My thought of the day is how is it possible to value rookies. There is almost no situation in which we are able to compare the value of a completely unproven rookie and a veteran. Its one thing to look at it in terms of an elite prospect like Andrew Luck, but when we are looking more carefully at some of the lower down players like late first round like an Alshon Jeffery. Compare someone like him with a player like Devon Bess. Clearly Jeffery has much much more upside than Bess, but you at least know what you are getting with Bess. Whereas Jeffery could be a stud outside receiver or as Dan says "eat himself out of the league."
I guess my take is that I am very willing to take risks on young players when they have really high upside. I am greatly biased towards upside though. I love the risk that comes with it, could be bad, but on the other side could turn out to be the steal of the draft. What do other people think? I feel like more conservative drafters would never take a rookie.
Where do you rank Trent Richardson among RBs?
How about Blackmon among wideouts?
I think it depends on the position. For WRs it is often hard to tell whether the WR was good because the QB was good, the system was good, or that DB play is just much worse in college. I would probably draft Blackmon around 20th of WRs.
ReplyDeleteFor RBs (especially those with decent size and good numbers in college) I think it translates very well. It is also the case that RBs dont have as long of careers so grabbing a younger one is going to be better. I would take Richardson around 8th of RBs I think. That might be mid second or early third round.
QBs are somewhere in the middle. Obviously there are some that you have a really good feeling about and those would probably be first round picks in veteran drafts.
The only time this has been tested that I have seen is during new EFS leagues when trades are made. I was involved in a new 16 team league, and I know some rookie draft picks were traded for Vet picks. Z you should look those up.
I agree with Max, I think it is much easier to draft a rookie RB than other offensive positions. Rookie RBs have similar risk propositions to proven backs with the high reward of a longer career ahead of them - I would actually say they are less of a risk in a lot of cases because they haven't taken the NFL hits yet, some may have completely avoided leg surgeries to this point in their careers. Any GM would be hard pressed to draft a proven workhorse back with lots of mileage like SJax, Gore, MJD, etc. over a young, unproven back with fresh legs like Richardson or Ingram last year. Getting a guy who has been talented in the past in the NFL is less reliable for RBs, who fall off the table very quickly when they start to decline.
ReplyDelete