Zac Stacy is the highest drafted 5th round or later NFL pick in dynast (1 Viewer)

[Biabreakable]

Good post EBF. There certainly is a fine line between what is useful now, what you could do with that and what is useful later. The only way I can sort that out is by projections and to a certain extent percieved value of players based on ADP information and evaluation of the NFL draft. The thing is if you get early returns on a player such as Randle or Stacy that gives you the opportunity to action that roster spot by either trading the player or trading another player and starting the rookie. You then gain value to your roster. If you have to wait until 3 years out for a player to get enough of a playing opportunity to evaluate them, then you are taking a zero in that roster spot for likely 2 seasons. I think there is a place for players like this on rosters but not too many of them, depending on your total roster size ect. you do not want too many players tied up as long term prospects. You need some players who can start too and reasonable backups that are actually playing.

Part of it is knowing your league also. If most of your opponents are draft and hold long term type investors then you may not be able to buy a guy like Michael low later on. But if they are a more fickle bunch, maybe you can. He is already a better value simply because he can be taken later in a rookie draft than it appears you can Stacy right now.

I agree Michael has talent. I am not sure that talent is significantly more than what Stacy has to offer. Both have very good measurables. Stacy was not in the dog house and missing playing opportunity like Michael was, he was carrying his team on his back through the rugged SEC conference of defensive players soon starting in the NFL. Stacy has some sick moves and power. Michael has more long speed but I would not really say he is clearly a better talent in other areas. Maybe he is. His draft position says that he is. He is on a good team with quality oline and supporting cast. Seattle has a history of grooming starting RB for awhile also. That has worked out pretty well for them. The character issues are a concern however. Many talented players have failed to realize their potential because they can't live right. People can also grow up. Hopefully he will. If he does not have the right attitude there are many other capable RB who will get playing time over him. There is some risk.

Similarly Knile Davis has a lot of talent but people consider him a risk as well.

 

[EBF]

Good post EBF. There certainly is a fine line between what is useful now, what you could do with that and what is useful later. The only way I can sort that out is by projections and to a certain extent percieved value of players based on ADP information and evaluation of the NFL draft. The thing is if you get early returns on a player such as Randle or Stacy that gives you the opportunity to action that roster spot by either trading the player or trading another player and starting the rookie. You then gain value to your roster. If you have to wait until 3 years out for a player to get enough of a playing opportunity to evaluate them, then you are taking a zero in that roster spot for likely 2 seasons. I think there is a place for players like this on rosters but not too many of them, depending on your total roster size ect. you do not want too many players tied up as long term prospects. You need some players who can start too and reasonable backups that are actually playing.

Part of it is knowing your league also. If most of your opponents are draft and hold long term type investors then you may not be able to buy a guy like Michael low later on. But if they are a more fickle bunch, maybe you can. He is already a better value simply because he can be taken later in a rookie draft than it appears you can Stacy right now.

I agree with a lot of that. Roster size is going to be a big factor. I'm a couple shallow leagues (with dev players to boot) where I'm always scrambling to find open roster spots. In that kind of format there's a little more pressure to know what you have right away. In a deeper league you have more room to be patient.

There's some merit to the idea that roster spots have value and that it's better to cycle through 3-4 prospects instead of holding a long term guy like Pierce, Bryce Brown, or Michael for years hoping for a payday. The difference in success rate for players chosen at different levels of the draft is pretty huge though. Just looking at the generic odds, a 2nd rounder like Christine Michael or Gio Bernard is worth approximately 3-4 4th rounders like Lattimore and Franklin. So you'd be looking at roughly the same expected value rostering one Michael for three years compared with cycling through three Franklins in three years. Hence why I prefer to make a big commitment to one high quality prospect instead of a fleeting commitment to a bunch of mediocre ones.

Even in a deep league, I can usually make room for a Michael or a Pierce. I just package some of my spare parts and combine them into something of (roughly) equivalent value to keep my team value the same while clearing a roster spot.

I think there's a pretty big reward for patience in dynasty leagues. The fact that a lot of owners are looking for the instant spike is what pushes talent like Christine Michael, Gavin Escobar, and Knile Davis into a range where their risk/reward equation significantly outweighs the other options on the board. If you always grab this kind of player, you will eventually reap a nice bounty. It's like the people who spend early picks on guys like Marqise Lee, Michael Crabtree, and Trent Richardson in dev league startups. This kind of player is almost always worth more 2-3 years after you take him than whatever pick it costs to acquire him. As long as you're willing to reserve a roster spot for a couple years, you'll profit.

Nevermind the fact that it's not so clean in terms of when players reveal their talent level. Last year Ronnie Hillman had a lot more immediate opportunity than Bernard Pierce. A year later, who do we know more about? Both sets of owners are still sort of in the dark. If Stacy comes out and rushes for 400 yards on 100 carries and Michael plays sparingly in garbage time, will we know more about Stacy? Will it be an easy decision to buy or sell at that point? Not necessarily.

ETA: As far as the character/talent argument is concerned, I like to think that it's all factored into draft position. For example, we know that Da'Rick Rogers is probably more talented than a typical UDFA, but his UDFA status likely indicates huge character risk. So while he might have more pure talent than the typical UDFA, his expected value might not be a lot higher because he's so likely to implode.

Michael has obvious warts in terms of production, durability, and character, but those are factored into his draft slot. Had it not been for those issues, he likely would've been a first round pick. The fact that he went in the 2nd round despite all of the red flags tells you that he has a lot of talent. So even when you factor in the risk, his expected value is probably on par with a typical late 2nd round RB.

Ditto for Stacy, but in reverse. The fact that he was a 5th rounder despite great college production and a decent athletic profile suggests that he was lightly regarded by NFL evaluators. So we should hesitate to assume that he's any more likely to succeed than a typical back chosen in that range.

 

[jurb26]

I agree with a lot of that. Roster size is going to be a big factor. I'm a couple shallow leagues (with dev players to boot) where I'm always

Ditto for Stacy, but in reverse. The fact that he was a 5th rounder despite great college production and a decent athletic profile suggests that he was lightly regarded by NFL evaluators. So we should hesitate to assume that he's any more likely to succeed than a typical back chosen in that range.

The problem with looking at this so linearly is that most 5th round picks simply never get the opportunity to succeed. The fact that Stacy likely will get that opportunity lends itself to a greater probability that the NFL simply missed on his evaluation a bit. Even if the NFL didn't miss on his evaluation a bit it almost doesn't matter. I'm pretty confident that nearly any RB on an NFL roster can be fantasy relevant under the right circumstances. So lets just assume for a minute that Stacy does take over the lead role in St. L for whatever reason. Even if he is the worst starting RB in the NFL he now suddenly has significantly more value than he had prior. On top of that, no matter how bad he is he will still score you some level of points in fantasy simply because of touches. Better yet, players who lack a great amount of skill can still produce very strong results in the right situation; see Shanny RBs. What's funny about draft positions is that while they are pretty important while doing upfront analysis on players/rookie, that importance is fleeting and brief. 6 -12 months from now we will likely know who and what type of NFL player Stacy is. His draft position will either validate the 5 round status or it won't. If it doesn't, then it no longer matters that he was drafted in the 5th round. A starting RB is a starting RB. Sure, if he doesn't prove one of the better half of the RBs in the league you have to worry about longevity and shelf life but that point is moot anyway as you've already recouped significantly greater than you invested. Weather you road him out for the 2 years he was productive or sold him off for something else.

 

[Sabertooth]

In redraft it is important. But in dynasty, I am not trotting out a guy like Zac Stacy unless I get decimated by injuries or to cover a bye. If you are pulling rookie draft picks in to be starters, that is going to be a losing proposition. I would much rather a guy like Leveon Bell, Eddie Lacy, or Gio Bernard for this year than Stacy. I don't tend to be mining for year one starters in the second round. I look longer term, which is why I'd prefer Christine Michael or Marcus Lattimore to Stacy. Stacy's chances of being an impact player in the NFL are not good.

Most pre draft rankings I looked at had Michael ranked higher than Stacy on a talent basis but low because of character concerns. Michael was a 2nd round pick 62 overall drafted in the same area as Lacy at 61 and Ball at 58 before him.

I like Michael a lot and had him ahead of Stacy pre nfl draft. The reason I have Stacy higher is about situation. Lynch is a lot for any RB to beat out. So the short term prospects are not as good. I do understand the idea of taking the player you think is the most talented. The thing is you may not see any return on investment until 2015 if Lynch maintains his role the next 2 seasons. There are also other quality RB that Michael will need to beat out in Turbin and Ware as well. Michael might not get feature RB carries when Lynch moves on. That is hard to know right now. I do understand where you are coming from though and I think many see Michael as a legit talent including me. I think Stacy is very talented as well so I do not necessarily have Michael that far ahead of Stacy on pure talent. The situation is very important as well. If you have the roster space Michael is a good investment just as Lattimore is. I do have Michael ahead of Joseph Randle who I also see in line for some early carries for the Cowboys. This is a fine line with me and I could see taking Randle over Michael if I am looking for quicker results. Depends on my team goals and roster for the season. Most of the time I do not plan to play rookies at all. If rookies do break out I consider selling. That is part of why I value a player in a better situation because of the earlier sell opportunity. A player like Michael I may still be wondering what his role will be in 2015. He is a less actionable asset.

Every owner has his own philosophy and I guess I can't fault people who look for more of a quick profit.

However, I think that's an exploitable way of approaching things.

Look at the FBG staff dynasty rankings. They currently have Bell, Ball, and Lacy at RB23, RB24, and RB25. They have Michael at RB50 (???).

If you lean too much on short window thinking and immediate returns, you run the risk of discounting talent to such a gross extent that you miss out on eventual great players because you're so caught up in a redraft mindset that you can't see the bigger picture. The cream rises. Almost every player who has the talent to thrive will eventually get the chance. Consider what happened with guys like Deuce McAllister, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander, Willis McGahee, Michael Turner, and Larry Johnson. They were drafted into ugly spots, but they eventually paid major dividends.

In my rankings Michael would be right up there with guys like Bell and Ball. I'd give him a very slight downgrade based on his lack of immediate potential, but that's it. When you start bumping him down below scrubs, has-beens, and never-weres, you're crossing a line from reasonable caution to blatant mistake. I would rather have a great prospect today than a great prospect two years from now, but I'd rather have a great prospect two years from now than a mediocre talent today. That's how I see the basic debate between a guy like Michael and a guy like Stacy. There's enough of a talent gap there that I couldn't possibly take the lower pick over the higher one, opportunity be damned. I'd much rather wait a week for a quarter than get a nickel today.

I was able to get Bernard Pierce in the 2nd-3rd round of many leagues last year while people spent first round picks on Hillman and Pead. Opportunity is important, but above all you want good players. In most cases a good player with no immediate route to relevance will end up being worth a lot more than a bad player with an immediate crack at playing time.

Michael is a great buy low candidate in leagues where people aren't valuing him on par with guys like Bell and Ball because he has a built-in value bump. There's a very good chance that Lynch will move on within a year or two and Michael has to be considered a strong favorite to inherit the job. His value will balloon at that point like Lamar Miller and David Wilson right now. He doesn't even have to play well. Just well enough to get a chance.

I agree, the best moves I made last season were the following:

• Forgeting Brandon Marshall gave up Bush, Reggie MIA RB;Miller, Lamar MIA RB;Marshall, Brandon CHI WR;Kendricks, Lance STL TE
• King in the North gave up Ball, Lance DEN RB;Hillman, Ronnie DEN RB;Bryant, Dez DAL WR;Rudolph, Kyle MIN TE

• SUHnamis gave up Wilson, David NYG RB; Year 2013 Round 1 Draft Pick from SUHnamis;Year 2014 Round 1 Draft Pick from SUHnamis
• King in the North gave up Forte, Matt CHI RB

Both moves netted me huge returns (although Dez went absolutely bonkers right after this agaisnt the Redskins). But you can see where the other owners simply aren't valuing guys who have the opportunity to start soon. One of the main reason I went for Bush and Miller was that Bush was presumably in his last year as the starter in Miami and Miller was the heir apparent.

The Forte trade was just stealing.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Zac Stacy has no margin for error. He's a 5th round pick fighting for his NFL life. There's no room for him to take a mulligan season like Wilson had; if he does, he's irrelevant at this point next year. He needs to be IMMEDIATELY productive to justify the pick people are spending on him.

I don't get this part of your post. A guy either has the talent to produce in the NFL or he doesn't. Just because he was drafted in the 5th round doesn't change that once he shows who he is at an NFL camp. There are plenty of reasons he could not have an immediate impact and still hold value down the road. He's a rookie! For all we know, St. L could feel he's the best RB on the roster (but its close) and he nees more time to pick up the NFL play book, speed and pass protection. It's not like a late round pick has never emerged latter than his 1st season. There a tons of examples of it. The most notable being Priest Holmes, who didn't even do it on the same team that drafted him. Tis seems like a silly exaggeration to make a point.

Wouldn't you say that a team gives former 1st rounders more chances to succeed than former 5th rounders? Do you think Joey Harrington and David Carr would have gotten so many extra chances if they hadn't been top 5 draft picks? How about Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson?

 

[EBF]

The problem with looking at this so linearly is that most 5th round picks simply never get the opportunity to succeed. The fact that Stacy likely will get that opportunity lends itself to a greater probability that the NFL simply missed on his evaluation a bit.

I don't think his short term opportunity has any connection with the odds that the NFL missed on his evaluation. If he had been drafted into a backup role he would be the same player.

You're right that few 5th round picks get a chance to start. That's because most 5th round picks aren't very good. A significant piece of information if you want to talk about Stacy's outlook.

I agree that the opportunity increases his odds of immediate return on investment, but just because a player is in a wide open situation doesn't mean that he's any good or that he'll have any value. There were plenty of teams in the NFL last year that didn't yield any consistently good RB production. There's a very reasonable chance that no Rams back has weekly starting value and that they bring in a superior player next year to become their starter. IMO that's the most likely outcome.

There are other possibilities, but I certainly don't like the chances of Stacy seizing the starting job and thriving in that role enough to spend a late 1st-early 2nd rounder on him. There is a whole spectrum of outcomes for his rookie season ranging anywhere from Isaiah Pead --- Vick Ballard --- Alfred Morris. Only the most optimistic scenario will end up with him yielding a significant profit based on his cost.

What's funny about draft positions is that while they are pretty important while doing upfront analysis on players/rookie, that importance is fleeting and brief. 6 -12 months from now we will likely know who and what type of NFL player Stacy is. His draft position will either validate the 5 round status or it won't. If it doesn't, then it no longer matters that he was drafted in the 5th round. A starting RB is a starting RB. Sure, if he doesn't prove one of the better half of the RBs in the league you have to worry about longevity and shelf life but that point is moot anyway as you've already recouped significantly greater than you invested. Weather you road him out for the 2 years he was productive or sold him off for something else.

That's not a particularly helpful insight. It's kind of like saying that pre-flop odds don't matter post-flop in poker. You're right, but that observation isn't helpful to someone waiting for the dealer to spread the flop. A few months from now we may know more about Stacy and his draft position might become less relevant to any discussion of his outlook, but...it's not a few months from now. Objectively, all we really have to go on is the success rate of similar players in the past. Hence the constant emphasis on draft position.

 

[Sabertooth]

I definitely adjusted my ranking in my two drafts and FA pickups this year to more closely reflect what NFL GMs thought in the draft. In a 2QB league I was able to draft

Geno Smith @1.09 (2.07 NFL pick)

Marcus Lattimore @ 2.05 (4.34 NFL Pick)

Keenan Allen @ 3.05 (3.14 NFL Pick)

Tyler Eifert @ 3.06 (1.21 NFL pick)

Christine Michael @ 3.10 (2.30 NFL pick)

I will try to explain my overall thought process this year after pissing away the chance to select Cam Newton, AJ Green or Julio Jones and selecting Mark Ingram instead (obviously all three were much higher picks than Ingram)

I'm happy with that haul to be quite honest. In the 2QB format, Smith was my third ranked player partly because he was in the Green Room. He was highly thought of and slid to the Jets. I think Ryan wasted a pick on him to be honest because he isn't going to save his job. But I like that he was invited to the green room to sit there with the top guys. This shows me that it wasn't a draftnik favorite like Nassib. It gives me a general sense that he has real potential. Plus I like the fact that he is playing for basically a lame duck coach and next year he might have the 2014 version of Chip Kelly coaching him.

Highly regarded + picked high = good chance of hitting.

Now you have Zac Stacy who was picked 98 picks after Michael yet went 14 picks higher in my draft. There is something that doesn't smell right with that. It isn't like Carroll has whiffed a lot on running backs either. Time will tell but I am fairly confident that Michael has a better career than Stacy. The fact that I got him for a much much cheaper price (the opportunity cost of picking Stacy was Justin Hunter who went immediately after him, the opportunty cost of picking Michael was Ryan Nassib.

 

[jurb26]

Zac Stacy has no margin for error. He's a 5th round pick fighting for his NFL life. There's no room for him to take a mulligan season like Wilson had; if he does, he's irrelevant at this point next year. He needs to be IMMEDIATELY productive to justify the pick people are spending on him.

I don't get this part of your post. A guy either has the talent to produce in the NFL or he doesn't. Just because he was drafted in the 5th round doesn't change that once he shows who he is at an NFL camp. There are plenty of reasons he could not have an immediate impact and still hold value down the road. He's a rookie! For all we know, St. L could feel he's the best RB on the roster (but its close) and he nees more time to pick up the NFL play book, speed and pass protection. It's not like a late round pick has never emerged latter than his 1st season. There a tons of examples of it. The most notable being Priest Holmes, who didn't even do it on the same team that drafted him. Tis seems like a silly exaggeration to make a point.

Wouldn't you say that a team gives former 1st rounders more chances to succeed than former 5th rounders? Do you think Joey Harrington and David Carr would have gotten so many extra chances if they hadn't been top 5 draft picks? How about Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson?

When it comes to RBs? No not really. There are significant complexities and investments made in highly drafted QBs that you just don't have with RBs. I don't think it's worthwhile to even try and compare them. That said, sure there may be some bit of forgiveness or commitment to any player drafted in the 1st round that a guy in the 5th round doesn't get. In the end the NFL is an unforgiving league if you just don't have the goods. I think most teams have a decent gauge on a players ability after a few months or at worst year. Exceptions being QBs for obvious reasons. I mean we are seeing this very thing play out this offseason with L. Miller and we see it virtually every year.

In the end this isn't what I'm really getting at though. What I'm trying to say is that a team doesn't really care that much where they drafted a guy once the see who that player is live and in camp. Of course they would prefer higher picks all work out because they invest more money in them. At the end of the day though, they put the 11 players who give them the best chance to win on the field, by their evaluation. If Stacy or any other 5th rounder is proving to be one of those players he will not be penalized because of his draft position.

 

[jurb26]

The problem with looking at this so linearly is that most 5th round picks simply never get the opportunity to succeed. The fact that Stacy likely will get that opportunity lends itself to a greater probability that the NFL simply missed on his evaluation a bit.

I don't think his short term opportunity has any connection with the odds that the NFL missed on his evaluation. If he had been drafted into a backup role he would be the same player.

You're right that few 5th round picks get a chance to start. That's because most 5th round picks aren't very good. A significant piece of information if you want to talk about Stacy's outlook.

I agree that the opportunity increases his odds of immediate return on investment, but just because a player is in a wide open situation doesn't mean that he's any good or that he'll have any value. There were plenty of teams in the NFL last year that didn't yield any consistently good RB production. There's a very reasonable chance that no Rams back has weekly starting value and that they bring in a superior player next year to become their starter. IMO that's the most likely outcome.

There are other possibilities, but I certainly don't like the chances of Stacy seizing the starting job and thriving in that role enough to spend a late 1st-early 2nd rounder on him. There is a whole spectrum of outcomes for his rookie season ranging anywhere from Isaiah Pead --- Vick Ballard --- Alfred Morris. Only the most optimistic scenario will end up with him yielding a significant profit based on his cost.

What's funny about draft positions is that while they are pretty important while doing upfront analysis on players/rookie, that importance is fleeting and brief. 6 -12 months from now we will likely know who and what type of NFL player Stacy is. His draft position will either validate the 5 round status or it won't. If it doesn't, then it no longer matters that he was drafted in the 5th round. A starting RB is a starting RB. Sure, if he doesn't prove one of the better half of the RBs in the league you have to worry about longevity and shelf life but that point is moot anyway as you've already recouped significantly greater than you invested. Weather you road him out for the 2 years he was productive or sold him off for something else.

That's not a particularly helpful insight. It's kind of like saying that pre-flop odds don't matter post-flop in poker. You're right, but that observation isn't helpful to someone waiting for the dealer to spread the flop. A few months from now we may know more about Stacy and his draft position might become less relevant to any discussion of his outlook, but...it's not a few months from now. Objectively, all we really have to go on is the success rate of similar players in the past. Hence the constant emphasis on draft position.

How could the short term opportunity not be an indication of a possible miss on his draft position? He is earning that opportunity against current NFL veterans just like anyone else. One of those vets was drafted in the 2nd round. If he beats that 2nd rounder out then by this logic he is better than his draft position of round 5. So Stacy earning his playing time basically nullifies the point that he isn't very good. I mean even if he isn't one of the better RBs he still proved to be the best RBs on his team. For the purposes of fantasy that is all that mattered short term.

As to value if he earns the role as starter I guess that's open to debate. Perhaps you're right and his value is small. Either way its higher than it is now. For me, I happen to play in deeper leagues (14 team min) and I can tell you all starting RBs have value in all my leagues.

Let me be clear that I am not arguing that Stacy is a shoe in for the lead role. I think he has a viable chance and given where I drafted him 2.5 months ago that alone has increased his value.

As to your last point, stating draft positions won't really matter wasn't supposed to be helpful really. It was just a statement of the fact about how fickle they are based on the time and circumstance of use. Again however, I would argue that the simple fact that Stacy (a 5th rounder) is in serious discussion for the lead role this time of year already somewhat nullifies his draft position. It doesn't matter that most 5th rounders don't succeed. Most 5th rounders don't succeed because they aren't good enough to earn the opportunity to succeed. Stacy has already begun to eclipse that hurdle. This doesn't mean he will actually clear it. It simply means I'd place him at better odds than the "average" 5th rounder. The average 5th rounder doesn't make it to the point he's at.

 

[Sabertooth]

Stacy hasn't earned #### yet. People are talking but I haven't read where Fisher said he's the guy.

 

[squistion]

There are other possibilities, but I certainly don't like the chances of Stacy seizing the starting job and thriving in that role enough to spend a late 1st-early 2nd rounder on him. There is a whole spectrum of outcomes for his rookie season ranging anywhere from Isaiah Pead --- Vick Ballard --- Alfred Morris. Only the most optimistic scenario will end up with him yielding a significant profit based on his cost.

Indeed, since all the other late 1st early 2nd round picks one could take in the alternative are guaranteed winners, while the lowly NFL 5th round Stacy is still a crapshoot and will only succeed in the most optimistic scenario. Everybody else at that level is money in the bank, but if you take Stacy you are really rolling the dice.

Yes, why take Stacy when any other player at that level will a yield significant profit based on their cost?

 

[EBF]

Again however, I would argue that the simple fact that Stacy (a 5th rounder) is in serious discussion for the lead role this time of year already somewhat nullifies his draft position. It doesn't matter that most 5th rounders don't succeed. Most 5th rounders don't succeed because they aren't good enough to earn the opportunity to succeed. Stacy has already begun to eclipse that hurdle. This doesn't mean he will actually clear it. It simply means I'd place him at better odds than the "average" 5th rounder. The average 5th rounder doesn't make it to the point he's at.

Opportunity is an important part of achieving success, but it doesn't = talent. We're not talking about a guy who beat out a slew of tough challengers to earn a starting role. We're talking about a guy who was lucky to be drafted by a team with nada at RB and figures to potentially get significant playing time this year for lack of any real viable options. The important distinction is that Stacy didn't earn this opportunity. It was handed to him on a platter. I agree that it increases his odds of short term relevance, but it says nothing about his long term viability in comparison to comparable picks like Stepfan Taylor, Joseph Randle, and Mike Gillislee. Nevermind the fact that he still needs to actually beat out Pead and Richardson.

The idea that beating out Pead will prove that he's better than a typical 5th rounder is also faulty. You could just as easily say that the only thing it would prove is that Pead is far worse than a typical 2nd rounder.

Bottom line is all the same. The risk/reward equation doesn't justify the price tag. People taking him as a top 10-15 rookie pick are putting way too much emphasis on short term opportunity. Opportunity has value, but only good players take advantage over an extended time period, and most 5th rounders aren't good enough to do that.

 

[jurb26]

Again however, I would argue that the simple fact that Stacy (a 5th rounder) is in serious discussion for the lead role this time of year already somewhat nullifies his draft position. It doesn't matter that most 5th rounders don't succeed. Most 5th rounders don't succeed because they aren't good enough to earn the opportunity to succeed. Stacy has already begun to eclipse that hurdle. This doesn't mean he will actually clear it. It simply means I'd place him at better odds than the "average" 5th rounder. The average 5th rounder doesn't make it to the point he's at.

Opportunity is an important part of achieving success, but it doesn't = talent. We're not talking about a guy who beat out a slew of tough challengers to earn a starting role. We're talking about a guy who was lucky to be drafted by a team with nada at RB and figures to potentially get significant playing time this year for lack of any real viable options. The important distinction is that Stacy didn't earn this opportunity. It was handed to him on a platter. I agree that it increases his odds of short term relevance, but it says nothing about his long term viability in comparison to comparable picks like Stepfan Taylor, Joseph Randle, and Mike Gillislee. Nevermind the fact that he still needs to actually beat out Pead and Richardson.

The idea that beating out Pead will prove that he's better than a typical 5th rounder is also faulty. You could just as easily say that the only thing it would prove is that Pead is far wose than a typical 2nd rounder.

Bottom line is all the same. The risk/reward equation doesn't justify the price tag. People taking him as a top 10-15 rookie pick are putting way too much emphasis on short term opportunity. Opportunity has value, but only good players take advantage over an extended time period, and most 5th rounders aren't good enough to do that.

Nothing is being handed to Stacy and there are no guarantees that he will even emerge as the primary guy. It's an open competition as far as I can tell right now. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore that earning opportunity does in fact require some level of talent. I'm not touting Stacy as the next great thing here. Simply stating that earning the role as a starter basically throws out the notion that he's simply a 5th rounder. 90% of 5th rounders never even make it to that point. The only reason I brought up Peads draft position is because you seem to be stuck on Stacy's. I could care less about it. I'm confident that we've seen who Pead is at this point and no, he doesn't justify a 2nd. This is why I point out how fickle draft position is. I'm not sure what rookie ADPs are at this point but I paid an early 2rd for him in a 14 team developmental league. That equates to basically a 3rd with the format of the league. He's already worth more than that now.

 

[EBF]

Nothing is being handed to Stacy and there are no guarantees that he will even emerge as the primary guy. It's an open competition as far as I can tell right now. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore that earning opportunity does in fact require some level of talent. I'm not touting Stacy as the next great thing here. Simply stating that earning the role as a starter basically throws out the notion that he's simply a 5th rounder. 90% of 5th rounders never even make it to that point.

Right, but you just pointed out that it's still an open competition and that he hasn't earned anything yet. If he wins the starting job it will be a positive development for him, but that hasn't happened yet. So I'm still not sure why the fact that he was drafted onto a team with weak RBs is supposed to prove that he's better than the average 5th round back.

 

[moderated]

Now you have Zac Stacy who was picked 98 picks after Michael yet went 14 picks higher in my draft.

Years ago i used to think it was because dynasty leagues were a relatively new thing and people didn't know what was going on. To see people still making these gross errors just proves many people don't learn from the past. they will just keep making the same mistakes over and over and cite extreme exceptions for their reasoning.

Next year we'll go through the same thing with another scrub RB picked late in the draft, rinse and repeat.

 

[EBF]

Indeed, since all the other late 1st early 2nd round picks one could take in the alternative are guaranteed winners, while the lowly NFL 5th round Stacy is still a crapshoot and will only succeed in the most optimistic scenario. Everybody else at that level is money in the bank, but if you take Stacy you are really rolling the dice.

Yes, why take Stacy when any other player at that level will a yield significant profit based on their cost?

Way to refute an argument that nobody is making. Nobody has said that every alternative to Stacy is a lock for success.

The general equation for the value of a rookie pick looks something like: (odds of achieving upside) x (value of upside) = (value of player)

I just took a look at three of my PPR rookie drafts and here are some players who went lower than Stacy:

EJ Manuel

---------------

Geno Smith

---------------

Matt Barkley

Knile Davis

Aaron Dobson

---------------------

Stedman Bailey

Terrance Williams

---------------------

Josh Boyce

Chris Harper

Quinton Patton

Zach Ertz

Gavin Escobar

Vance McDonald

-----------------------

Travis Kelce

----------------------

Jordan Reed

Based on the objective odds of success, players like Manuel, Kelce, Davis, and Dobson are more likely to be successful. That's only one part of the equation though. In many formats the relative value of RBs compared to WR/TE/QB means that a low probability gamble on a RB could actually have more value than a high probability gamble on a TE or QB. In a required start 2 RB league that would give you a decent argument for taking somebody like Stacy higher than he should go based on his odds of hitting. The particular leagues that I pulled these results from only require 1 starting RB though. There's no real value difference between a good WR and a good RB, so there's little incentive to reach for Stacy when you could take superior prospects like Dobson, Williams, Boyce, and Harper instead. If you're determined to draft a RB at all costs, there are plenty of alternatives. You could get Knile Davis a round later or Stepfan Taylor two rounds later. Both of those guys were higher picks than Stacy and, at least according to the objective odds, are more likely to develop into quality players.

I also play in some flex WR/TE leagues where TEs get 1.5 PPR. In that kind of format a player like Reed, McDonald, Kelce, or Escobar has good upside, but Stacy still tended to go ahead of them. I think some owners are putting too much of a premium on his position and his short term opportunity. You can get a comparable talent at the same position 1-2 rounds later if you're willing to be patient and take a player with no immediate redraft value. You can get superior prospects at non-premium positions later (often many rounds later).

It's not about locks or guarantees. Just about working the odds so that you make the most favorable bets. The league format is going to influence your thinking and there might be times where it's correct to take an inferior prospect due to structural or roster factors, but in general taking a 5-10% proposition like Stacy over a 25-30% proposition like Knile Davis is not a wise move.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Now you have Zac Stacy who was picked 98 picks after Michael yet went 14 picks higher in my draft.

Years ago i used to think it was because dynasty leagues were a relatively new thing and people didn't know what was going on. To see people still making these gross errors just proves many people don't learn from the past. they will just keep making the same mistakes over and over and cite extreme exceptions for their reasoning.

Next year we'll go through the same thing with another scrub RB picked late in the draft, rinse and repeat.

There are tons of examples of players drafted significantly later in the NFL than where they were (or should have been) in FF dynasties. The 2012 draft was a great example.

 

[EBF]

Now you have Zac Stacy who was picked 98 picks after Michael yet went 14 picks higher in my draft.

Years ago i used to think it was because dynasty leagues were a relatively new thing and people didn't know what was going on. To see people still making these gross errors just proves many people don't learn from the past. they will just keep making the same mistakes over and over and cite extreme exceptions for their reasoning.

Next year we'll go through the same thing with another scrub RB picked late in the draft, rinse and repeat.

There are tons of examples of players drafted significantly later in the NFL than where they were (or should have been) in FF dynasties. The 2012 draft was a great example.

Nobody doubts that, but it's important to look at the odds in order to put the exceptions into context. Everyone remembers Alfred Morris, but nobody remembers Cedric Houston, Deji Karim, and Charles Scott. Here is a post I made earlier this offseason with a list of all the RBs picked in the 6th round in the past ten drafts:

Alfred Morris

Cyrus Gray

Dan Herron

Terrance Ganaway

Evan Royster

Jordan Todman

Allen Bradford

Anthony Dixon

Deji Karim

Jonathan Dwyer

James Starks

Charles Scott

Cedric Peerman

Aaron Brown

James Davis

Bernard Scott

Thomas Brown

Jalen Parmele

Xavier Omon

Mike Hart

Thomas Clayton

Justise Hairston

Wali Lundy

Cedric Houston

DeAndra Cobb

Brock Forsey

Guys like Alfred Morris, Marques Colston, Tom Brady, Steve Johnson, and Arian Foster are very rare. Once you get outside the first 3-4 rounds of the draft, your odds of getting a solid starter are very low. So while a random 5th-7th round pick certainly has some value, it's not very much. Roughly 90-95% of them will not amount to anything.

I think the key with this (or any other) kind of player is getting him for the right price. A guy like Stepfan Taylor or Mike James is not valued as anything other than a longshot. They make sense at their ADP because their low cost reflects their low odds of success. With guys like Stacy and Franklin, the equation is more out of whack, to the point where it's a bad statistical gamble to pay market value for them.

 

[squistion]

Indeed, since all the other late 1st early 2nd round picks one could take in the alternative are guaranteed winners, while the lowly NFL 5th round Stacy is still a crapshoot and will only succeed in the most optimistic scenario. Everybody else at that level is money in the bank, but if you take Stacy you are really rolling the dice.

Yes, why take Stacy when any other player at that level will a yield significant profit based on their cost?

Way to refute an argument that nobody is making. Nobody has said that every alternative to Stacy is a lock for success.

Um...it appears that you are not real adept at recognizing sarcasm. Or perhaps it is that you are just being intentionally obtuse.

You inferred that they were a better investment - or that Stacy was a poor investment by comparison. Below are your exact words (which you edited out in your response, probably to make it appear my sarcasm was a straw man argument instead of, you know, sarcasm).

EBF, on 02 Jul 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

There are other possibilities, but I certainly don't like the chances of Stacy seizing the starting job and thriving in that role enough to spend a late 1st-early 2nd rounder on him. There is a whole spectrum of outcomes for his rookie season ranging anywhere from Isaiah Pead --- Vick Ballard --- Alfred Morris. Only the most optimistic scenario will end up with him yielding a significant profit based on his cost.

 

[Biabreakable]

Zac Stacy has no margin for error. He's a 5th round pick fighting for his NFL life. There's no room for him to take a mulligan season like Wilson had; if he does, he's irrelevant at this point next year. He needs to be IMMEDIATELY productive to justify the pick people are spending on him.

I don't get this part of your post. A guy either has the talent to produce in the NFL or he doesn't. Just because he was drafted in the 5th round doesn't change that once he shows who he is at an NFL camp. There are plenty of reasons he could not have an immediate impact and still hold value down the road. He's a rookie! For all we know, St. L could feel he's the best RB on the roster (but its close) and he nees more time to pick up the NFL play book, speed and pass protection. It's not like a late round pick has never emerged latter than his 1st season. There a tons of examples of it. The most notable being Priest Holmes, who didn't even do it on the same team that drafted him. Tis seems like a silly exaggeration to make a point.

Wouldn't you say that a team gives former 1st rounders more chances to succeed than former 5th rounders?

I absolutely do think this. But none of the RB drafted in 2013 were 1st round picks.

I think a 2nd round pick gets a lot more leeway than a later pick as well. But there are many examples of teams using 2nd round picks on backup and COP RB. That is not the same thing as a 1st round pick used on a RB at all.

 

[EBF]

There are definitely better values on the board. If you're on the clock at 2.03 and you need a RB, you can drop down 10 picks and get Knile Davis. You can drop down 20 picks and get Stepfan Taylor. You can stay put and get players at a different position who have a higher chance of success.

Stacy's situation reminds me a lot of Vick Ballard's last year. Solid, but unspectacular RB on a team with spotty RB talent where he figures to potentially get on the field and be halfway useful. The key difference that I see from a rookie draft standpoint is the ADP. Last year Ballard was a mid 4th rounder in the same leagues where Stacy is going mid 2nd. He was great value there because if he showed any signs of life, he would be worth a 2nd-3rd round rookie pick a year later.

The upside is greatly diminished with Stacy. If he flops, he'll be worth a lot less than the pick you spent on him. If he gets on the field and has an okay rookie year like Ballard, he'll be worth approximately the same thing in six months that he's worth now. In order for him to yield any real profit, he has to not only get on the field, but play well enough to catapult his value into 1st round rookie pick territory. Hence why I said only the most optimistic outcomes will see him yield any significant spike in value.

Whether I'm looking at rookies, young prospects, or veterans, I always try to focus on players who have a lot of upside and minimal downside. When the gap between a player's cost and his upside is huge, that's usually a good investment. When the gap between a player's cost and his upside is thin, there's no upside and no margin for error.

 

[DansRams]

I am a Ram fan and I am always happy if a Ram draft pick does well. So if for no other reason, I am rooting for Stacy. That said the emotionally led, poor logic of the Stacy supporters is a bit shocking.

What do we know?

Talent indicators (in order of most important to least imo)

- 5th round draft pick - By most accounts and certainly my opinion too, this was not a great RB draft. There were 10 rbs NFL teams wanted more than him in this draft alone. So by default the NFL is telling you they think there are a lot of RBs in this draft that are better. The percentage of 5th that contribute is very low. His own team drafted another player in the 5th round when he was still on the board. If a team is really high on a guy who is available in the 5th round at a position of need (in theory), it is hard to imagine them passing on him....they did

- College Production - Many have talked about how productive he was in the SEC. Look at his games last year. Most of his big production came against weak teams not in the SEC or teams at the bottom of the SEC. I realize his team wasn't that good, but the boasting about his production vs the SEC is a bit misleading.

- Height/Weight/Speed - By most accounts Stacy has good size and quickness but lacks top end speed. Good enough but not blow you away talent and certainly not blow you away talent that is enough to ignore the 5th round grade NFL teams ended up giving him as a result of the draft.

Situation

From what I have been reading the Rams are moving to a spread offense. This will benefit players that are better in space. I think that is Richardson, Pead, and then Stacy (in that order). Who knows until we see it live, but even the Stacy supporters often point to his advantage being inside the tackles/power. So I am not even sure that all this talk about good situation, is all that exciting for Stacy.

So when I try to sum it up. I have a guy that the NFL questioned enough to not even draft him until the 5th round and I don't have enough info to reasonably dispute their opinion. He is also joining an offense that I believe is changing to a design that doesn't fit his presumed strengths.

Based on what I know, I don't feel great about this. It seems it would be a stretch to feel decent about this, yet some Stacy supporters are acting as if it should be obvious that he has a good chance of being successful (FF successful as that is what we discuss here)

Seems to be a lot of hoping and too little objectivity/analysis

 

[Biabreakable]

While I appreciate your perspective Dan I do not think it is fair to say there has been no objective analysis. I think this is a very good thread and a useful discussion, not only for Zac Stacy but about how one approaches valuing players and rookie picks in dynasty. This is not 7 pages of hoping or subjective based information.

If you could explain why Zac Stacy is not as well suited to the spread offense the Rams will run as Pead or Richardson that could be useful to the discussion. Just saying it does not make that so.

Stacy is in my opinion from what I have read about him a very good pass blocker, as I have already pointed out, I think that means he will be on the field more frequently than the other 2 RB.

Here is the coaching history for Jeff Fisher http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/FishJe0.htm

Fisher as a HC did have teams that were 2nd and 5th in total passing attempts back in 2004-2005. These were in McNairs last good seasons, and Volek shared time, their RB were not very good at that time. For rushing attempts they have finished 1st twice, 2nd, 4th, 5th twice, 8th, 9th, 11th twice, 12th, 14th, 22nd (2012), 23rd (2010) twice (2004) and 25th (2005). This history tells me that if the offense is successful Fisher will likely have the team be in the top half of the league in rushing attempts. However recent history have been some of the lowest in rushing attempts in his career.

Coaching history for Brian Schottenheimer http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/SchoBr0.htm

2012 was the lowest his offense has been in rushing attempts in his coaching career.

In reading about Brian talking about the offense they want to run leading into last season and also this season, he has said that they want to have 2 RB. One feature RB and a COP RB. He said it was hard to bench Jackson at times last season because Jackson can do it all. Especially what he offers in pass protection. But that they intentionally worked Richardson into that role so he could get some experience. This tells me that in theory they want rushing attempts to be similar in distribution to what they did last season. However given their coaching histories it would not surprise me if they do increase overall rushing attempts. Especially if they do manage to get Austin something like 50ra.

The inside zone and outside zone runs will likely be staples. Schottenheimer mixes WCO with Air Coryell philosophies in the passing game, the spread offense (4WR or 4WR) really needs a RB who can pick up the blitz. It is pretty important. I think the upgrades to the Oline and Austin will combine for a improved situation for RB to be successful.

 

[squistion]

Now you have Zac Stacy who was picked 98 picks after Michael yet went 14 picks higher in my draft.

Years ago i used to think it was because dynasty leagues were a relatively new thing and people didn't know what was going on. To see people still making these gross errors just proves many people don't learn from the past. they will just keep making the same mistakes over and over and cite extreme exceptions for their reasoning.

Next year we'll go through the same thing with another scrub RB picked late in the draft, rinse and repeat.

Yeah, you think people might have learned their lesson after Alfred Morris.

 

[jurb26]

Nothing is being handed to Stacy and there are no guarantees that he will even emerge as the primary guy. It's an open competition as far as I can tell right now. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore that earning opportunity does in fact require some level of talent. I'm not touting Stacy as the next great thing here. Simply stating that earning the role as a starter basically throws out the notion that he's simply a 5th rounder. 90% of 5th rounders never even make it to that point.

Right, but you just pointed out that it's still an open competition and that he hasn't earned anything yet. If he wins the starting job it will be a positive development for him, but that hasn't happened yet. So I'm still not sure why the fact that he was drafted onto a team with weak RBs is supposed to prove that he's better than the average 5th round back.

Not surprising but you continue to ignore the point. How many of the other 5th round RBs are in contention for real playing time right now? How many of the 3rd rounders are? You could easily say Gillislee was drafted into a better situation than Stacy and he was also taken in the 5th round. His team also cut ties with their lead back from last year and all that stands in his way is a 4th rounder from last year and and a 2nd rounder from the year prior. Taylor could also be argued to having a better situation. A has been RB cast off on a minimum contract for 1 year and an injury prone 2 rounder are all that's in his way yet no similar discussions. The fact of the matter is, the average 5th round pick usually isn't a viable option to significant playing time no matter how dire the teams situation is. 5th round picks are generally junk. Of the 32 5th round picks in the draft at any position 5 of them are lucky to end up in a serious competition for a lead role. Stacy is at least a serious option right now. That alone is worth mentioning, yet you can't seem to even acknowledge it.

 

[Biabreakable]

http://www.stlouisrams.com/media-center/videos/OC-Brian-Schottenheimer-Press-Conference/85b96992-84ab-4d0f-853a-edcfb207c92a

http://www.stlouisrams.com/media-center/videos/Zac_Stacy_Rookie_Profile/8e80cd12-03f1-4cfd-b310-c377c7018ce0

 

[EBF]

That alone is worth mentioning, yet you can't seem to even acknowledge it.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to acknowledge. It would help if you had a coherent point.

I think it's clear that the lack of talent in the Rams backfield gives Stacy a chance to get some snaps right away.

It doesn't somehow make him better than the typical 5th round pick or more likely to be viable in the long run.

You're either good enough to start in the NFL or you aren't. Opportunity doesn't determine the answer to that question. It just provides the answer faster.

 

[jurb26]

That alone is worth mentioning, yet you can't seem to even acknowledge it.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to acknowledge. It would help if you had a coherent point.

I think it's clear that the lack of talent in the Rams backfield gives Stacy a chance to get some snaps right away.

It doesn't somehow make him better than the typical 5th round pick or more likely to be viable in the long run.

You're either good enough to start in the NFL or you aren't. Opportunity doesn't determine the answer to that question. It just provides the answer faster.

The point has been clearly made you just choose to ignore it and confidently cut it out of your quotes. Talent breads opportunity. Most 5th rounders never make it to the point to show if they have the ability to be a starter because they don't even have the talent to get to that point of the process.

 

[Sabertooth]

That alone is worth mentioning, yet you can't seem to even acknowledge it.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to acknowledge. It would help if you had a coherent point.

I think it's clear that the lack of talent in the Rams backfield gives Stacy a chance to get some snaps right away.

It doesn't somehow make him better than the typical 5th round pick or more likely to be viable in the long run.

You're either good enough to start in the NFL or you aren't. Opportunity doesn't determine the answer to that question. It just provides the answer faster.

The point has been clearly made you just choose to ignore it and confidently cut it out of your quotes. Talent breads opportunity. Most 5th rounders never make it to the point to show if they have the ability to be a starter because they don't even have the talent to get to that point of the process.

I would lump Stacy in with "most 5th rounders" until he proves otherwise.

This has committee written on it so far. Here is what the OC had to say:

Schottenheimer: RB battle is open by Dave Richard | Senior Fantasy Writer[SIZE=.8em](6/12/13)[/SIZE] Rams offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer said Tuesday that the running back job is wide open as four guys compete. He added that whoever can pass protect will have a leg-up in getting reps. "Daryl (Richardson) and Isaiah (Pead), Zac Stacy is a guy that’s doing great.Terrance Ganaway’s a guy that we like," Schottenheimer said. "You need multiple backs in this league. We’re going to try to play to their strengths. With ‘Jack’ (Steven Jackson) last year, it was a little bit different. It was harder to do the committee because every time you took him out, you knew you were missing his leadership and his toughness. This year I think we've got nice pieces to try to blend in and differently attack people."

 

[jurb26]

That alone is worth mentioning, yet you can't seem to even acknowledge it.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to acknowledge. It would help if you had a coherent point.

I think it's clear that the lack of talent in the Rams backfield gives Stacy a chance to get some snaps right away.

It doesn't somehow make him better than the typical 5th round pick or more likely to be viable in the long run.

You're either good enough to start in the NFL or you aren't. Opportunity doesn't determine the answer to that question. It just provides the answer faster.

The point has been clearly made you just choose to ignore it and confidently cut it out of your quotes. Talent breads opportunity. Most 5th rounders never make it to the point to show if they have the ability to be a starter because they don't even have the talent to get to that point of the process.

I would lump Stacy in with "most 5th rounders" until he proves otherwise. This has committee written on it so far. Here is what the OC had to say:

Schottenheimer: RB battle is open

by Dave Richard | Senior Fantasy Writer(6/12/13) Rams offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer said Tuesday that the running back job is wide open as four guys compete. He added that whoever can pass protect will have a leg-up in getting reps. "Daryl (Richardson) and Isaiah (Pead), Zac Stacy is a guy thats doing great.Terrance Ganaways a guy that we like," Schottenheimer said. "You need multiple backs in this league. Were going to try to play to their strengths. With Jack (Steven Jackson) last year, it was a little bit different. It was harder to do the committee because every time you took him out, you knew you were missing his leadership and his toughness. This year I think we've got nice pieces to try to blend in and differently attack people."

That's a fair take and I can see it being a RBBC as well. Regardless, that would still mean Stacy is pretty significantly better than the "average" 5th rounder who amounts to nothing in his NFL career. A concept that EBF can't seem to grasp.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I'm a Stacy supporter, but I've recently been giving in to the percentages and moving him for better gambles.

For those hoping he's the next Alfred Morris, consider these things:

1. Stacy had much more exposure, playing in the SEC vs. some NFL-caliber talent. He no doubt had more exposure to scouts and FO's around the league, has no known character issues, can pass-block, and is considered an incredibly hard worker and good role model. And he still fell to the 5th. He had a really impressive combine outside of the 40, and he still fell to the 5th.

2. Conversely, Alfred Morris played FBS football at Florida Atlantic University. They went 0-13 his senior year and to say that he was overlooked by scouts completely is a bit of an understatement. He wasn't invited to the Scouting Combine. One important thing to note--Shanahan had the opportunity to coach him in the Senior Bowl, took a shine to him...and barely let him run the ball. At this point he was still a "FB", and it's possible Shanahan was trying to keep him a bit of a secret. Either way, he fell to the 6th round where the Skins scooped him up, he broke out, and the rest is history.

My point is, their situations are very, very different. Morris had many reasons to fall where he did, and did not have excellent measurables either. He didn't play top competition, he didn't have national exposure, and basically no one knew who he was but Shanahan, who saw something in him that he really liked. For the most part he was a nobody.

Stacy was not a nobody. He played in the SEC, carried a pretty bad team when he could, and had lots of pre-draft hype from draftniks, fantasy footballers, and the draft media in general. He was a known quantity with plus intangibles, mostly great measurables, and lots of film vs. top competition. And he still fell to the 5th.

I'm not so arrogant as to assume that my eyes can see things that 32 professional NFL teams couldn't. I've changed my stance on Stacy despite him being my #2 RB before the draft. I still really like him, and I'm rooting for him. But the reality is that NFL teams were not impressed, and they had a LOT of information to work with in order to make their decisions. Unlike with an abnormal gem like Morris, who slipped through the cracks completely and really just happened to be noticed by a HC with a penchant for handing the lead back reigns over to young nobodies, during the Senior Bowl. Other NFL teams had almost nothing to go off of with Morris and very little reason to look at him once, nevermind twice. The opposite is true of Stacy, and yet he fell. And fell. And fell.

Alfred Morris is truly an aberration. He fell into the perfect situation, but more importantly, he IS a talented RB. It's just that no one would have noticed if the Skins hadn't happened to be coaching the Senior Bowl that year. He had reasons for his fall, mostly that he was an unknown without great measurables on a bad team no ones ever heard of--but he was a really talented, instinctual, aggressive but smart runner, and Shanahan saw it.

It's a unique situation.

 

[Sabertooth]

He may or may not be better than the average 5th round running back. Which puts him in about Vick Ballard territory. The only 5th rounders to even start a single game in the past 10 years are:

Vick Ballard
Ryan Torain

Tim Hightower

Jerome Harrison

Michael Turner

Not exactly a murderer's row there. And that's the absolute best 5th rounders, not the "average" fifth rounder.

 

[jurb26]

He may or may not be better than the average 5th round running back. Which puts him in about Vick Ballard territory. The only 5th rounders to even start a single game in the past 10 years are:

Vick Ballard

Ryan Torain

Tim Hightower

Jerome Harrison

Michael Turner

Not exactly a murderer's row there. And that's the absolute best 5th rounders, not the "average" fifth rounder.

So if Stacy is like Ballard then he is in the elite of 5th rounders, lol. For what it's worth, nobody here is expecting the next Peterson here. We are simply pointing out that he has a chance to contribute albeit in a small way.

 

[Sabertooth]

I agree. I just don't see him as being worth a much higher pick than Stepfan Taylor or Mike Gillislee. This was a weak class and these guys still slid way down. Probably more likely that Stacy is the next Johnny White than the next Michael Turner.

 

[EBF]

Talent breads opportunity.

Sounds delicious.

I think I get what you're trying to say. Talent creates opportunity. If you're good enough to earn an opportunity, you probably have some talent.

I just don't see how it applies to Stacy yet. It wasn't talent that had him drafted into a good situation. It was pure luck.

Until he actually does something to demonstrate that he's creating opportunity for himself, there's nothing to the idea that his opportunity somehow proves he's more talented than the typical 5th round back. There is a difference between ascending up the depth chart ala Marques Colston or Alfred Morris, and simply being in the mix by default. Right now Stacy falls in the latter group. If he starts to run away with the job during training camp and the preseason, it will be a different story.

 

[Adam Harstad]

David Wilson only had 70 some carries as a rookie. He still seems pretty valuable.

I do think Stacy could get more carries than 200 or so but I am not expecting that of any rookie really. Unless they are Richardson or something and assured the starting job without question from the get go. The thing with Stacy is I do think he will eventually win out and that is when those 50VBD seasons will come. But no I would not really expect that of any rookie. If I did that rookie would be a top 5 type of pick.

David Wilson is pretty valuable today because he is a young, super-talented, highly-drafted player, so his rookie production is irrelevant. As I understand it, many of those advocating Stacy (including you, earlier in this thread), were doing so because you said he would provide strong enough IMMEDIATE returns to vault over the WRs who are young, super-talented, highly-drafted players. If David Wilson is an analogy for anyone here, it's not Zac Stacy... it's those high 2nd round WRs that you're passing on to draft Zac Stacy.Zac Stacy has no margin for error. He's a 5th round pick fighting for his NFL life. There's no room for him to take a mulligan season like Wilson had; if he does, he's irrelevant at this point next year. He needs to be IMMEDIATELY productive to justify the pick people are spending on him.

Meh. Enjoy your strawman. Stacy is closer to instant impact that those WR or TE you were advocating over him which is where this conversation started. I laid out a lot of information showing that RB are more likely to be useful players than the WR are, although both are close. This coupled with the longer wait time for them to be productive compared to a RB is the important info here.

I'm sorry if it feels like I'm attacking a strawman. I've tried to contain myself to arguments that have actually been presented in this thread. You mentioned the 50 VBD threshold, and my understanding is that you thought that this was a reasonably attainable goal for Zac Stacy this season. My arguments have been aimed at that understanding. If Zac Stacy is only in line for 200ish carries, 50 VBD is wildly unreasonable.

As I understand it, these are some of the arguments for taking Zac Stacy at the end of the 1st round over several wide receivers drafted three full rounds higher than him.

1. He will provide greater immediate returns.

2. He will see greater gains in his perceived value over the next season.

3. He is more talented / he will be more valuable / he will have a better career.

Do you feel like I am unfairly characterizing the three pro-Stacy arguments? Would you disagree that those are the three main arguments being presented?

If we can agree that these are the pro-Stacy arguments, then here are my anti-Stacy counterarguments.

1. Redrafters want nothing to do with him, which suggests they are not optimistic about his chances of providing early returns.

2. If he's already being drafted as a 1st round rookie pick, that leaves much less room for his value to rise.

3. NFL teams obviously do not believe in his talent, as they all passed on him multiple times as he fell to the 5th round.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If we can agree that these are the pro-Stacy arguments, then here are my anti-Stacy counterarguments.

1. Redrafters want nothing to do with him, which suggests they are not optimistic about his chances of providing early returns.

2. If he's already being drafted as a 1st round rookie pick, that leaves much less room for his value to rise.

3. NFL teams obviously do not believe in his talent, as they all passed on him multiple times as he fell to the 5th round.

I don't even like Stacy but this argument seems poor.

1) Define "nothing." ADP is 110 according to FFC. It's July. Let's not pretend Wali Lundy to Alfred Morris had high ADP in July.

2) This year is different. Stacy is not worth a 1st next year.

3) Seems vapid to me. NFL teams don't believe in any of the RBs this year I guess.

In what ways can Stacy become a top 50 player next year? Win the starting RB job and have a high utilization by the end of the year.

In what ways can Justin Hunter? There is no possible way outside of mass casualties.

 

[Adam Harstad]

If we can agree that these are the pro-Stacy arguments, then here are my anti-Stacy counterarguments.

1. Redrafters want nothing to do with him, which suggests they are not optimistic about his chances of providing early returns.

2. If he's already being drafted as a 1st round rookie pick, that leaves much less room for his value to rise.

3. NFL teams obviously do not believe in his talent, as they all passed on him multiple times as he fell to the 5th round.

I don't even like Stacy but this argument seems poor.

1) Define "nothing." ADP is 110 according to FFC. It's July. Let's not pretend Wali Lundy to Alfred Morris had high ADP in July.

2) This year is different. Stacy is not worth a 1st next year.

3) Seems vapid to me. NFL teams don't believe in any of the RBs this year I guess.

In what ways can Stacy become a top 50 player next year? Win the starting RB job and have a high utilization by the end of the year.

In what ways can Justin Hunter? There is no possible way outside of mass casualties.

1. FBGs ADP has him as the 47th RB off the board, 126th player overall. VBD expectations of the 47th back off the board are essentially nil. ADP data suggests that redrafters think he will provide very little value this season.

2. Even in a season like this, first rounders command value. Your 2013 1st + X could net you a 2014 1st. A year from now, Zac Stacy + Y could net you a 2014 1st. I would bet that Y will prove substantially greater than X. If Zac Stacy were being drafted later, that might not be the case, but the higher he gets drafted, the less upside he has at his draft position.

3. There were 12 RBs that the NFL believed in more than Zac Stacy this year. As well as 16 WRs, 7 QBs, and 9 TEs.

So all Zac Stacy has to do to become a top-50 player is beat out the two other talented players he shares the field with and get heavily utilized in the process? But if Justin Hunter does the same thing (beats out the two other talented players at his position he shares the field with and gets heavily utilized), that wouldn't get him into the top 50, too?

And I could just as easily flip that around, too. All Zac Stacy has to do to become absolutely worthless at this time next year is fail to beat out either of the guys ahead of him. All Justin Hunter has to do to become absolutely worthless at this time next year is... well, outside of an Aaron Hernandez situation, there's no way Justin Hunter will be absolutely worthless at this time next year.

 

[EBF]

In what ways can Stacy become a top 50 player next year? Win the starting RB job and have a high utilization by the end of the year.

In what ways can Justin Hunter? There is no possible way outside of mass casualties.

I think your argument would have more merit if we were talking about redraft value, but in a dynasty league the first season of the player's career is only one piece of the equation. A player like EJ Manuel or Justin Hunter might have a lower chance of being useful right out of the box, but they'll hold value regardless and they're far more likely to become perennial contributors based on the objective odds. I'd much rather have one of those guys than a penny stock like Stacy.

It's been my experience that a lot of dynasty owners approach things from more of a redraft standpoint, always looking for the quick hit or the immediate payoff. That might work in certain instances, but I think that kind of owner will miss out on a lot of value because they're so impatient that they can't sit on an asset for a year or two while it matures. They end up grabbing guys like Franklin and Stacy looking for the quick pop while superior prospects like Michael and Knile are there for the taking.

It's human nature to some extent and it's part of the reason why I often hope that the prospects I like are drafted onto ugly depth charts. It's one of the few reliable ways to push a talented player down in the rookie draft to the point where he becomes a tremendous value. Look at Ridley as a rookie, Pierce last year, and Michael this year. They went to a team with no obvious playing time available and became tremendous bargains for that reason because the uncertain path turned off the "points tomorrow" crowd that isn't lending ample weight to future value.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If we can agree that these are the pro-Stacy arguments, then here are my anti-Stacy counterarguments.

1. Redrafters want nothing to do with him, which suggests they are not optimistic about his chances of providing early returns.

2. If he's already being drafted as a 1st round rookie pick, that leaves much less room for his value to rise.

3. NFL teams obviously do not believe in his talent, as they all passed on him multiple times as he fell to the 5th round.

I don't even like Stacy but this argument seems poor.

1) Define "nothing." ADP is 110 according to FFC. It's July. Let's not pretend Wali Lundy to Alfred Morris had high ADP in July.

2) This year is different. Stacy is not worth a 1st next year.

3) Seems vapid to me. NFL teams don't believe in any of the RBs this year I guess.

In what ways can Stacy become a top 50 player next year? Win the starting RB job and have a high utilization by the end of the year.

In what ways can Justin Hunter? There is no possible way outside of mass casualties.

1. FBGs ADP has him as the 47th RB off the board, 126th player overall. VBD expectations of the 47th back off the board are essentially nil. ADP data suggests that redrafters think he will provide very little value this season.

2. Even in a season like this, first rounders command value. Your 2013 1st + X could net you a 2014 1st. A year from now, Zac Stacy + Y could net you a 2014 1st. I would bet that Y will prove substantially greater than X. If Zac Stacy were being drafted later, that might not be the case, but the higher he gets drafted, the less upside he has at his draft position.

3. There were 12 RBs that the NFL believed in more than Zac Stacy this year. As well as 16 WRs, 7 QBs, and 9 TEs.

So all Zac Stacy has to do to become a top-50 player is beat out the two other talented players he shares the field with and get heavily utilized in the process? But if Justin Hunter does the same thing (beats out the two other talented players at his position he shares the field with and gets heavily utilized), that wouldn't get him into the top 50, too?

And I could just as easily flip that around, too. All Zac Stacy has to do to become absolutely worthless at this time next year is fail to beat out either of the guys ahead of him. All Justin Hunter has to do to become absolutely worthless at this time next year is... well, outside of an Aaron Hernandez situation, there's no way Justin Hunter will be absolutely worthless at this time next year.

Yes that is the bet. Royster could be a top 50 player right now. I genuinely believe that. The difference is WAS' opportunity was a little more direct. STL has talked about RBBC, and healthy DR is a factor as COP even if ZS looks like an NFL player.

Justin Hunter meet Stephen Hill. That isn't even the downside though. At least Hill has opportunity. Maybe Hankerson. There is downside to Hunter as well. He is dropping to 2nd round of rookie drafts in a poor year for a reason. Because nobody is excited about him. And the only way for people to be excited about him is for him to show something.

What happens when players nobody is excited about sit on the bench all year and don't even sniff 40 receptions. They turn into good sleepers, yes, but they also about as worthless as yes 3rd string RBs who used to be hyped.

 

[LususV]

EBF, why so high on Knile Davis? I like him a lot less than Stacy.

 

[LususV]

My main reason for being intrigued by Stacy in the first place was Combine #s. His comparables are some mighty fine company.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Anyone who believes that Royster could be a top-50 player in any universe hasn't watched enough Redskins football.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I think your argument would have more merit if we were talking about redraft value, but in a dynasty league the first season of the player's career is only one piece of the equation.

That's the nature of RBs though right? Nobody drafts a 5th round RB to stick him on the bench for a few years and hope he develops. Everybody is sniffing out opportunity and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle and get a starter. Pray like hell he starts a few games and then figure out if you believe in him later. Even if Ballard is a more likely starting scenario than Morris (which I don't really believe) then it's still a more appetizing value curve than Hunter because at least it gives you a chance to decide whether you want to sell high and cash out.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Anyone who believes that Royster could be a top-50 player in any universe hasn't watched enough Redskins football.

Cheers to that. He is only a better version of Torain and talent level is not great I agree, but I do think if he stayed healthy all year his stats would have been good. I would sell hard just like I did on Morris, but hopefully there is a point there beside the hyperbole.

 

[EBF]

EBF, why so high on Knile Davis? I like him a lot less than Stacy.

I'm not high on Knile Davis. I hate his running style and I don't think he'll ever stay healthy over the long haul in the NFL.

Putting that aside, what stands out to me about Davis is how criminally cheap he is in rookie drafts compared to the typical RB selected in the same range of the NFL draft. He routinely falls into the third round of 12 team rookie drafts. That's very rare for a player with his pedigree.

I went back and looked at past drafts from my longest running dynasty league. In the 10 years that we've been drafting rookies, only three backs chosen in the first three rounds of the NFL draft fell out of the top 24 of our rookie draft: Glen Coffee, Stevan Ridley, and Knile Davis.

This is a mandatory start 2 RB league where backs fly off the board every year. And yet Knile fell to me all the way down at pick 3.11.

For whatever reason, almost nobody is high on Knile Davis. People are spending 1st round rookie picks on guys like Franklin, Bell, and Michael while letting Davis slide into the 3rd and sometimes even the 4th round. That strikes me as being a little out of whack. I have hardly anything good to say about Davis as a prospect. He's a linear runner with a weird body type and poor avoidance skills, but he should probably be going a round higher than his ADP if you're just looking at the objective variables.

I'd kind of liken him to DeMarco Murray or Darren McFadden. He's not going to be a durable and reliable workhorse, but he might be able to get on the field and show some flashes of brilliance. If he strings together a couple good games, your third round pick is suddenly worth a 1st-2nd rounder. At that point you can pawn him off for a tidy profit.

 

[EBF]

I think your argument would have more merit if we were talking about redraft value, but in a dynasty league the first season of the player's career is only one piece of the equation.

That's the nature of RBs though right? Nobody drafts a 5th round RB to stick him on the bench for a few years and hope he develops. Everybody is sniffing out opportunity and hoping to catch lightning in a bottle and get a starter. Pray like hell he starts a few games and then figure out if you believe in him later. Even if Ballard is a more likely starting scenario than Morris (which I don't really believe) then it's still a more appetizing value curve than Hunter because at least it gives you a chance to decide whether you want to sell high and cash out.

Can't say I agree. I think taking inferior talents just so you can get an answer earlier is a leaky strategy long term.

The IF part of the rookie equation is a lot more important than the WHEN, by which I mean to say that getting a good player is a lot more important than getting him tomorrow.

Better to wait two years for Larry Johnson than two weeks for Tatum Bell.

Hunter is probably worth 3-4 of Zac Stacy, if not more than that. The fact that Stacy might be more useful after one year doesn't justify the huge gap in their odds of success.

Having said that, I'm really glad that some people feel otherwise, as I think that kind of mindset drives value down the board every year.

 

[Gawain]

What's all this pass blocking talk?

WEAKNESSES - Stacy lacks true breakaway speed and was caught from behind multiple times in games I viewed. He is a quicker than fast athlete, as he is quick through the POA because of his vision and instincts but does not possess the innate explosiveness to break to daylight in tight situations. He has a smallish frame, and in particular needs to add bulk to his upper body. When asked to pass block he doesn't consistently face up with his man at the POA and too often opts for low cut attempts.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

This has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but it should be central to the argument: what is the opportunity cost of drafting Stacy?

It does not matter AT ALL that you can get Stepfon Taylor or Knile Davis 1-2 rounds later... you can still draft them 1-2 rounds later whomever you take in the early 2nd. The discussion is not Stacy vs those RBs.

Yeah, Stacy should go after some of the QBs in start 2 QB leagues, or after some of the TEs in 1.5 PPR TE leagues. Those leagues don't apply to most of us, and aren't really relevant to most of this discussion.

So who is being drafted around him that should be drafted before him? According to MFL rookie ADP, we have Lattimore, Franklin, K.Allen, and J.Hunter being taken immediately before Stacy, and Woods, Wheaton, Dobson, EJ Manuel, and C.Michael immediately after him.


I can see the argument for the four players already being taken before Stacy (on average), though I can just as easily see not liking Hunter or Lattimore. I can see the argument for Michael, since he is markedly more explosive than Stacy (though not as laterally agile and well-balanced as Stacy, IMO).

The rest of these players are rather unexciting. Woods and Wheaton probably have no more than WR2 upside, there are some rather convincing arguments against Dobson, and Manuel is really only valuable in large leagues or leagues that put a premium on QBs. WRs are notorious for taking time to develop and show what they are worth. Many do not want to tie up a roster spot for years on a WR that has WR2 upside. TEs and QBs need to be top 5 to matter, value-wise, and usually take years to develop as well.

I don't see the controversy in taking Stacy over most of these players.

Draft position is only one data point. It is a useful one, but we all make decisions based on how we feel about specific players. Looking at the list of 5th rounders EBF provided, there are a lot of very obvious do not draft (or do not draft before fantasy draft round 4/5) players. There are several that looked like viable RBs that ended up falling through. C'est la vie. But to just throw out blanket statements treating them all as equal prospects is disingenuous. If you can sift through things halfway decently, you can make that "5-10%" chance of success much better.

At the end of the day, we are still talking about the area in our rookie drafts that has a very low success rate, especially in a mostly weak draft. I drafted Stacy at pick 12 in a ten team league. I did it because landing a future possible WR2 does nothing for my team, I knew I was going to have that type of WR available later, and no QBs or TEs were warranted at that spot.

 

[Gawain]

There are definitely better values on the board. If you're on the clock at 2.03 and you need a RB, you can drop down 10 picks and get Knile Davis. You can drop down 20 picks and get Stepfan Taylor. You can stay put and get players at a different position who have a higher chance of success.

Stacy's situation reminds me a lot of Vick Ballard's last year. Solid, but unspectacular RB on a team with spotty RB talent where he figures to potentially get on the field and be halfway useful. The key difference that I see from a rookie draft standpoint is the ADP. Last year Ballard was a mid 4th rounder in the same leagues where Stacy is going mid 2nd. He was great value there because if he showed any signs of life, he would be worth a 2nd-3rd round rookie pick a year later.

The upside is greatly diminished with Stacy. If he flops, he'll be worth a lot less than the pick you spent on him. If he gets on the field and has an okay rookie year like Ballard, he'll be worth approximately the same thing in six months that he's worth now. In order for him to yield any real profit, he has to not only get on the field, but play well enough to catapult his value into 1st round rookie pick territory. Hence why I said only the most optimistic outcomes will see him yield any significant spike in value.

Whether I'm looking at rookies, young prospects, or veterans, I always try to focus on players who have a lot of upside and minimal downside. When the gap between a player's cost and his upside is huge, that's usually a good investment. When the gap between a player's cost and his upside is thin, there's no upside and no margin for error.

This is patently false. All it takes is a search of the dynasty trade forum with the name Ballard to see people trading a lot more than a 2nd. Some of the deals I found were Ballard for 1.05+, Ballard for 2014 1st+, Ballard and Nicks for Jones.

At one point Ballard was carrying at least mid first round value and if Stacy has a similar year there will likely be a guy that thinks Stacy is a long term starter and will pay a first.