Dynasty Rankings (3 Viewers)

[ConnSKINS26]

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date. I realize it's a small sample size and, absent any other information, you have to ding him some for that. And I get that it was a perfect storm for him in some ways last year, but his upside is clearly better than WR3. He's already done that -- in his only sustained NFL action so far.

Good article by Chase on Shorts: Placing Cecil Shorts’ Production in Context

Chase has been on fire lately with some great articles.I get what he's doing here too, but draft position for truly small school players just isn't the same as it is for other guys. If you're coming out of a DIII school and get yourself drafted in the 4th round it's a feather in your cap, not a ding against you.

Great post!

 

[Chase Stuart]

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date. I realize it's a small sample size and, absent any other information, you have to ding him some for that. And I get that it was a perfect storm for him in some ways last year, but his upside is clearly better than WR3. He's already done that -- in his only sustained NFL action so far.

Good article by Chase on Shorts: Placing Cecil Shorts’ Production in Context

Chase has been on fire lately with some great articles.I get what he's doing here too, but draft position for truly small school players just isn't the same as it is for other guys. If you're coming out of a DIII school and get yourself drafted in the 4th round it's a feather in your cap, not a ding against you.

I agree that it's very impressive for a small school player to get drafted in the fourth round. But unfortunately that doesn't mean the player is more likely to be a better player in the NFL. Jerome Simpson (Coastal Carolina, 2nd round), Ron Dixon (Lambuth, 3rd round), Jacoby Jones (Lane, 3rd round), Larry Brackins (Pearl River Community College, 5th round), Terry Guess (Gardner Webb, 5th round) are much more likely than Joe Horn (who went to Itawamba Community College after he lost his offer to South Carolina).

I understand the argument that a 4th round pick from a small school is impressive, but I wouldn't get carried away with it.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Chase Stuart, on 01 Jun 2013 - 11:46, said:

wdcrob, on 31 May 2013 - 13:53, said:

Just Win Baby, on 31 May 2013 - 13:26, said:

wdcrob, on 31 May 2013 - 11:47, said:

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date. I realize it's a small sample size and, absent any other information, you have to ding him some for that. And I get that it was a perfect storm for him in some ways last year, but his upside is clearly better than WR3. He's already done that -- in his only sustained NFL action so far.

Good article by Chase on Shorts: Placing Cecil Shorts’ Production in Context

Chase has been on fire lately with some great articles.I get what he's doing here too, but draft position for truly small school players just isn't the same as it is for other guys. If you're coming out of a DIII school and get yourself drafted in the 4th round it's a feather in your cap, not a ding against you.

I agree that it's very impressive for a small school player to get drafted in the fourth round. But unfortunately that doesn't mean the player is more likely to be a better player in the NFL. Jerome Simpson (Coastal Carolina, 2nd round), Ron Dixon (Lambuth, 3rd round), Jacoby Jones (Lane, 3rd round), Larry Brackins (Pearl River Community College, 5th round), Terry Guess (Gardner Webb, 5th round) are much more likely than Joe Horn (who went to Itawamba Community College after he lost his offer to South Carolina).I understand the argument that a 4th round pick from a small school is impressive, but I wouldn't get carried away with it.

Actually, it does mean the player is likely to be better.

Since 2004 (when I feel pretty confident about my records) here are the non-BCS school players that have made an impact in the NFL despite being drafted outside the top 100 picks (or UDFAs):

Brandon Marshall (WR3)

Victor Cruz (WR13)

Marques Colston (WR15)

Pierre Garcon (WR21)

Antonio Brown (WR24)

Cecil Shorts (WR30)

Miles Austin (WR36)

Lance Moore (WR39)

Here are the players from BCS schools (outside top 100 picks again):

Wes Welker (WR16)

Steve Johnson (WR29)

Mike Williams (WR38)

Danario Alexander (WR37)

Jericho Cotchery (----)

There were 47 such players drafted from smaller schools, and 82 drafted from bigger schools. And 8/47 is considerably better than 4/82 (five if you want to count Cotchery). More than 3x as good in fact. (Assuming that the small school/big school ratio of undrafted players is roughly similar to 47/82.)

And those small school players are better players when they hit too, on average (see this year's ADPs for example, but feel free to use any measure you like).

So treating Cecil Shorts as an average 4th round WR is really just not a good thing to do.

(ETA: I cut out players changing positions and players drafted after 2011. And I was hurrying too. So I'll give a full refund to anyone finding an error in the #s.)

(EETA: I missed Brandon Lloyd in the BCS group.)

 

[Sabertooth]

So who would you tab this year as the top small school prospect?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

So who would you tab this year as the top small school prospect?

Charles Johnson.

 

[Biabreakable]

So who would you tab this year as the top small school prospect?

Zac Stacey.

 

[cdubz]

Biabreakable, on 01 Jun 2013 - 17:43, said:

Sabertooth, on 01 Jun 2013 - 15:26, said:So who would you tab this year as the top small school prospect?

Zac Stacey.

And now the SEC has small school prospects.Aaron Mellette out of Elon is pretty interesting in addition to Charles Johnson.

 

[Ed McCutcheon]

Zac Stacy is most certainly not a small school prospect. Vandy is still in the SEC. Charles Johnson (GB), Mellette (BAL) and Latavius Murray (OAK) are the typical ones that are getting the most attention in leagues I am either in or have seen.

Mellette is the one I am most interested in watching right now. He has great physical ability, plus has a seemingly good situation to work into the #3 WR role for Baltimore this season. In the next year or two, he might even become the WR the Ravens need on the opposite side of Torrey Smith. Right now there is certainly an opportunity for him to move past several so-so vets at WR on that depth chart.

If you are looking for a true long-term stash and wait player then Johnson probably fits that mold, simply due to the Green Bay history of finding and developing somewhat unknown WRs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

FWIW, if small school prospects take longer on average to adjust to the NFL game you can make a case for more talented players being drafted later for financial/cap consideration reasons. In other words it doesn't need to be due to market inefficiencies.

 

[Biabreakable]

Ok my bad the Commodores are technically a division 1 team.

Vanderbilt football has not won a conference championship since 1923. Vanderbilt has competed in only five bowl games (see below), with a combined all-time post-season record of 3–2–1. By comparison, none of the SEC's other charter members have fewer than 14 bowl appearances. Vanderbilt has finished ranked twice: in 1948, when it finished #12 in the AP Poll after an 8–2–1 season, and again in 2012, when it finished #23 in the AP Poll and #20 in the Coaches' Poll[10] after a 9–4 season.

The Commodores have found the going especially difficult since their last period of sustained success in the mid-1950s. Since 1959, Vanderbilt has posted only five winning seasons — in 1974, 1975, 1982, 2008, and in 2012.

This trend seemed to be abating in the mid-1970s and early 1980s, with two of Vanderbilt's post-season appearances coming in 1974 and 1982, and with several near-winning season records.

The last Commodore team before the Bobby Johnson era with a winning record, George MacIntyre's 1982 squad (with a record of 8–4), played in the Hall of Fame Bowl in Birmingham, Alabama. In addition to the school's third all-time bowl appearance, the 1982 team's season-ending win against Tennessee, in which Vanderbilt quarterback Whit Taylor threw for 391 yards, marked a special season—but a season that proved an exception to years following, when a return to previous levels of mediocrity saw a veritable merry-go-round of head coaches.

MacIntyre was unable to put together another winner, and left after the 1985 season. From 1986 to 2001, when Bobby Johnson was hired, Vanderbilt was led by five coaches who averaged only four wins per season. During this time, the Commodores won only 18 games in SEC play. Included in this run were three 1–10 overall records, as well as five winless SEC records

James Franklin formerly a staff member for Maryland, was hired in 2011 as the new head coach after a disappointing 2-10 2010 season under an interim coach. Coach Franklin started out the 2011 season bringing the Commodores to a 3–0 start with wins against Elon, Connecticut, and SEC rival Ole Miss. This was the best start for a new Vanderbilt coach in 68 years. After losing three games including a close loss to Georgia, Vanderbilt improved to 4 wins with a homecoming victory against Army. After losing a 28–31 game against SEC opponent Arkansas and Florida 21-26, the Commodores under Franklin defeated conference opponent Kentucky at home in Nashville by an impressive 38–8, improving to 5 wins on the season. After a close loss to in-state and SEC rival Tennessee, Vanderbilt capped the season with a 41–7 road win against Wake Forest, finishing the season 6–6, with a 2–6 record in the SEC, and earning a trip to the Liberty Bowl in Memphis against theCincinnati Bearcats with a loss of 24 – 31 Vandy finished 6–7.

Franklin became the first Vanderbilt head coach to lead a Commodore team to a bowl game as a first-year head coach. As Franklin is the first coach to bring a Vanderbilt team to a bowl game two years in a row, he also has the most bowl appearances as a Vanderbilt head coach. He has the most wins for consecutive years (15) since 1926–27.[16] "Anchor Down" is the teams moto it was started in the 2012 season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_Commodores_football

So this has been the worst team in the toughest division in college football with most of their success happening only in the last 2 seasons. A lot of that success being due to the coaching and Zac Stacey.

I guess the Golden Gophers are technically a division 1 team also. They do not seem to be on the same level as teams I would consider big schools like Michigan, Ohio State ect.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

Dude, you're not gonna argue that bad BCS teams are small schools and win.

 

[Biabreakable]

Dude, you're not gonna argue that bad BCS teams are small schools and win.

I already conceded this point and honestly college football has always been an enigma for me.

While I would expect a player talented enough to get recruited to a higher level college program, that they would at some point even if they had to start at a lower level school. So from that perspective there is a cut off of the talent level from division 1 to 2 schools that should sort itself out by the highest recruited players ending up in the division 1 schools for the most part.

However there are many shades of grey between the talent level of teams and their ability to recruit that talent compared to others within the same level of competition.

 

[EBF]

Football recruiting is a pretty imperfect process for a lot of reasons. Most players are ranked and recruited based mainly on what they did as sophomores-juniors in high school. At that point they're only 15-17 years old. The kids who peak early are going to look better than the late bloomers. A kid with an underdeveloped frame who slips through the cracks as a high school player can add size/strength/speed through natural growth between the ages of 18-24 and end up being a top prospect when it's all said and done.

In general there's still a pretty clear correlation with high school recruiting rankings and eventual NFL success, but there are lots of misses on both ends. Some mega hyped prep stars are total flops in college. Some kids come out of nowhere and become NFL stars.

As far as the NFL draft goes, I think when a player slips out of the premium rounds you have to ask yourself if there's a legitimate excuse. There are lots of reasons unrelated to talent why someone might fall. Character and durability are two obvious ones. I'm sure Da'Rick Rogers and Marcus Lattimore would've gone a little higher if not for their issues. Position change is another one. Every now and then you see a player like Matt Jones or Antwaan Randle El go pretty high despite that factor, but in general I think teams are going to downgrade a QB-->WR convert or a basketball player like Jimmy Graham who's still pretty new to the sport.

I think the small school thing is another good excuse. When a player lights it up at a lower level of competition there's always a question of whether or not his stats were inflated by his weak opponents. So a team is going to look at a Brian Westbrook or Clyde Gates and wonder if his numbers aren't a product of easy prey.

The thing I'd point out is that all of these excuses are legitimate concerns to some extent. In theory, the draft position should account for the funky variable. So while a guy like Da'Rick Rogers might have a lot more talent than the typical UDFA WR, his character risk might be so extreme that his risk of busting is equivalent to a random UDFA. Likewise, many will argue that Marcus Lattimore is more talented than the typical 4th round RB, but there's a reason why he fell. He has serious durability/fitness question marks moving forward. So it's not like you're getting a "1st round back" in the 4th round. You're getting a talented back with serious injury issues.

I'm inclined to be a little more open-minded about the prospect of someone like Charles Johnson being a better gamble than a typical 7th rounder because of his circumstances, but the flipside is that part of the reason why he looks good on paper (production) is questionable. Would he have looked like Kevin Dorsey at Maryland or Brice Butler at USC? Maybe. Clyde Gates was a baller at Abilene Christian, but garbage in the NFL.

Every player is different. I try to take all the variables into account while also recognizing that the odds and trends don't necessarily bind a player to his fate.

 

[EBF]

Going back to Shorts, Chase's article was interesting, but the method of identifying comparable players seems a bit arbitrary to me.

I would think that looking at draft position in conjunction with certain combine metrics might be useful. I think there some stats like yards per target, yards per catch, and conversion rate that might say more about a player's ability than ANY/A or % of team's receiving yards. I think you would also want to factor in the quality of the QB and the supporting cast. Shorts was a lot more effective than Blackmon last season with the same supporting cast. You can look at that and say Blackmon's presence made things easier for Shorts. On the other hand, you can look at that as another point that illustrates how well he played.

I'm not opposed to the general practice of treating players like a set of numbers and popping them into the computer to draw your conclusions, but the conclusions should make some intuitive sense. For example, if you're trying to find a method of identifying superstar WRs then your system should spit out a list of names like Andre Johnson, Vincent Jackson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson. When your system concludes that a low-YPR slot WR like Mike Thomas is a good comparison for a high-YPR big play outside WR like Shorts, I think it's a sign that maybe the methodology is a bit wonky.

 

[tdmills]

Football recruiting is a pretty imperfect process for a lot of reasons. Most players are ranked and recruited based mainly on what they did as sophomores-juniors in high school. At that point they're only 15-17 years old. The kids who peak early are going to look better than the late bloomers. A kid with an underdeveloped frame who slips through the cracks as a high school player can add size/strength/speed through natural growth between the ages of 18-24 and end up being a top prospect when it's all said and done. In general there's still a pretty clear correlation with high school recruiting rankings and eventual NFL success, but there are lots of misses on both ends. Some mega hyped prep stars are total flops in college. Some kids come out of nowhere and become NFL stars.As far as the NFL draft goes, I think when a player slips out of the premium rounds you have to ask yourself if there's a legitimate excuse. There are lots of reasons unrelated to talent why someone might fall. Character and durability are two obvious ones. I'm sure Da'Rick Rogers and Marcus Lattimore would've gone a little higher if not for their issues. Position change is another one. Every now and then you see a player like Matt Jones or Antwaan Randle El go pretty high despite that factor, but in general I think teams are going to downgrade a QB-->WR convert or a basketball player like Jimmy Graham who's still pretty new to the sport. I think the small school thing is another good excuse. When a player lights it up at a lower level of competition there's always a question of whether or not his stats were inflated by his weak opponents. So a team is going to look at a Brian Westbrook or Clyde Gates and wonder if his numbers aren't a product of easy prey. The thing I'd point out is that all of these excuses are legitimate concerns to some extent. In theory, the draft position should account for the funky variable. So while a guy like Da'Rick Rogers might have a lot more talent than the typical UDFA WR, his character risk might be so extreme that his risk of busting is equivalent to a random UDFA. Likewise, many will argue that Marcus Lattimore is more talented than the typical 4th round RB, but there's a reason why he fell. He has serious durability/fitness question marks moving forward. So it's not like you're getting a "1st round back" in the 4th round. You're getting a talented back with serious injury issues. I'm inclined to be a little more open-minded about the prospect of someone like Charles Johnson being a better gamble than a typical 7th rounder because of his circumstances, but the flipside is that part of the reason why he looks good on paper (production) is questionable. Would he have looked like Kevin Dorsey at Maryland or Brice Butler at USC? Maybe. Clyde Gates was a baller at Abilene Christian, but garbage in the NFL. Every player is different. I try to take all the variables into account while also recognizing that the odds and trends don't necessarily bind a player to his fate.

As someone who recruited division 1 football, I can agree that it's an imperfect process. The one thing I wanted to chime in with is bias. Each coach/program/region has bias and it can great affect recruiting. It can affect what programs will look at a kid and maybe a kid won't look at a program due to what he's heard/seen/etc. Some coaches will go into bad parts of cities to find kids, others wont. How strong a program is at that particular position affects recruiting as well. Then in the end it's a choice whether to offer a kid.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?

I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.

I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.

Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

 

[Gawain]

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

SSOG is still pimping him as a top 15 WR. Most people are lower, but adding him as a WR 4 seems like a great risk/reward scenario.

 

[Concept Coop]

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

I just moved Maclin for Crabtree and a 2nd. He sent the initial offer, I played up the injury a bit and got him to include the pick.

Like SSOG, I am still high on him, relative to market value. I think his value took a major hit short-term, but think it will be stable long-term. I'm investing in modern medicine where and when I can. I'll be buying ACL/PCL and ruptured achilles tendons as they happen.

 

[humpback]

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

I just moved Maclin for Crabtree and a 2nd. He sent the initial offer, I played up the injury a bit and got him to include the pick.

Like SSOG, I am still high on him, relative to market value. I think his value took a major hit short-term, but think it will be stable long-term. I'm investing in modern medicine where and when I can. I'll be buying ACL/PCL and ruptured achilles tendons as they happen.

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

 

[Concept Coop]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

 

[Adam Harstad]

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

I've offered my rookie first for him in both of my dynasties where I don't already own him, but I haven't heard back from either owner yet. Honestly, I have him rated higher than Austin, so in theory I'd be willing to trade the 1.01 for him, straight up. In practice, though, I'd try to get him for a lot cheaper, first.

Typically with injured players, you see the value steadily rebounding. If you can take the short-term pain of the value loss for most of this season, anyone who trades for Crabtree should reap a very tidy profit over the next year.

 

[Concept Coop]

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date.

Agree. How can a player's upside be less than something they've done in their only attempt to do so?

 

[squistion]

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

I've offered my rookie first for him in both of my dynasties where I don't already own him, but I haven't heard back from either owner yet. Honestly, I have him rated higher than Austin, so in theory I'd be willing to trade the 1.01 for him, straight up. In practice, though, I'd try to get him for a lot cheaper, first.

Typically with injured players, you see the value steadily rebounding. If you can take the short-term pain of the value loss for most of this season, anyone who trades for Crabtree should reap a very tidy profit over the next year.

Yes, assuming he completely recovers from the Achilles injury, which you seem to think is a non-issue but it is the risk factor that has caused his stock to legitimately drop IMO. You may be right, but I don't agree a torn Achilles is typical football injury and is why I won't buy him unless I can get a steep discount from what you think he is worth.

 

[Concept Coop]

Yes, assuming he completely recovers from the Achilles injury, which you seem to think is a non-issue but it is the risk factor that has caused his stock to legitimately drop IMO. You may be right, but I don't agree a torn Achilles is typical football injury and is why I won't buy him unless I can get a steep discount from what you think he is worth.

But what will he be worth this time next year, before being able to have his stock hampered by performance? Lets say his ADP is the 6th round right now (guess) - what is it this time next year? I'd wager 4th, at least.

 

[squistion]

Yes, assuming he completely recovers from the Achilles injury, which you seem to think is a non-issue but it is the risk factor that has caused his stock to legitimately drop IMO. You may be right, but I don't agree a torn Achilles is typical football injury and is why I won't buy him unless I can get a steep discount from what you think he is worth.

But what will he be worth this time next year, before being able to have his stock hampered by performance? Lets say his ADP is the 6th round right now (guess) - what is it this time next year? I'd wager 4th, at least.

Well, from my standpoint, I don't see that as relevant if he doesn't ever fully recover and I am heavily factoring that into the equation as the risk factor which devalues him IMO.

Players seem to be making complete recoveries from Achilles in recent years, but I have not seen enough data to have the attitude that this is nothing to be concerned about. For Crabs and his owners I hope I am wrong, and if I am, he is currently going at bargain prices.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3

An achilles isn't an ACL/PCL (yet) and Thomas had the advantage of being uber-elite, very young and very explosive.Crabtree's a nice talent, he's in the middle of his peak already and his estimated measurables were fairly pedestrian. So I don't think he has as much room for slippage as Thomas did.Which actually makes him a great test case IMO. If he makes it all the way back I'll worry a lot less about achilles injuries going forward.

 

[MAC_32]

In cases like Crabtree, I hate rankings. Too many team dependent variables.

I'm trying to get Crabtree in the league I own Fitz + Nicks + Wayne + Gordon + V Brown. I have depth, so stashing Crabtree makes sense. In the league I have Andre Johnson + Percy + ...uhhh...Emmanuel Sanders? I'm not going after Crabtree. Many dynasty owners make the mistake of constantly looking too far ahead. By using my resources to acquire Crabtree in league 2 I am basically hitching my wagon to Andre and Percy. They have to stay healthy or I am going to find it very difficult to compete for a title this year.

League 1? Absolutely. Dangle Wayne out there for the Crabtree owner as they need someone right now, slide Gordon or Brown into the 3 in the meantime and have a top 15 player for the future in Crabtree.

 

[humpback]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

 

[Concept Coop]

An achilles isn't an ACL/PCL (yet)

Only due to sample size, though, right? When I look around at other injuries - medicine is improving at a rapid rate. ACL/PCL/Tommy John – not what they used by be; not even close. I am far from a doctor, but I’m willing to gamble and Bay Bay is comforting to me, as an investor.

 

[Concept Coop]

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Certainly. I didn't intend to downplay that. Even if there was a promise of 100%, his value took a major hit for giving a 0 this year. But people are drafting Patterson and Hopkins high, despite the fact that they are likely to give you below baseline totals this coming season. Crabtree is now a 2014+ investment. I just think the discount applied is too steep.

 

[squistion]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming in year one, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

 

[humpback]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

 

[Concept Coop]

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

I agree. I don't think anyone was suggesting it was insignificant.

 

[squistion]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

I agree completely, but Mr. Harstad may not.

 

[Ernol]

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Certainly. I didn't intend to downplay that. Even if there was a promise of 100%, his value took a major hit for giving a 0 this year. But people are drafting Patterson and Hopkins high, despite the fact that they are likely to give you below baseline totals this coming season. Crabtree is now a 2014+ investment. I just think the discount applied is too steep.

When comparing to the rookies, you're also talking about comparing a 27 year old to 22 and 23 year olds in 2014. A different asset class altogether. Taking a zero from a 26 year old in hopes or with the expectation that he'll be solid as a 27 year old is not as enticing to me as taking a zero from a stud rookie in hopes or with the expectation that the rookie will hit it big. If Crabtree is being discounted to the likes of Hopkins/Patterson, I don't think that discount is too steep at all.

So now that the dust has settled on the Crabtree injury a bit and we've had some time to think about it... What's his value?I'm participating in a DLF Startup mock and I had forgotten about him because he's been removed from the ADP list on MFL - and was still able to snag him at the 9/10 turn after WRs like Mike Williams, Kendall Wright and James Jones. Surely this isn't indicative of how people view him now is it? This is a guy that was being taken in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of startup mocks just last month.I own him in one league and was looking to possibly move him since I consider that team a contender, but I couldn't really get anyone to bite although one owner was close to moving Garçon for him but wanted a little extra in return I wasn't willing to give.Anyone seen some trades or been offered some?

I've offered my rookie first for him in both of my dynasties where I don't already own him, but I haven't heard back from either owner yet. Honestly, I have him rated higher than Austin, so in theory I'd be willing to trade the 1.01 for him, straight up. In practice, though, I'd try to get him for a lot cheaper, first.

Typically with injured players, you see the value steadily rebounding. If you can take the short-term pain of the value loss for most of this season, anyone who trades for Crabtree should reap a very tidy profit over the next year.

There is potential for profit at the right price, although if you end up trading the 1.01 for him straight up, I think that is a losing proposition.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

I agree completely, but Mr. Harstad may not.

In a perfect world, if we all had crystal balls, a player would enter a season with a value of "X", would accumulate "Y" value during the season, and would leave the season with a value of "X-Y". In a perfect world, if we all had crystal balls, every player's value would be at its absolute highest before he ever took a single snap, and it would slowly and gently decline over his entire career until he reached the end.

In the real world, we have replaced our crystal balls with a glut of imperfect information and misleading clues. Instead of a player's value slowly declining as he uses it up (as in the perfect world), a player's value can decline for a number of reasons- he might use his value up and age, or he might give us new information that suggests we had him overvalued in the first place. Likewise, his value can actually increase if he gives us new information that suggests we had him undervalued.

As a result, whenever I rank a player, I rank him based on a risk profile. There are plenty of things that a player can do to decrease his value, from age to injury to underperformance. At a certain point of the career arc, though, age is by far the least significant of those things (when weighted against the others). A 26 year old WR is much more likely to lose value because I was wrong in my evaluations of his talent than he is because he aged a year and used up a certain percentage of the allotted value for his career. Given that, if a player is sufficiently young, his age plays very little role in how I value him. If Percy Harvin was a year older or a year younger, it would have basically no impact on how I value him today (even though, theoretically, the difference between N+1 and N-1 represents a potentially huge amount of value over Harvin's career).

So yes, from a high-level theoretical standpoint, it's impossible to say that a player's short term value decreases but his long-term value remains the same. From a dirty, messy, practical standpoint, though, it's a reasonable statement. If I value 27 year old WRs essentially identically to how I value 26 year old WRs, then the fact that Crabtree is going to lose his 26 season doesn't necessarily make a big impact on how I value him long-term.

This isn't to say that Crabtree's injury hasn't caused his value to fall. Obviously there is some time-value to production. I disagree with how large that time-value is, but I don't disagree that it exists. Obviously any injury presents new risks that didn't exist before, risks that the recovery doesn't go as planned, risks that his team's plans change. I think Michael Crabtree post-injury is less valuable than was Michael Crabtree pre-injury. I'm just saying the reason I think he's less valuable has little to do with the fact that he's going to enter his next productive season at age 27 instead of at age 26, as I originally anticipated.

Edit: I think a reasonable analogy is this: imagine that news broke that a player's birth certificate surfaced and a mistake had been made, and the player was actually born exactly one year before everyone originally thought. Imagine nothing else about that player changes. How much does this news cause you to alter your rankings for the player? For a guy like Brady, or Andre Johnson, or Adrian Peterson, this news would cause a definite shift in my rankings. For a guy like A.J. Green, Robert Griffin, or Trent Richardson, this news would cause me to shrug and yawn. In theory, this news means both guys are "losing" a year of their career from what we thought they had left, but if a guy is young enough, that additional year is so distant and uncertain in the first place that it doesn't make any difference to me. That's what I'm getting at when I say the fact that Crabtree will be 27 instead of 26 at the beginning of his next season doesn't really matter to me. I'm happy to downgrade him because of the time-value of the production loss, I'm happy to downgrade him because of the additional uncertainties that his injury raises, but he's so young still that I'm not really worried about him "losing" one year of his remaining career.

 

[Instinctive]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago. For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one. I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

It's pretty insignificant to me. If I don't need him this year, and I can trade other assets that aren't big factors in my chances this year, then it's completely insignificant. If I'm not competing for a title this year, then the fact that he won't give me anything is actually a positive to his value - it lets me "tank without tanking" - i.e. improve my draft position and my team for the future while maintaining my integrity and fielding the best team I can on a weekly basis. I did the same thing with Charles - one league I was a title contender and traded him. I won the title, but still regret moving him. At the same time, I had a poor team where I traded for him, and it was a great decision. Same theory here.

 

[Ernol]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

I tend to associate “long term value” as a player’s value in the future (lets say a year from now), rather than a player’s value today taking into account the future. A subtle distinction, but it does affect my approach in acquiring players.

Rather than coming up with a formula of how much this year is worth relative to all future years, I have moved towards looking at things more from the perspective of always trying to do what I can to continue to grow the value of my teams (which is not how I have always looked at things). Growth will naturally require pain in the short term (usually the current year). If I know that there will be growth a year from now due to recovery from injury or other factors, it becomes more a question of how much pain I can tolerate today for the sake of growth versus how much the short term loss affects his value to me today.

 

[Warrior]

4 mid-round receivers who seem to be underrated (based on the FBG staff rankings):33 Kenny Britt. Before his injury, most people seemed to think he had finally arrived. And with good reason - over the previous 5 games, he'd averaged over 100 yards and 1 TD per game, with 12+ fantasy points in every game (non-ppr). One year out with an ACL injury, and one mediocre season while still recovering, and that Dez Bryant level upside has faded from people's minds. His knucklehead risk and mediocre knee-healing abilities should not drop him this far. 34 Danny Amendola. You can't just assume that he'll come right in and pick up where Welker left off. But >50% chance that he'll at least come close. And Wes Welker has been a consistent 110+ catch guy (1 ACL recovery year excepted), finishing around WR12 (non-ppr) pretty much every season, just like Marques Colston (FBG WR20). Amendola has some injury risk, but so does Colston. 41 Cecil Shorts. He made a ton of big plays last year, at a Victor Cruz level where any individual play might seem fluky, but the fact that he keeps doing it shows that he's a playmaker. Top 10 fantasy receiver over the second half of the season. Some concussion risk, but not enough to put him this low. 42 Michael Floyd. Profiles a lot like DeAndre Hopkins - first round talent, stuck as his team's #2 across from an elite WR, and without an elite passing offense. His situation is slightly worse than Hopkins's in a few ways (Fitz a bit younger than Andre, Schaub a bit better than Palmer), but he also had a better reputation than Hopkins coming into the league. His rookie year wasn't special, but he won a bigger role over the course of the season and was a major part of Arizona's (then woeful, Lindley-led) passing attack by the end of the year and finished with almost as many yards as Kendall Wright. Led the post-bye Cardinals in every receiving category, thanks to a big week 17. Seemed good enough to stay in place in the rankings, especially with the upgrades in Arizona this offseason.

I see the argument for the latter 3...although they are all ranked about where I have them, but Britt? No. With two WR's drafted in the top 40 the last two years it's clear the Titans want to move on from him at season's end. Will a good team take a chance on him in the offseason? Who knows, maybe. He could also have burned so many bridges that he must resort to the dredges of the NFL. No denying the phsyical ability, but in the end he's entering season 5 in the NFL and all he's done is flash potential to this point. if he were legit he likely would have done more than that. Personally, I think 33 is way too high. I understand why he's ranked there, but I wouldn't do it.

Finally, why do you care if he's a moron / criminal / whatever off the field? The NFL certainly doesn't. At all. You can kill someone, deal drugs, do federal time, beat your wife, have an unlicensed gun go off in a nightclub, rape a few women, etc and still find a job in the league if you can play. The list of guys with extensive criminal histories currently in the league is too long to even begin to list. The next player to be black-balled strictly for off field issues will be the first. Ever. The NFL is a business, good players help teams win, and that makes the money for everyone. Period, end of story.

Very short-sighted. Morons/criminals are MUCH MUCH more likely to pi$$ off teammates/coaches (see Titus Young), get arrested and suspended (see Vick, Plaxico, about 300 others) or just miss time in general.

If you ignore this part of the equation, you're not doing it right. You have to lower a player's value a bit based on these factors.

With that said, I don't think Britt is really that bad of an egg.

 

[Warrior]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

So when you have a player get injured or suspended, you just leave him in your lineup every week to give you a goose egg? Because saying you take 1 year out of 10 is saying you're earning 0 points from him that season.

In reality, you replace the player with a free agent, who probably provides you with 3/4 as many points each week.

So 90% in those 9 years, plus about 7.5% (rather than the additional 10%) means you get 97.5% as much production, not 90%.

That 2.5% is now very insignificant.

 

[humpback]

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

I agree. I don't think anyone was suggesting it was insignificant.

Several posters certainly seem to be.

 

[humpback]

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

It's pretty insignificant to me. If I don't need him this year, and I can trade other assets that aren't big factors in my chances this year, then it's completely insignificant. If I'm not competing for a title this year, then the fact that he won't give me anything is actually a positive to his value - it lets me "tank without tanking" - i.e. improve my draft position and my team for the future while maintaining my integrity and fielding the best team I can on a weekly basis. I did the same thing with Charles - one league I was a title contender and traded him. I won the title, but still regret moving him. At the same time, I had a poor team where I traded for him, and it was a great decision. Same theory here.

Okay, but what if you do need him this year?

Sorry, but without even knowing what you traded Charles for, the fact that you won the title means that I'd have a hard time regretting the trade. Regardless, the theory doesn't really hold water, because I'm sure you are talking about either trading him away or trading for him at a reduced value. I have no problems trading for Crabtree at a reduced value, my dispute is with people saying his long term value is the same as it was before.

 

[Ernol]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

So when you have a player get injured or suspended, you just leave him in your lineup every week to give you a goose egg? Because saying you take 1 year out of 10 is saying you're earning 0 points from him that season.

In reality, you replace the player with a free agent, who probably provides you with 3/4 as many points each week.

So 90% in those 9 years, plus about 7.5% (rather than the additional 10%) means you get 97.5% as much production, not 90%.

That 2.5% is now very insignificant.

Then again, from that view, you could lose a player for his entire 10 year career and still only suffer a 25% loss in value.

 

[humpback]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

So when you have a player get injured or suspended, you just leave him in your lineup every week to give you a goose egg? Because saying you take 1 year out of 10 is saying you're earning 0 points from him that season.

In reality, you replace the player with a free agent, who probably provides you with 3/4 as many points each week.

So 90% in those 9 years, plus about 7.5% (rather than the additional 10%) means you get 97.5% as much production, not 90%.

That 2.5% is now very insignificant.

Of course not, but what does that have to do with Crabtree's value now vs. pre-injury? Simply put, a player projected to play for N seasons is worth more than the same player projected to play for N-1 seasons. For most reasonable fantasy projections, I'd argue the difference isn't insignificant.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

4 mid-round receivers who seem to be underrated (based on the FBG staff rankings:33 Kenny Britt. Before his injury, most people seemed to think he had finally arrived. And with good reason - over the previous 5 games, he'd averaged over 100 yards and 1 TD per game, with 12+ fantasy points in every game (non-ppr). One year out with an ACL injury, and one mediocre season while still recovering, and that Dez Bryant level upside has faded from people's minds. His knucklehead risk and mediocre knee-healing abilities should not drop him this far. 34 Danny Amendola. You can't just assume that he'll come right in and pick up where Welker left off. But >50% chance that he'll at least come close. And Wes Welker has been a consistent 110+ catch guy (1 ACL recovery year excepted), finishing around WR12 (non-ppr) pretty much every season, just like Marques Colston (FBG WR20). Amendola has some injury risk, but so does Colston. 41 Cecil Shorts. He made a ton of big plays last year, at a Victor Cruz level where any individual play might seem fluky, but the fact that he keeps doing it shows that he's a playmaker. Top 10 fantasy receiver over the second half of the season. Some concussion risk, but not enough to put him this low. 42 Michael Floyd. Profiles a lot like DeAndre Hopkins - first round talent, stuck as his team's #2 across from an elite WR, and without an elite passing offense. His situation is slightly worse than Hopkins's in a few ways (Fitz a bit younger than Andre, Schaub a bit better than Palmer), but he also had a better reputation than Hopkins coming into the league. His rookie year wasn't special, but he won a bigger role over the course of the season and was a major part of Arizona's (then woeful, Lindley-led) passing attack by the end of the year and finished with almost as many yards as Kendall Wright. Led the post-bye Cardinals in every receiving category, thanks to a big week 17. Seemed good enough to stay in place in the rankings, especially with the upgrades in Arizona this offseason.

I see the argument for the latter 3...although they are all ranked about where I have them, but Britt? No. With two WR's drafted in the top 40 the last two years it's clear the Titans want to move on from him at season's end. Will a good team take a chance on him in the offseason? Who knows, maybe. He could also have burned so many bridges that he must resort to the dredges of the NFL. No denying the phsyical ability, but in the end he's entering season 5 in the NFL and all he's done is flash potential to this point. if he were legit he likely would have done more than that. Personally, I think 33 is way too high. I understand why he's ranked there, but I wouldn't do it.

Finally, why do you care if he's a moron / criminal / whatever off the field? The NFL certainly doesn't. At all. You can kill someone, deal drugs, do federal time, beat your wife, have an unlicensed gun go off in a nightclub, rape a few women, etc and still find a job in the league if you can play. The list of guys with extensive criminal histories currently in the league is too long to even begin to list. The next player to be black-balled strictly for off field issues will be the first. Ever. The NFL is a business, good players help teams win, and that makes the money for everyone. Period, end of story.

Very short-sighted. Morons/criminals are MUCH MUCH more likely to pi$$ off teammates/coaches (see Titus Young), get arrested and suspended (see Vick, Plaxico, about 300 others) or just miss time in general.If you ignore this part of the equation, you're not doing it right. You have to lower a player's value a bit based on these factors.With that said, I don't think Britt is really that bad of an egg.

The massive discount applied for character concerns by many / most owners is what is short-sighted. Games actually missed while suspended or in prison is going to represent a tiny fraction of any players career, even the most outrageous. I've bought Brandon Marshall, TO, Moss, Vick, Jamal Lewis, Lynch, Roethlisberger, etc for pennies over the years and across different leagues immediately following various incidents. It's no different than buying on an injury -- you go in knowing the guy might / will miss a few games and plan accordingly.In Britt's case, he has WR1 ability which he's proven on the field over a two year span. A bunch of knowledgeable posters here are calling him over-valued at his current borderline WR3/WR4 ranking. He's been fairly outrageous off the field, yet how many games has he actually missed due to suspension? How many has Brandon Marshall missed while suspended vs how many has he played in? What percentage of a career do those games represent, and how much discounting is appropriate? And these are guys who have been in the headlines for the wrong reasons probably a dozen times each...

 

[Instinctive]

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

It's pretty insignificant to me. If I don't need him this year, and I can trade other assets that aren't big factors in my chances this year, then it's completely insignificant. If I'm not competing for a title this year, then the fact that he won't give me anything is actually a positive to his value - it lets me "tank without tanking" - i.e. improve my draft position and my team for the future while maintaining my integrity and fielding the best team I can on a weekly basis. I did the same thing with Charles - one league I was a title contender and traded him. I won the title, but still regret moving him. At the same time, I had a poor team where I traded for him, and it was a great decision. Same theory here.

Okay, but what if you do need him this year?

Sorry, but without even knowing what you traded Charles for, the fact that you won the title means that I'd have a hard time regretting the trade. Regardless, the theory doesn't really hold water, because I'm sure you are talking about either trading him away or trading for him at a reduced value. I have no problems trading for Crabtree at a reduced value, my dispute is with people saying his long term value is the same as it was before.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Losing his production this year impacts his value in an insignificant way to me, adjusting of course for team situation.

And the pieces I traded Charles for, in my example, didn't end up contributing to the title - so I absolutely regret moving him.

And the theory absolutely holds water - because the whole point is that his price tag is reduced, and you should trade for him because it is being wrongly reduced. Allowing for a situation in which my team is going for broke and I'm going to have to rebuild in a year or two in a major way, but I think I can win a title (God I hope I manage not to be in that situation), then I want to trade for Crabtree.

His not producing this year has no impact on his value to me. It's no different than trading for a future rookie first round pick, IMO. He's just another depth investment, except I already know he can put up WR1 numbers, I believe the market still far undervalues injured players and has yet to adjust to medical advances, and he'll be fine.

And if he's fine, then I get 2014-end of career, which in the long run, is really the same as 2013-end of career production in my mind. Any one year is not a major portion of a player's value to me. My valuation of a guy like Rodgers, for instance, has been exactly the same for about 3 years now. It would take the same amount today to get him from me as it would have taken two or three years ago. Isn't that the definition of one year being insignificant? It's passage has no effect...seems pretty insignificant to me.

 

[Instinctive]

Stable from where it was, or stable from here?

Stable from where it was. Like Peterson, Charles, Thomas, RG3 - naive or foolish, maybe - but I'm expecting guys to bounce back faster than expected and very close to 100% of what they were pre-injury. Even Tommy John isn't what it was a decade ago.

For the record, I am not a Crabtree guy. Didn't have him on a single roster pre-injury. But after the injury, I really like his new pricetag.

Even if he comes back to 100%, his value has to be lower than it was because you know you are getting a zero for the majority of a season, most likely an entire one.

I bring it up because people have said this a lot lately- "his short term value drops but long term stays the same". That doesn't add up to me, since long term value incorporates short term value. Take a season away from anyone and their long-term value has to drop some.

Yes, but it depends on the time line dynasty strategy you have. I use a 2-3 year window with 50% of value the coming year, so from my perspective, this injury (even if he fully recovers) is still a big hit on his value. Someone like Adam/SSOG looks to a much longer time line, up to 10 years (from past comments he has made) so the loss of the coming season detracts little from Crabtree's perceived value.

I get that, but even if you look out 10 years, and weigh each year equally (which would be ridiculous IMO), taking 1 year away would mean he's only 90% as valuable. That's not insignificant.

So when you have a player get injured or suspended, you just leave him in your lineup every week to give you a goose egg? Because saying you take 1 year out of 10 is saying you're earning 0 points from him that season.

In reality, you replace the player with a free agent, who probably provides you with 3/4 as many points each week.

So 90% in those 9 years, plus about 7.5% (rather than the additional 10%) means you get 97.5% as much production, not 90%.

That 2.5% is now very insignificant.

Of course not, but what does that have to do with Crabtree's value now vs. pre-injury? Simply put, a player projected to play for N seasons is worth more than the same player projected to play for N-1 seasons. For most reasonable fantasy projections, I'd argue the difference isn't insignificant.

I would argue that this is patently false. If I know right now that I can have QB1 for 10 years or for 9 years, there's really no difference to me. I look at years remaining in three ways:

1. Close enough to the end of a career that I need to plan to replace him - e.g. Peyton Manning

2. Not going to be done soon, but not going to improve a ton either - e.g. Calvin Johnson

3. Very young, still bust risk and also still has upside to improve - e.g. Lamar Miller

Crabtree falls into #2 for me. His value doesn't really change for another 3 years or so, IMO. Trying to account for a player's total career value from the get-go is a losing proposition - breaking it into a couple simple categories makes valuation much less prone to errors in judgment on an individual player.

 

[Instinctive]

The massive discount applied for character concerns by many / most owners is what is short-sighted. Games actually missed while suspended or in prison is going to represent a tiny fraction of any players career, even the most outrageous. I've bought Brandon Marshall, TO, Moss, Vick, Jamal Lewis, Lynch, Roethlisberger, etc for pennies over the years and across different leagues immediately following various incidents. It's no different than buying on an injury -- you go in knowing the guy might / will miss a few games and plan accordingly.In Britt's case, he has WR1 ability which he's proven on the field over a two year span. A bunch of knowledgeable posters here are calling him over-valued at his current borderline WR3/WR4 ranking. He's been fairly outrageous off the field, yet how many games has he actually missed due to suspension? How many has Brandon Marshall missed while suspended vs how many has he played in? What percentage of a career do those games represent, and how much discounting is appropriate? And these are guys who have been in the headlines for the wrong reasons probably a dozen times each...

Absolutely agree here - this is another market inefficiency. How many of these knucklehead players that people love to discount actually end up necessitating that discount?Vick is the only one I can think of, and trading for and holding him through all the troubles absolutely paid off for people, didn't it?

 

[Ernol]

Bottomline, to me, is this:

Crabtree’s production value today has gone down by virtue of him not having any production in 2013 (plus the additional risk involved when he does return). With it, his trade value must also decrease.

He has switched asset classes from one that is currently productive (what he was) to a somewhat speculative future asset (what he will be). His trade value today is X. His value next year will increase to Y, so he is an appreciating asset (which is normally a desirable one for me). The expected appreciation is more important for me to determine than whether value X is over or under compensating for the injury (or whether it should compensate for the injury at all based on some posts).

In trading for Crabreee, its about (i) how much appreciation in Crabtree I can expect to achieve over time given the circumstances (including risk), (ii) whether I can afford the pain of the loss of production and (iii) whether I can get the same or better appreciation from another asset (such as a future 1st rounder or Deandre Hopkins) or an undervalued vet.

 

[humpback]

Okay, but what if you do need him this year?

Sorry, but without even knowing what you traded Charles for, the fact that you won the title means that I'd have a hard time regretting the trade. Regardless, the theory doesn't really hold water, because I'm sure you are talking about either trading him away or trading for him at a reduced value. I have no problems trading for Crabtree at a reduced value, my dispute is with people saying his long term value is the same as it was before.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Losing his production this year impacts his value in an insignificant way to me, adjusting of course for team situation.

And the pieces I traded Charles for, in my example, didn't end up contributing to the title - so I absolutely regret moving him.

And the theory absolutely holds water - because the whole point is that his price tag is reduced, and you should trade for him because it is being wrongly reduced. Allowing for a situation in which my team is going for broke and I'm going to have to rebuild in a year or two in a major way, but I think I can win a title (God I hope I manage not to be in that situation), then I want to trade for Crabtree.

His not producing this year has no impact on his value to me. It's no different than trading for a future rookie first round pick, IMO. He's just another depth investment, except I already know he can put up WR1 numbers, I believe the market still far undervalues injured players and has yet to adjust to medical advances, and he'll be fine.

And if he's fine, then I get 2014-end of career, which in the long run, is really the same as 2013-end of career production in my mind. Any one year is not a major portion of a player's value to me. My valuation of a guy like Rodgers, for instance, has been exactly the same for about 3 years now. It would take the same amount today to get him from me as it would have taken two or three years ago. Isn't that the definition of one year being insignificant? It's passage has no effect...seems pretty insignificant to me.

How can you say it's insignificant for you, but then say "adjusting of course for team situation"? So basically, it may or may not be insignificant.

No, the theory doesn't hold water. You are saying he has the same value as before, which is nonsense. People are saying his value has been reduced more than in should be, but you are the only one who seems to think it shouldn't be reduced at all.

Of course not, but what does that have to do with Crabtree's value now vs. pre-injury? Simply put, a player projected to play for N seasons is worth more than the same player projected to play for N-1 seasons. For most reasonable fantasy projections, I'd argue the difference isn't insignificant.

I would argue that this is patently false. If I know right now that I can have QB1 for 10 years or for 9 years, there's really no difference to me. I look at years remaining in three ways:

1. Close enough to the end of a career that I need to plan to replace him - e.g. Peyton Manning

2. Not going to be done soon, but not going to improve a ton either - e.g. Calvin Johnson

3. Very young, still bust risk and also still has upside to improve - e.g. Lamar Miller

Crabtree falls into #2 for me. His value doesn't really change for another 3 years or so, IMO. Trying to account for a player's total career value from the get-go is a losing proposition - breaking it into a couple simple categories makes valuation much less prone to errors in judgment on an individual player.

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. It's simple math.