Seriously, 1st Pick In Rookie Draft (1 Viewer)

[DoubleG]

Alright, all the hype and other nonsense aside, it's a very simple question. You have arguably two of the best players at their respective positions to come out of college in a long time. Team need aside (in dynasty, you should be looking longer term when it comes to talent of this magnitude anyway) - who SHOULD go first?

The reason I ask is simple. "Traditional wisdom" (whatever the heck that means) suggests that Richardson should go first. However, as has been well documented in other threads, elite dynasty QBs are also becoming more important...right?

I do NOT have the 1st rookie pick in any dynasty league I am in (so this isn't some vieled AC post) - but was curious what everyone was thinking as dynasty drafts approach.

For those that NEED parameters (and I hate to put them, as the more you "narrow down" the scoring system, starting reqs., etc the less applicable it is to more people):

Standard scoring and 1 QB starter.

 

[dagwood]

I would go Richardson.

And I don't have either of these guys on my roster but hypothetically if you did, who would you start week 1?

A.Jeffery vs Indianapolis

Blackmon at Minn

T.YOung vs Stl

Hypothetically assume its a PPR league and otherwise standard scoring.

 

[Warpig]

I had the #1 and #2 so I have both. But, due to there being a shortage of true workhorse RBs in the league, I can see how T-Rich would be the #1. Even if it is for only 3 - 4 years before his knee falls apart.

However, in leagues where QB's score well...I can also see Luck. I think Luck will be better than RGIII sooner as well as for the duration of their careers. Sure, RGIII is a track star, but Luck ran a 4.5 and is the size of Ben Roethlisberger! Luck is built to take the rigors of the NFL where I see RGIII being nicked up here and there ala Mike Vick.

So would you rather have Richardson for 3 - 4 years or Luck for 14?

Personally, I'd rather have Luck. Nowadays you can always find a decent RB in the mid - late rounds.

 

[msommer]

My Rookie draft went

Richardson

RGIII

Martin

Luck

16 team IDP league 6pt/TD

 

[strong]

My Rookie draft wentRichardsonRGIIIMartinLuck16 team IDP league 6pt/TD

6 pt per touchdown? Man. Luck's gotta be first in that scoring format.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

In our 6 points all TDs dynasty rookie draft it went

1. Luck

2. RG 3

3. Richardson

4. Martin

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The problem with Luck is that he HAS to end up being an all-time great to justify being picked at that spot. If he's "just another" 4000/30 guy then he was a bust as the #1 overall pick and ends up not being very valuable. Philip Rivers has done that 4 years in a row and he can be had for pretty cheap, all things considered. Look at the RBs ranked around guys like Rivers/Romo.

While Richardson has just as much chance to become an all-time great as Luck does, he has the added bonus of not HAVING to be one to justify his draft spot. If he ends up just having a "good" career then he will still be a huge contributor on your team and will justify the price you paid for him.

There's no room for error with either guy, but with Luck there's no room for being anything other than an all-time great either.

 

[DoubleG]

The problem with Luck is that he HAS to end up being an all-time great to justify being picked at that spot. If he's "just another" 4000/30 guy then he was a bust as the #1 overall pick and ends up not being very valuable. Philip Rivers has done that 4 years in a row and he can be had for pretty cheap, all things considered. Look at the RBs ranked around guys like Rivers/Romo.While Richardson has just as much chance to become an all-time great as Luck does, he has the added bonus of not HAVING to be one to justify his draft spot. If he ends up just having a "good" career then he will still be a huge contributor on your team and will justify the price you paid for him.There's no room for error with either guy, but with Luck there's no room for being anything other than an all-time great either.

Excellent points all. It's interesting the the SP is almost dead split, as there is only 1 vote seperation between the two.

 

[beef]

I'll go Trent in about any format. Anyone else will help ensure 1.01 in 2013.

 

[Gawain]

I'll go Trent in about any format. Anyone else will help ensure 1.01 in 2013.

Luck in 2QB formats. Richardson in 1QB formats.

 

[FavreCo]

I always go with the guy that will have more quality years. Most people took Adrian Peterson #1 in 2007. I took Calvin Johnson. In a few years, Peterson will be on a couch somewhere eating popcorn watching Calvin catch touchdown passes. Richardson will be doing the same with Andrew Luck someday.

 

[DoubleG]

I always go with the guy that will have more quality years. Most people took Adrian Peterson #1 in 2007. I took Calvin Johnson. In a few years, Peterson will be on a couch somewhere eating popcorn watching Calvin catch touchdown passes. Richardson will be doing the same with Andrew Luck someday.

Interesting. This was the same thing that happened in our dynasty league that same year.However, this is not between a WR and RB - but I do see your logic. However, just to play devil's advocate here - there have been many more "misses" on 1st pick QBs than WRs. QB is probably the hardest position to translate to NFL success. Hence the question this season. I think if it were between a bonafied stud WR and bonafied stud RB, I'd agree quickly with you. When it's a QB (who could still "miss") I am not so sure.

 

[JetMaxx]

I'm struggling with this very issue. Dynasty format, 6 pt for all TDs. After some trades I now have the first pick. While I lean to Luck for the reasons mentioned above, I have Rodgers and could use a RB. How much does need enter in when there are 2 elite talents available?

 

[flc735]

I always go with the guy that will have more quality years. Most people took Adrian Peterson #1 in 2007. I took Calvin Johnson. In a few years, Peterson will be on a couch somewhere eating popcorn watching Calvin catch touchdown passes. Richardson will be doing the same with Andrew Luck someday.

Interesting. This was the same thing that happened in our dynasty league that same year.However, this is not between a WR and RB - but I do see your logic. However, just to play devil's advocate here - there have been many more "misses" on 1st pick QBs than WRs. QB is probably the hardest position to translate to NFL success. Hence the question this season. I think if it were between a bonafied stud WR and bonafied stud RB, I'd agree quickly with you. When it's a QB (who could still "miss") I am not so sure.

thats not so true anymore now that the college game stepped it's passing game up. it use to be a 50-50 chance that a top qb or wr would become a good player. now a days, the worse you can do is a bradford or gabbert who seem like starting caliber qb's at this pointi do think rb is a much safer bet, but the gap between them and at qb/wr is significantly smaller

 

[moderated]

Luck or Richardson are fine picks. Even RGIII would be reasonable.

Anyone other then those 3 is a colossal mistake though. The guys picking Doug Martin #1 need to hand in their dynasty card.

 

[griff321]

16 team 4pt passing. The first pick turned down a lot of offers to trade out and owns Rivers, Locker, Cutler, TJack, and now Luck.

 

[undercover]

I'm struggling with the same dilemma....if Richardson had been drafted by anyone but the Browns I would feel much better about the pick. The Browns have been a mess since they rejoined the league in 1999. My roster says Richardson but my gut says take Luck (and I'm in a 4 point per passing TD league).

 

[beto]

I like what FreeBaGel said. After the draft I thought it was Richardson due to the same reasons he mentions. After Richardson got hurt and Luck had a great start to camp I was starting to swing towards Luck. The bottom line is that Luck has to be Peyton-like, not like Big Ben, to justify the pick.

 

[geoff8695]

I always go with the guy that will have more quality years. Most people took Adrian Peterson #1 in 2007. I took Calvin Johnson. In a few years, Peterson will be on a couch somewhere eating popcorn watching Calvin catch touchdown passes. Richardson will be doing the same with Andrew Luck someday.

Interesting. This was the same thing that happened in our dynasty league that same year.However, this is not between a WR and RB - but I do see your logic. However, just to play devil's advocate here - there have been many more "misses" on 1st pick QBs than WRs. QB is probably the hardest position to translate to NFL success. Hence the question this season. I think if it were between a bonafied stud WR and bonafied stud RB, I'd agree quickly with you. When it's a QB (who could still "miss") I am not so sure.

Richardson would get my vote due to: positional scarcity, a faster NFL learning curve, carrying strong exit value going into year number two (should you wish/need to move him)Also, as others have stated, Luck almost has to be a HOF caliber QB to justify the pick. IF you are convinced that he is, then much like Calvin Johnson vs Adrian Peterson a few years ago, Luck is a great pick...Obviously, differences in league starting requirements and scoring systems can muddy the waters, but generally speaking, the top rookie RB is the strongest and safest play.

 

[DoubleG]

I always go with the guy that will have more quality years. Most people took Adrian Peterson #1 in 2007. I took Calvin Johnson. In a few years, Peterson will be on a couch somewhere eating popcorn watching Calvin catch touchdown passes. Richardson will be doing the same with Andrew Luck someday.

Interesting. This was the same thing that happened in our dynasty league that same year.However, this is not between a WR and RB - but I do see your logic. However, just to play devil's advocate here - there have been many more "misses" on 1st pick QBs than WRs. QB is probably the hardest position to translate to NFL success. Hence the question this season. I think if it were between a bonafied stud WR and bonafied stud RB, I'd agree quickly with you. When it's a QB (who could still "miss") I am not so sure.

Richardson would get my vote due to: positional scarcity, a faster NFL learning curve, carrying strong exit value going into year number two (should you wish/need to move him)Also, as others have stated, Luck almost has to be a HOF caliber QB to justify the pick. IF you are convinced that he is, then much like Calvin Johnson vs Adrian Peterson a few years ago, Luck is a great pick...Obviously, differences in league starting requirements and scoring systems can muddy the waters, but generally speaking, the top rookie RB is the strongest and safest play.

Fascinating that you would weigh in...