Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It wouldn't be a better context in a vacuum. But it wouldn't be a worse context, either. The context you used - draft position - is deeply flawed if you choose to use it in a vacuum. That doesn't mean it's not useful to look at either, but it's fundamentally wrong to look at just one or the other.
I don't want a top ten WR. I already have eleven of them. And so does everybody else. Seriously, which of these guys is NOT a potential top ten WR in your mind?AJ Green
Now you are throwing "potential" in the discussion. Watkins is MUCH more likely to become a top ten player at his position than Sankey.
Antonio Bryant.
Good post Adam. And you're absolutely right that taking a non-elite talent at running back is a risky move. I want to be clear that I'm not strictly advocating taking Sankey over Watkins. I'm just saying that it's not as much of a slam dunk as people seem to think. Sankey "should" be successful based on his ability and that O line. And that "should" lead to him having career longevity. The Titans thought he was good enough to take him over any other running back in this class, but that might not be saying much. But when you look at mid round talents like Rice and McCoy, they weren't considered elite prospects, they were a little undersized, and they were put in good situations where they could succeed, that seems to be the model we're looking for. It doesn't mean it has a high success rate, but the truth of the matter is that good guys in good situations are rare and expensive commodities in fantasy football right now.
I don't think it's any more unfairly restrictive a selection criteria than "running backs selected between the 49th and 59th picks". And I happen to think it's more relevant, even though there are some guys who have succeeded in the conditions I've discussed.
Hey baby face - what if my team is STACKED with WRs? Should I still go and draft for the long-term just because a WRs career is longer?? What if I already have 4 good WRs? Should I still blindly take Sammy or Evans above Sankey???
Yeah, I pick at #3 in my rookie draft and am already scratching my head. Cooks, Sankey and Ebron are all looking pretty good.
I think you are skewing the results to your favor. How about running it using the first RB selected in the draft instead of draft position.
Tell that to depressed Zac Stacy owners.bostonfred said:
bostonfred said:
This is my world too!!!
This is the same position I'm in and how I feel as well.
I really agree with this when you're evaluating Sankey relative to other RBs. But we're not comparing Sankey to other RBs here. We're comparing him to top-10 WRs, to a stellar receiving TE in a high-octane offense, to a first round receiver playing in a dome with a HoF quarterback. Your arguments are a great reason to take Sankey over, say, Zac Stacy. They're not a great reason to take him over a half-dozen other rookies this year, though.bostonfred said:
Elite WRs have a much higher payoff in PPR dynasty leagues than elite RBs.
Even with the shortage of RB's that we are seeing right now and the advantage you get from starting 3 RB instead of 3 WR?
. What is that payoff statement based on, not arguing just curious.Is it possible that the longevity of WR's in dynasty, the increase in number of high scoring WR's and the lack of longevity and additional uncertainty with RB's works against WR's in terms of value? Think of the extreme example, QB's. I've got Luck, I'm not thinking about QB for the next 10 years. I've got AJG and Antonio Brown in a start 3 WR....i can rotate some random Waiver wire gem in the 3rd spot and have a few up and comers like Marvin Jones or a guy like Edelman last year and be good for the next 5yrs.
Your position makes sense if you don't have to start running backs. If you have to start running backs, then eventually you're going to need a good one. And the opportunity to draft a good one this year seems somewhat limited. Sankey has a clear path to FF performance. Hyde might have one later. Hill might never have one. After that, it gets even dicier. If you're in a QRWWFFT, PPR league, that's a lot different than my QRWWFT non-PPR league. And as I've said repeatedly, Watkins makes sense in formats like that. In fact, Watkins makes sense in a lot of formats. But it's not as much of a slam dunk as people are saying. Even if you're not high on Sankey's talent.
Yes. PPR scoring was introduced because the single-season value of RBs was way higher than the single-season value of WRs. PPR was intended to put RBs and WRs on a more even playing field on a year-to-year basis. Since WRs have longer careers, if they're roughly equal on a year-to-year basis, that means they're more valuable on a career-long basis.
I definitely wrote my first post assuming ppr. In non-ppr and depending on lineup requirements I think things do get more interesting. I am very high on Watkins and almost as high on Evans. I see them as different calculations in non-ppr though; I think Watkins could be really productive in catches and yardage but he may score single-digit TDs most seasons (basically, I see an Andre Johnson model of production for Watkins). Evans has potential for double-digit TDs perhaps, plus good yardage, but maybe less catches? Obviously I'm just projecting here.
I have the 1.01 (earned the hard way) in non-ppr. I'm going with the WR, even though RB is a far greater need. By all accounts the RBs in next years draft figure to be much more talented, and at least 1 or 2 of my three 2015 1st rounders project to be early picks.
You don't NEED a good RB any more than you NEED a good TE or a good QB to win it all. All you NEED is for your entire starting lineup to outscore the other guy's. You can do that by having a balanced advantage across every position, or you can do that by having an absolutely dominant WR corps that carries the rest of your team. The guy who won one of my leagues started Pierre Garcon, James Jones, and Marlon Brown for most of the season. You could say that he NEEDED one of those elite dynasty receivers we keep saying there are so many of, but in fact, he didn't. All he needed was a team that scored more points than the other guy's team. Chad Parsons won one of our staff redraft teams starting Knowshon Moreno and Bobby Rainey. Did he need an elite RB? Obviously not.
There is not a scoring system on the planet where I would take an RB drafted 54th overall over a WR drafted 4th overall. Even in a league that only started 2 WRs and gave bonus points for last names that ended in "ankey", I'd still probably go with Watkins.
I respect your viewpoint if you feel Sankey could be good and Tennessee is a good situation. But. It's anybody's guess how good Tenn will be. Locker is on his last year. If Manning plays 2 more years (and why wouldn't he) that is a significant lifespan for any RB. I am willing to risk Y3 (or exit Y3 for a pick to get another 2nd round RB) especially when we don't know what Y1, Y2, or Y3 for Sankey will look like.bostonfred said:
Disagree with your read of Buffalo. Spiller/FJax isn't as attractive cause we can't trust Spiller and he turns 27 in a couple months. If I'm a "only have Pierre" guy, I would still find the situation more appealing than Tennesse, but I'm an admitted Spiller lifer. Also, if you got the pair (or trio) and can flex RB, it would let you start multiple.bostonfred said:
I don't know how you could take the Sankey side and make a statement like this. IMO Bell > Sankey and Pitt > Tenn. At best Sankey is a situation play equivalent to Bell.bostonfred said:
Tennessee will draft or sign a RB next year to be a threat or compliment no less significant than Mason is today. There are too few quality RBs on the roster for that not to happen.bostonfred said:
I think there's a lot of reason for the Lynch/Michael owner to sell. Keep in mind what happened to Lattimore owners this weekend.bostonfred said:
Everyone is so caught up in the new waive of WRs that they are underestimating how awful the RB and TE might turn out. I have yet to bother to do rankings yet, but I'm sure I'll take into account suppy and demand for every position like you guys are. We all agree that this is a deep WR class, yet every one seems to think Wakins is the only one has near top-tier potential. That doesn't seem consistent after plenty of these receivers in the "deepest class ever" landed in equal-better situations. Situation changes everything for me with this class. I don't get the feeling that it's '07 with Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson when you have me decide between Bishop Sankey and Sammy Watkins. I'm sorry. It doesn't feel like the Luck, RG3, Martin, Richardson, Kuechly year either. There isn't a hands down 1.1, just a bunch of players that belong in the discussion. I don't see either Watkins or Sankey being a flat out bust. The risk with both to me is that they could just be 'good'. How excited would you be if Watkins was just Torrey Smith + better hands over time? or if Tenn signs some cheap FA next year?
I was wondering were there guys around here that look at FF in terms of finance. Is this just intuitive or are you actually formulaic with this?
Not formulaic no, I don't have the patience (or skill) for that - and as implied further down in the post the 'discount' rate is going to be very difficult to get a handle on I think - so I do a completely subjective analysis, trying to 'moneyball' my way to a better result. I think it has improved my results in the league I am refering to but I ama much worse game manager than general manager so my teams generally suffer from too many points on the bench
Don't put too much stock into teams having passed on sankey, the position itself is devalued in the NFL yet is still key every year in ff (some leagues anyway).
Amen Brutha Fred!Your analysis is spot on and you hit everything right on the head.
Very good posting. Thank you for this. As a 1.1 owner, pre-draft I was 100% in the Watkins camp. The Sankey situation had me rethinking a bit, but this post brought me back to earth.Adam Harstad said:
