams would quickly slingshot to dominant teams in 1-2 years if following an NFL-style draft structure because they likely obtain 2-3 of the very minimal 12-ish players that will actually prove near-term relevant - and it pressed that this flip-flopping wasn't in the true spirit of "dynasty." Goes against everything I believe in but the data was indeed interesting.

I’m not sure about the context of the article your read, but every year the talent pool is different.

In any case, straight order is the only way to go for rookie drafts. The point of the draft is to balance the league so the wrist teams become good in a few years and that cycles gives everyone a shot at relevance if they can do a decent job managing their team.