Peterson, Adrian: Value Notes

DocT 5/1/07: Dearest F&L, Where do you rank AP in your RB rankings? Between what guys would you estimate?

Sons of the Tundra 5/1/07: I hope to have the rankings updated some time this week. Right now, I'd say my RB rankings are going to look like this:

1. L.Tomlinson
2. S.Jackson
3. L.Johnson
4. R.Bush
5. F.Gore
6. A.Peterson
7. L.Maroney
8. B.Westbrook
9. J.Addai
10 on -- Not sure yet...

KellysHeroes 5/3/07: Why do 1st yr Rookies always get ranked higher than 2nd yr studs that are on great teams
I see it every ####ing year and it makes me laugh

Sons of the Tundra 5/3/07: I agree that studs should be ranked at the top, so which "studs" have I ranked below Adrian Peterson? If you can find a stud in his prime on that list, you'll find him ranked ahead of Adrian Peterson. You may find good RBs, talented RBs, one year wonders and potential studs below Peterson. But you'll have to convince me that I've got him ranked higher than any "2nd year studs."

By way of explanation, I've been saying all along that I considered this year's rookie crop to be two and done. If I didn't have the first or second pick in the draft, I was either trading up to get one of them or trading my mid-to-late 1st round pick for young talent instead. As a general rule, I don't rank rookies high. I'm ranking Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson high because they're special.

I think change in the NFL happens too quickly for many dynasty owners and all too often they react rather than anticipate. You win in fantasy football by anticipating the ultra-talented studs. Good players aren't enough. It's the mega-talents you need. Adrian Peterson is a mega-talent. I haven't ranked a RB this high since Marshall Faulk came into the league. And I haven't ranked a WR as high as Calvin Johnson since I had Randy Moss at #1 before he even played a game.

Cue the Carly Simon, "Anticipation..."

Couch Potato 5/3/07: This thread needs to be shut down and locked. No, not just locked, actually it should be removed so no one can read and be misled by it. It's really that awful. Then it can go back up after the dynasty draft I'm currently in is completed.

Sons of the Tundra 5/3/07: Just for you, Couch Potato. Consider this an addendum to the Adrian Peterson comments:

I see true greatness in Adrian Peterson, but that doesn't mean any of you guys should go grabbing Peterson high in the first round of a start-up draft if you don't see the same thing I'm seeing. If you think Peterson is just another 1st round NFL talent, then please do not ditch your own analysis. I don't think anybody should go into their draft with the idea that "I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary from Peterson, and he sure does seem like a helluva injury risk. On the other hand, although F&L may be a stubborn jackarse, he manages to stumble onto some good analysis once in awhile. Screw it, I'm going Peterson at #5 overall."

KellysHeroes 5/3/07: Hey.. I like the hard work you put into this thread and I can't wait for the update w/ rookies..
Now I Know you can make some type of argument that RBs like Westy & Portis have been injury prone. Maroney had surgery during this off-season, and Addai is just a product of the system.. so you can make a case that AD can go above them.... But AD over a top 10 RB like FWP is nutz

Couch Potato 5/3/07: It's a real sore spot with me to call something nuts just because you disagree with it. Wouldn't it be more respectful of the man's work to simply state why you disagree and not imply he's way off base?

I think a very strong case can be made for AD going ahead of FWP in a dynasty draft:

1) AD had a fabulous career at a major school in a major conference. His talent is unquestioned, and some very knowledgeable folks have compared him to HOFers.

2) AD is 22, FWP is 26. If you take a 5 year view as I do, AD after one RBBC year begins to shine (look at where Maroney and Addai are being ranked now after one year in the league) and will have several prime years ahead. I have no problem with FWP in the near term, but he may only have 2 very good years ahead before he begins the descent. Or maybe he peaked last year. Who knows?

I don't think choosing either player over the other is wrong. I think it's just a matter of opinion right now, of proven production over potential and pedigree. And choosing AD certainly isn't nuts.

Sons of the Tundra 5/3/07: Thanks, KellysHeroes. I think it's a very worthwhile debate.

I'm not here to change your mind. I can see why you would have all the confidence in the world in FWP. I just look at it from a different perspective: passing up a hall of fame/once in a decade level talent like Peterson for FWP is nutz.

And I think this is the key: Of necessity, these rankings have to be how I value players. A lot of guys have made great points throughout this thread, and I've definitely changed my view on some players based on input here. I do try to reel in my instincts at times, especially if they're leading me to outrageous conclustions. I try to find a healthy balance between personal instinct, objective analysis and valued opinion. That said, how bad would these rankings suck if I was acting like a politician and checking the sharkpool barometer for approval before deciding on value for each player? If I start checking to see which way the wind blows, then I'm useless...

Burning Sensation 5/4/07: I agree AD should be ranked higher than Lynch, bbut not that big of a gap. Your arguments against Lynch seem more fitting for AD.

Sons of the Tundra 5/4/07: My arguments against Lynch seem more fitting for AD? The argument that too much has been made of Lynch's apparent advantage in situation is more fitting for AD?

Lynch doesn't hold a candle to Peterson on talent. There are several players that come into the league every single year with Lynch's ability. You haven't seen a Peterson-level runner come into the league in awhile.

My point was that some people were almost totally ignoring the huge gap in talent between the two and deciding that Lynch appeared to have the better situation than Peterson, so they've put two and two together and come up with five. Not only is Peterson much better, but their respective situations aren't drastically different enough for it to matter that much in value.