Dynasty Rankings (2 Viewers)

[EBF]

And are we really questioning Jahvid Best's speed? Come on, people. That's like questioning whether Yao Ming is tall.

Best ran track as well, participating in the Arcadia Invitational in his junior and senior years. As a junior, he won the 100 meter dash with a time of 10.39 seconds with an injured foot. As a senior he won the 200 meter dash with a time of 21.40 seconds. Also during his senior year, Best won the California Interscholastic Federation state championship in the 100 meters with a discounted wind assisted time of 10.31. Best finished his senior season with personal bests of 10.36 and 20.65, the 5th and 2nd fastest times in the nation respectively. His 100 metre time equals the personal best of Justin Gatlin as a high school senior; both times eclipse Tyson Gay's personal bests as a high school senior.

He was 100m state champion in California, the most populous state in the country. He ran 4.35 at the combine. I don't know what more you could hope for.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

Let's say that you have the 1.03 and Bryant/Spiller are the first two picks: If you think Best is the better talent, but viewed Matthews as the safer pick, then you're saying you'd take Matthews? I know you're probably not picking in the top 3 very often, and lord knows we all know you do homework, so I guess it just surprises me that you would go the safe route. Of course, if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.

I don't draft based solely on upside or the player's likelihood to bust. You have to weigh both variables and make an educated guess. If I think Mathews is an 80% chance to become Rashard Mendenhall and Spiller is a 50% chance to become Chris Johnson, I think the equation favors the "safer" pick. When two players have comparable upside, I'll go with the safer talent. I don't think Spiller's ceiling is significantly higher than Mathews' and I think he's more likely to bust/disappoint. Hence he is lower in my rankings. If I viewed Best as the better talent, I would rank him ahead of Mathews (which I don't). Mathews is the only surefire franchise back in this draft. Best and Spiller lack prototypical size. Gerhart, Tate, and Hardesty lack first round ability.

I rank them:

1. Mathews

2. Best

3. Spiller

In PPR leagues, the gap between Mathews and the other two is smaller (almost to the point where I like Best as much as Mathews). I don't view Mathews as a superstar talent. I do view him as a slam dunk lock for 250-300 carries and a top 15 finish if healthy. That makes him one of the most valuable commodities in this rookie class. As much as I like Dez Bryant (I think he's the only bulletproof elite talent in the draft), I don't expect him to help FF teams as much in 2010 as Mathews.

Mathews is probably the only rookie in this class who's obviously an instant plug-and-play starter for every FF team in every format. That doesn't mean 2-3 years down the road (or even 5-6 months from now) he will look like the best pick. In fact, it's pretty likely that a couple of the lesser heralded guys will become better pro players. But if you want to talk about the value of these rookie RBs right this moment, I would say he's the safest investment. The only thing that worries me with him is durability.

Thanks for the response. I do play in PPR leagues for the record. I think you factor in risk and measurables a lot more than I do. We're discussing 1st round picks, so I guess I'll trust my gut. I'm not going to argue with anything in your response except the comment about "prototypical size." There are too many RB's in the 200 to 205 range (yes I know, Best is 199 and Spiller is 196) who have had very successful careers. For the same reason, I've went way from only drafting the 6'3" 225 lbs WRs. There are just too many 5'10 195 lb WRs who have had great NFL careers. Unless we're discussing a drastic size difference, like say, Darren Sproles as a 175 lb RB, then I really don't even factor in size. I also have went away from factoring in injuries for the most part. The NFL is a violent sport.

Again, thanks EBF. I honestly look forward to your evaluations of college talent more than any other poster on this board. Even if I disagree with you, I usually either learn something, or take something into consideration.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

And are we really questioning Jahvid Best's speed? Come on, people. That's like questioning whether Yao Ming is tall.

Best ran track as well, participating in the Arcadia Invitational in his junior and senior years. As a junior, he won the 100 meter dash with a time of 10.39 seconds with an injured foot. As a senior he won the 200 meter dash with a time of 21.40 seconds. Also during his senior year, Best won the California Interscholastic Federation state championship in the 100 meters with a discounted wind assisted time of 10.31. Best finished his senior season with personal bests of 10.36 and 20.65, the 5th and 2nd fastest times in the nation respectively. His 100 metre time equals the personal best of Justin Gatlin as a high school senior; both times eclipse Tyson Gay's personal bests as a high school senior.

He was 100m state champion in California, the most populous state in the country. He ran 4.35 at the combine. I don't know what more you could hope for.

Agreed. The whole speed debate between Spiller and Best is irrelevant IMO. Both have speed to burn.

 

[Jail]

All this talk between Spiller and Best has been great! You guys are making me feel better about picking from the 4 spot.

I've been hoping for Best at the #4, but one thing that I do like about Spiller is that with the Cowboys leaking their draftboard we know that 2 teams viewed Spiller as a top 9 talent. That means something to me.

 

[Tau837]

Someone posted a Sports Science link that shows Best running through several cuts while measuring his acceleration, force of his cuts, etc. I don't know for sure how it compares to other RBs, but after watching the video, I came away impressed with his acceleration and cutting ability. Certainly there was no "struggling not to fall over". I think EBF is spot on in calling him fluid.

I can't comment on the arm tackles, but in the limited highlights I've seen I haven't seen that. Of course, one wouldn't expect to see that in highlights...

Look at this Sports Science Video:

As I thought. gheemony's post was talking about the linked video, in which Best was in pads and carrying the ball. Best ran 4.35 at the combine; Spiller ran 4.37 officially, but above there is mention of it being revised to 4.27 or 4.28. Regardless, I'm pretty sure Spiller's top speed isn't 30% faster than Best's.

 

[Tau837]

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

With regard to A), I have the impression that these sports science videos tend to focus on player strengths. Given that they discuss acceleration and cutting ability, I think the implication is that these are strengths for Best. Unsurprisingly, if you Google his draft profiles, you find assessments that he has great acceleration, quickness, and cutting ability, with specific mention of his stop-start cuts (as a positive). I guess we will have to agree to disagree over his acceleration and cutting ability.

 

[Hoot&HoLLer]

Steelers rookie rb Jonathan Dwyer looking good in OTA's per Steelers beat writer Ed Bouchette.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10145/1060652-66.stm

 

[FreeBaGeL]

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

With regard to A), I have the impression that these sports science videos tend to focus on player strengths. Given that they discuss acceleration and cutting ability, I think the implication is that these are strengths for Best. Unsurprisingly, if you Google his draft profiles, you find assessments that he has great acceleration, quickness, and cutting ability, with specific mention of his stop-start cuts (as a positive). I guess we will have to agree to disagree over his acceleration and cutting ability.

Yet in the sports science video for Matthews, the only comparable measurements they have (acceleration) aren't even really comparable. As I posted before, Matthews blows him away in that test to the point where it's like comparing a guy who ran a 4.27 40 to a guy who ran a 4.7 40. So what do these tests really show us at all?

 

[doowain]

I'm surprised that people are so down on Mathews. I think he's an easy choice as the RB1 in most formats, not because he's the best talent with the most upside, but because he's the least likely to disappoint and the most likely to become an instant starter (especially in non-PPR). The comparisons to Forte and Moreno are very pessimistic. Unlike Forte, Mathews was a top 15 pick, suggesting that at least one NFL team viewed him as an elite talent (and the fact that they traded up to get him means they didn't think he would fall much further). I think his speed is comparable to Forte's. Good, but not amazing. What sets him apart is actually his initial burst and power. He trumps Forte in the vertical jump and broad jump. Perhaps more significantly, he's the same weight despite being two inches shorter. As for Moreno, he's similar to Mathews in the sense that both were top 15 picks, but he's different in the sense that he lacks the conventional athleticism of a first round RB prospect. He's very slow for his weight. He didn't put up particularly impressive numbers in the combine drills that I emphasize. He's a college overachiever who lacks the special physical traits to stand out in the NFL. I would actually argue that he's a worst case scenario for Mathews. If anything, this just illustrates why Mathews is such a solid pick because Moreno had a pretty poor rookie year and yet his trade value has only dipped very slightly. I recommend Mathews over Best/Spiller/Tate/Hardesty for the same reason that I recommended Mendenhall over McFadden/Felix/CJ/Rice/Charles. A 220+ pound workhorse back with 4.4 speed, a first round pedigree, great production, and an ideal NFL situation is highly unlikely to bust. Some of the other backs in this draft might have more upside, but none of them represent such a no-brainer lock for good-to-great production. Unless he gets injured, Mathews will most likely finish as a top 15 RB this season and maintain elite trade value over the next 12 months. You can't ask for much more than that from a rookie pick.

Considering he's going at 1.01 or 1.02 in nearly every draft, how is everyone "so down on Mathews"?

 

[kremenull]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

Let's say that you have the 1.03 and Bryant/Spiller are the first two picks: If you think Best is the better talent, but viewed Matthews as the safer pick, then you're saying you'd take Matthews? I know you're probably not picking in the top 3 very often, and lord knows we all know you do homework, so I guess it just surprises me that you would go the safe route. Of course, if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.

I don't draft based solely on upside or the player's likelihood to bust. You have to weigh both variables and make an educated guess. If I think Mathews is an 80% chance to become Rashard Mendenhall and Spiller is a 50% chance to become Chris Johnson, I think the equation favors the "safer" pick. When two players have comparable upside, I'll go with the safer talent. I don't think Spiller's ceiling is significantly higher than Mathews' and I think he's more likely to bust/disappoint. Hence he is lower in my rankings. If I viewed Best as the better talent, I would rank him ahead of Mathews (which I don't). Mathews is the only surefire franchise back in this draft. Best and Spiller lack prototypical size. Gerhart, Tate, and Hardesty lack first round ability.

I rank them:

1. Mathews

2. Best

3. Spiller

In PPR leagues, the gap between Mathews and the other two is smaller (almost to the point where I like Best as much as Mathews). I don't view Mathews as a superstar talent. I do view him as a slam dunk lock for 250-300 carries and a top 15 finish if healthy. That makes him one of the most valuable commodities in this rookie class. As much as I like Dez Bryant (I think he's the only bulletproof elite talent in the draft), I don't expect him to help FF teams as much in 2010 as Mathews.

Mathews is probably the only rookie in this class who's obviously an instant plug-and-play starter for every FF team in every format. That doesn't mean 2-3 years down the road (or even 5-6 months from now) he will look like the best pick. In fact, it's pretty likely that a couple of the lesser heralded guys will become better pro players. But if you want to talk about the value of these rookie RBs right this moment, I would say he's the safest investment. The only thing that worries me with him is durability.

Its about time for people to take note of what is already occurring in Buffalo. When word came out of Dallas that Dez Bryant was tearing it up already, people were taken with that bit of news and ready to annoint Bryant as King of the NFL. Not a problem, per se, esp given that he has elite talent.OK! So here is the deal. Word is that Spiller has been nothing short of sensational, electrifying in everything (running, receiving, etc.) he does. And this is coming from the defenders who have to go against this guy. This kid also does possess elite talent, yet folks want to skip over his OTA hype. I understand its Buffalo vs Dallas and the media attn is much different in comparison, but as fantasy geeks, guys better take note. Spiller is "The Goods", slam-dunk Superstar.

But don't believe me, js continue to stay on the sidelines and miss out.........

 

[Lash]

does an NFL team trading up seem to add anything to anyone's dynasty rankings for rookies?

i tend to put maybe TOO much on that one small part of a player's pedigree, but in my mind there are two reasons to trade up:

1) you are desperate for that position

2) you like the player and have heard through the grapevine that teams ahead of you also like that player

i like reason #2 better obviously and especially in 1st/2nd rd and especially if the cost to move up was significant because it lends itself to the potential fact that more than one team had the player graded out highly and is less likely to bust because more than one decision maker liking a player is better than just one

I do. It is part of what makes me think that Tebow even has a shot--whereas I didn't think he had much of a chance of being a good NFl player at all. I think it is something to look at with the Vikings and Gerhart too--giving up a third round pick to trade up and get him is a lot of value. What I don't know and what would be interesting to see is if players where the teams does trade up to get him have a better track record of success than other players picked in a comparable place in draft without the trade up? That would be interesting.

Homerism aside, one of the reasons why Hardesty moved up in my rankings was because once Tate went off the board, Holmgren was immediately getting on the phone and moving up to get Hardesty. If I'm undecided between a few players, then I normally put my trust in the guys who are getting paid to make these picks. I don't like Spiller, but if I'm stuck with the 1.04 and Matthews, Bryant, and Best are off the board, then I'm still taking Spiller. Tate and Hardesty were 2nd round picks. That's not to say that either player won't be successful, but Spiller was a consensus 1st round pick. That's a significant gap IMO, and I have to set my ego aside and trust that these guys know a bit more than me.

aye, but that's getting closer to #1 reason to trade up - desperation, which is along the line of thinking of filling a need with the last guy in a tier like us redraft fantasy guys draft

i'd rather it be that Holmgren traded up because he was in love with Hardesty and knew that NYJ or NE was high on him and ahead of them in draft order (i've heard that reason also)

Edit: I had a comment, but after reading your post again, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I said that "if I'm stuck" with the 1.04 that I'd still take Spiller because IMO, there's a huge difference in a consensus 1st round pick and a middle to late 2nd round pick. In the 2nd tier, I like Hardesty. Holmgren moving up to take him made me take a 2nd look.

wasn't disagreeing with you and wasn't really referencing any certain player in my initial postwas just wondering how people viewed trade-ups as part of a guy's pedigree, and when you referenced your comment, i bolded the part that got me worried that it was a "desperation" tradeup for a position and maybe notsomuch a trade up because they were in love with a player and knew others were too, especially as it seems to imply they wouldve been fine with Tate also

 

[Glaven]

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

With regard to A), I have the impression that these sports science videos tend to focus on player strengths. Given that they discuss acceleration and cutting ability, I think the implication is that these are strengths for Best. Unsurprisingly, if you Google his draft profiles, you find assessments that he has great acceleration, quickness, and cutting ability, with specific mention of his stop-start cuts (as a positive). I guess we will have to agree to disagree over his acceleration and cutting ability.

Yet in the sports science video for Matthews, the only comparable measurements they have (acceleration) aren't even really comparable. As I posted before, Matthews blows him away in that test to the point where it's like comparing a guy who ran a 4.27 40 to a guy who ran a 4.7 40. So what do these tests really show us at all?

The only reason that you interpret Best's sports science numbers to not even compare to Mathews' sports science numbers is because you made numerous errors in analyzing the numbers that the host of sports science gives its viewers.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

wasn't disagreeing with you and wasn't really referencing any certain player in my initial postwas just wondering how people viewed trade-ups as part of a guy's pedigree, and when you referenced your comment, i bolded the part that got me worried that it was a "desperation" tradeup for a position and maybe notsomuch a trade up because they were in love with a player and knew others were too, especially as it seems to imply they wouldve been fine with Tate also

Understood. I was drinking a few last night. I thought you were referring to moving up in a fantasy draft. Buzzed posting is dangerous. The Browns had a lot of picks, so I can see moving up to fill a need if all else is equal. If they reached, then I suppose we'll find out sooner than later. Your point is valid and a good one. Something to take into consideration.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

With regard to A), I have the impression that these sports science videos tend to focus on player strengths. Given that they discuss acceleration and cutting ability, I think the implication is that these are strengths for Best. Unsurprisingly, if you Google his draft profiles, you find assessments that he has great acceleration, quickness, and cutting ability, with specific mention of his stop-start cuts (as a positive). I guess we will have to agree to disagree over his acceleration and cutting ability.

Yet in the sports science video for Matthews, the only comparable measurements they have (acceleration) aren't even really comparable. As I posted before, Matthews blows him away in that test to the point where it's like comparing a guy who ran a 4.27 40 to a guy who ran a 4.7 40. So what do these tests really show us at all?

The only reason that you interpret Best's sports science numbers to not even compare to Mathews' sports science numbers is because you made numerous errors in analyzing the numbers that the host of sports science gives its viewers.

Enlighten me.

 

[Jail]

Some of the facts:

1. Covers first 10 yards in 1.6 seconds (running in pads with ball in hands).

2. Reaches top speed of 18 MPH in only 2.7 seconds

3. In the slalom, he's compared to a skier because he keeps his hips and shoulders squared

4. In the slalom, can angle his legs as low as 27 degrees (very sharp cut)

5. 3 rapid stutter steps in .2 seconds

6. 650 lbs of force when he plants his foot to cut.

7. Can reach 70% of his quickest acceleration rate between cuts (he gets to top speed fast)

8. Complete 20 yard slalom course in 6.5 seconds (I'd rather see this drill at the combine than the 40). With six changes of directions, he actually covers 30 yards in that 6.5 seconds

9. Even though he comes to near complete stop on each cut, he still averages 9 MPH on the slalom.

10. Slalom at 50% of his top speed (shifty, anyone?)

11. .5 MPH faster than Darren Sproles

Wow. There is a similar video for Matthews. Matthews doesn't do as well at the slalom, but he shows his leaping ability (Which is relevant at the goal line) - he jumps as high as Payton's famous leap over the pile.

Too bad there's not a similar video for Spiller.

This is the video I was talking about. I was quite impressed by it, and I think it shows some evidence that directly refutes the part of FreeBaGel's post that knocks Best's acceleration and cutting ability.

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.

Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.

For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.

When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.

Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

Well you can compare to Ryan Matthews on the same test:

Its kind of hard to extrapolate those numbers. Beyond me, really. But consider that they say Best covered 10 yards in 1.6 seconds while you measure Mathews only covering 7 yards in 1.5-1.6 seconds.

 

[SSOG]

In one of those moments where statistics and conventional wisdom line up absolutely perfectly, Football Outsiders just published a list of broken tackles by team offense and team defense. The top 4 teams in broken tackles were Carolina, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Jacksonville. In other words, they were JStew/DWill (5th and 10th in F&L's rankings), ADP (2nd), CJ3 (1st), and MJD (3rd). Apparently, elite runningbacks break a lot of tackles. In other news, scientists have discovered that water is, in fact, wet.

 

[EthnicFury]

harvin probably had a little bit to do with that as well. not that ADP didn't break more than his share

not surprising in the least overall

 

[Glaven]

A) Are there any other comparables out there to put these into context? If no one had ever heard of the 40 yard dash before and someone said some guy ran it in 4.6 seconds, that would probably sound pretty fast. I have no idea what any of those "facts" mean, and they don't really tell us anything without some context.B) I think it's one thing to do these drills when you know going in exactly what you have to do, when you have to cut, etc. When you're running on reaction and instinct, and not planning your cuts two days ahead of time, it's very different. Jahvid's cuts in that "slalom drill" look absolutely nothing like his cuts on the field, from what I've seen of him, imo.Tim Tebow ran the 3-cone drill faster than Jahvid Best. Does that mean that Tebow is more agile than Best, when several respected posters on this board have said that Tebow has poor agility himself? If you say no, then it kind of throws out the whole idea of using these kind of tests as an argument.For kicks, Tebow also had a better broad jump than best, a better vertical jump than Best, a better 60 yard shuttle than Best, and an equivalent 20 yard shuttle to Best. So basically, Tebow beat Best in every combine measurable other than 40 time. Does that mean Tebow is more agile with better acceleration than Best? Either the answer is no and these tests are far from conclusive about anything, or the answer is yes and Best is less agile and has weaker acceleration than a quarterback that many posters here consider to be below average, even among just running quarterbacks, in those categories. Obviously, the answer is the former, which leaves us with what we see.When I was looking at him in uniform, carrying the ball, actually playing the game, I saw what I said I saw earlier. To make sure I wasn't just remembering wrong I went back and watched some youtube videos of Spiller and of Best. Maybe the mistake I made was watching the Spiller videos first, because they just made Best look slow. Spiller looked so much more explosive through the hole, and so much quicker out of his cuts. Spiller definitely cut a lot less than Best, I will concede that, but one-cut runners have had just as much success in the NFL as anyone else.Obviously, other people saw it differently, and I'm fine with that. That's why this message board exists. We're all presented with the same evidence about every question in fantasy football and we all interpret it differently. The game would be boring otherwise .

With regard to A), I have the impression that these sports science videos tend to focus on player strengths. Given that they discuss acceleration and cutting ability, I think the implication is that these are strengths for Best. Unsurprisingly, if you Google his draft profiles, you find assessments that he has great acceleration, quickness, and cutting ability, with specific mention of his stop-start cuts (as a positive). I guess we will have to agree to disagree over his acceleration and cutting ability.

Yet in the sports science video for Matthews, the only comparable measurements they have (acceleration) aren't even really comparable. As I posted before, Matthews blows him away in that test to the point where it's like comparing a guy who ran a 4.27 40 to a guy who ran a 4.7 40. So what do these tests really show us at all?

The only reason that you interpret Best's sports science numbers to not even compare to Mathews' sports science numbers is because you made numerous errors in analyzing the numbers that the host of sports science gives its viewers.

Enlighten me.

'Jail' above me pretty well explained it. The way you are extrapolating the numbers is highly susceptible of errors, especially when we are talking about the differences in tenths of seconds. It is also possible that you are focusing too much on top speed. If a player can reach 99% of their top speed in just 5 yards, who cares if they don't reach their top speed until 15 yards. In order to make any definitive comparable claim from the Sports Science videos, we need more information than what is available to the viewer.

 

[Lash]

harvin probably had a little bit to do with that as well. not that ADP didn't break more than his sharenot surprising in the least overall

actually i think harvin may have been numero uno for WR in broken tackles

 

[moderated]

Some people like to swing for the fences, others don't. I do think there's a time and place for both, and drafting early in a rookie draft is a time to take chances .... without getting crazy of course.

I don't agree with this. If anything, the early portion of a draft is where you need to be the most careful.

Let's say that you have the 1.03 and Bryant/Spiller are the first two picks: If you think Best is the better talent, but viewed Matthews as the safer pick, then you're saying you'd take Matthews? I know you're probably not picking in the top 3 very often, and lord knows we all know you do homework, so I guess it just surprises me that you would go the safe route. Of course, if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place.

I don't draft based solely on upside or the player's likelihood to bust. You have to weigh both variables and make an educated guess. If I think Mathews is an 80% chance to become Rashard Mendenhall and Spiller is a 50% chance to become Chris Johnson, I think the equation favors the "safer" pick. When two players have comparable upside, I'll go with the safer talent. I don't think Spiller's ceiling is significantly higher than Mathews' and I think he's more likely to bust/disappoint. Hence he is lower in my rankings. If I viewed Best as the better talent, I would rank him ahead of Mathews (which I don't). Mathews is the only surefire franchise back in this draft. Best and Spiller lack prototypical size. Gerhart, Tate, and Hardesty lack first round ability.

I rank them:

1. Mathews

2. Best

3. Spiller

In PPR leagues, the gap between Mathews and the other two is smaller (almost to the point where I like Best as much as Mathews). I don't view Mathews as a superstar talent. I do view him as a slam dunk lock for 250-300 carries and a top 15 finish if healthy. That makes him one of the most valuable commodities in this rookie class. As much as I like Dez Bryant (I think he's the only bulletproof elite talent in the draft), I don't expect him to help FF teams as much in 2010 as Mathews.

Mathews is probably the only rookie in this class who's obviously an instant plug-and-play starter for every FF team in every format. That doesn't mean 2-3 years down the road (or even 5-6 months from now) he will look like the best pick. In fact, it's pretty likely that a couple of the lesser heralded guys will become better pro players. But if you want to talk about the value of these rookie RBs right this moment, I would say he's the safest investment. The only thing that worries me with him is durability.

Its about time for people to take note of what is already occurring in Buffalo. When word came out of Dallas that Dez Bryant was tearing it up already, people were taken with that bit of news and ready to annoint Bryant as King of the NFL. Not a problem, per se, esp given that he has elite talent.OK! So here is the deal. Word is that Spiller has been nothing short of sensational, electrifying in everything (running, receiving, etc.) he does. And this is coming from the defenders who have to go against this guy. This kid also does possess elite talent, yet folks want to skip over his OTA hype. I understand its Buffalo vs Dallas and the media attn is much different in comparison, but as fantasy geeks, guys better take note. Spiller is "The Goods", slam-dunk Superstar.

But don't believe me, js continue to stay on the sidelines and miss out.........

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.

Everyone wants to make the hero call.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Or, you know, for all the reasons mentioned here people actually think Best will outproduce Spiller.

 

[moderated]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Or, you know, for all the reasons mentioned here people actually think Best will outproduce Spiller.

with the added cherry on top that they can be a hero and pick the underdog.and by the way i like Best, but the group think on here proclaiming him to be the favorite stinks of hero syndrome.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Or, you know, for all the reasons mentioned here people actually think Best will outproduce Spiller.

with the added cherry on top that they can be a hero and pick the underdog.and by the way i like Best, but the group think on here proclaiming him to be the favorite stinks of hero syndrome.

You may be right. I have pick 1.03 in a RB-heavy league, and I'd be happy to move up to pick 1.02 (at a reasonable cost) and select Spiller. But if the price is too high, I'll gladly sit back and take Best. It has nothing to do with a desire to "be a hero"

 

[moderated]

 

[moderated]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Or, you know, for all the reasons mentioned here people actually think Best will outproduce Spiller.

with the added cherry on top that they can be a hero and pick the underdog.and by the way i like Best, but the group think on here proclaiming him to be the favorite stinks of hero syndrome.

You may be right. I have pick 1.03 in a RB-heavy league, and I'd be happy to move up to pick 1.02 (at a reasonable cost) and select Spiller. But if the price is too high, I'll gladly sit back and take Best. It has nothing to do with a desire to "be a hero"

that's the weird thing, people are having to "settle" for Best and trying to convince themselves he is clearly better then Spiller, it's a weird phenomenon.I think Best could end up better, but it's laughable how convinced some people are thinking Spiller sucks and Best is the next messiah.the scenario that everyone has to pick sides between them so strongly is odd. they both could suck, they both could be great

 

[Fear & Loathing]

that's the weird thing, people are having to "settle" for Best and trying to convince themselves he is clearly better then Spiller, it's a weird phenomenon.

Some of us have actually evaluated Best to be the better prospect, both from an NFL and fantasy vantage point.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Creative hypothesis, though. I guess you could have used the "hero system" theory for those Best fans who backed Chris Johnson or possibly even Percy Harvin. It doesn't quite work, though, when those same people hyped Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson to no end the summer before their rookie seasons.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Creative hypothesis, though. I guess you could have used the "hero system" theory for those Best fans who backed Chris Johnson or possibly even Percy Harvin. It doesn't quite work, though, when those same people hyped Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson to no end the summer before their rookie seasons.

Though I do recall that there were some (other) people who were arguing Lynch over Peterson that year, and kept harping on how "you guys have the easy side of the argument, what I'm doing here is hard".

 

[squistion]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

Creative hypothesis, though. I guess you could have used the "hero system" theory for those Best fans who backed Chris Johnson or possibly even Percy Harvin. It doesn't quite work, though, when those same people hyped Adrian Peterson and Calvin Johnson to no end the summer before their rookie seasons.

Though I do recall that there were some (other) people who were arguing Lynch over Peterson that year, and kept harping on how "you guys have the easy side of the argument, what I'm doing here is hard".

Moderated is guilty of a gross overgeneralization, but there is an element of truth to what he says. If you go along with the conventional wisdom on a player, you don't get much credit for that, the after-the-fact response is ""Well, anybody could have seen that." But if you go with an unconventional choice, you can point to that later and say "See, I was right when I was about the only one saying that X was better than Y."Of course the problem with that approach is that you better be right a lot more often than you are wrong, as people around here in delight in digging up old predictions that were wrong and confronting someone with them who is crowing about how smart they were about another player.For the record I like Best over Spiller too, based on what I have seen of both players. It has nothing to do with trying to look like a hero in the future.

 

[runner06]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Best and Spiller are very close as prospects in a vacuum, but I have to think that Best's injury history was what separated them on most team's boards, and it's what separated them on my board. Best will likely start out hotter because he's in the better offense and will have the bigger role, but I see the neurologist in his future and lots of time on the injury report. Maybe not as bad as Felix Jones and Jerious Norwood, but in that vein.

link

Best also missed eight games, including four to close last season with concussions suffered in back-to-back games. A year ago, he had elbow and foot operations.

"Yeah, he's worried about it," said one scout who has talked to Best about the concussions. "Plus, he has a muscle going down from his neck to his leg that bothers him. That's my reservation on Best. He's coming in all beat up."

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Best and Spiller are very close as prospects in a vacuum, but I have to think that Best's injury history was what separated them on most team's boards, and it's what separated them on my board. Best will likely start out hotter because he's in the better offense and will have the bigger role, but I see the neurologist in his future and lots of time on the injury report. Maybe not as bad as Felix Jones and Jerious Norwood, but in that vein.

Well, if he starts out hot then he should be a great guy to acquire early, and trade once his value has risen sufficiently high. I realize that it's easier to say you'll trade Best than actually pull the trigger.....but....

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Best and Spiller are very close as prospects in a vacuum, but I have to think that Best's injury history was what separated them on most team's boards, and it's what separated them on my board. Best will likely start out hotter because he's in the better offense and will have the bigger role, but I see the neurologist in his future and lots of time on the injury report. Maybe not as bad as Felix Jones and Jerious Norwood, but in that vein.

link

Best also missed eight games, including four to close last season with concussions suffered in back-to-back games. A year ago, he had elbow and foot operations.

"Yeah, he's worried about it," said one scout who has talked to Best about the concussions. "Plus, he has a muscle going down from his neck to his leg that bothers him. That's my reservation on Best. He's coming in all beat up."

Best and the Lions got a pretty big laugh out of this report from the MJS. No question the concussion is a slight concern, but the "he's worried about it" and "muscle going from neck to leg" stuff was just garden variety misinformation designed to have Best fall to whichever team that scout works for.

 

[MAC_32]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

I've liked Best more since last offseason.Am I guilty of the hero syndrome too?

 

[moderated]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

I've liked Best more since last offseason.Am I guilty of the hero syndrome too?

No, if you liked him the most before the NFL draft then you are a pioneer, not a victim of hero syndrome or 4th pick in the rookie draft rationalization.

 

[Glaven]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

I've liked Best more since last offseason.Am I guilty of the hero syndrome too?

No, if you liked him the most before the NFL draft then you are a pioneer, not a victim of hero syndrome or 4th pick in the rookie draft rationalization.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Best and Spiller are very close as prospects in a vacuum, but I have to think that Best's injury history was what separated them on most team's boards, and it's what separated them on my board. Best will likely start out hotter because he's in the better offense and will have the bigger role, but I see the neurologist in his future and lots of time on the injury report. Maybe not as bad as Felix Jones and Jerious Norwood, but in that vein.

link

Best also missed eight games, including four to close last season with concussions suffered in back-to-back games. A year ago, he had elbow and foot operations.

"Yeah, he's worried about it," said one scout who has talked to Best about the concussions. "Plus, he has a muscle going down from his neck to his leg that bothers him. That's my reservation on Best. He's coming in all beat up."

Best and the Lions got a pretty big laugh out of this report from the MJS. No question the concussion is a slight concern, but the "he's worried about it" and "muscle going from neck to leg" stuff was just garden variety misinformation designed to have Best fall to whichever team that scout works for.

Concussions in back to back games including one where he lost consciousness are a "slight" concern? The doctors are becoming more and more wary about clearing players after serious or multiple concussions in a short period of time. Look at how long Westbrook and Portis were sidelined after their serious concussions last year. Look at how little value they seem to have now. I would rather have an RB coming into the league with an ACL or achilles tear in his record than multiple or serious concussions - the more concussions a person has suffered, the more likely they are to suffer another.

 

[Instinctive]

I'm sure concussions are what ruined Westy and Portis, not careers worth of wear and tear on every body part, old age, and general ineffectiveness...

 

[Tau837]

I'm sure concussions are what ruined Westy and Portis, not careers worth of wear and tear on every body part, old age, and general ineffectiveness...

Exactly my reaction to that comment. Much better examples of legitimate concern over concussions would be to cite examples of younger players who had concussion issues.

 

[werdnoynek]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

while i understand the "hero syndrome", i don't think it really fits in this situation. you're suggesting that spiller is the favorite, but there really isn't a clear consensus favorite between the two. by chosing one over the other we're not going against the grain or anything. maybe it's just me, but i think there's gotta be a bit of a reach before you get a pat on the back for being a "hero". if this was with regard to hyping tate/hardesty over best/spiller then i could see a "hero" emerging... but between spiller and best, not so much. don't get me wrong though - this is an interesting idea, especially with dynasty leagues where we all love our picks coming up big for us... making a reach on a boom/bust pick may have something to do with the "hero syndrome".

 

[skiking08]

it's the hero syndrome.No one wants to pick the favorite as they have nothing to gain. If someone picks Best as the #1 pick then they can brag and bump the thread later if it works out. If they pick Spiller they won't get any cred as he was the top RB picked.Everyone wants to make the hero call.

while i understand the "hero syndrome", i don't think it really fits in this situation. you're suggesting that spiller is the favorite, but there really isn't a clear consensus favorite between the two. by chosing one over the other we're not going against the grain or anything. maybe it's just me, but i think there's gotta be a bit of a reach before you get a pat on the back for being a "hero". if this was with regard to hyping tate/hardesty over best/spiller then i could see a "hero" emerging... but between spiller and best, not so much. don't get me wrong though - this is an interesting idea, especially with dynasty leagues where we all love our picks coming up big for us... making a reach on a boom/bust pick may have something to do with the "hero syndrome".

This is exactly what I thought. Hero syndrome does exist, just not in this example. I think the hero syndrome works between tiers. That is, the consensus top 3 RBs are Spiller, Matthews, and Best. People will rearrange them in their own personal ranking system, but most people will agree that those are the top 3. If you take a guy from a lower tier over one of these guys, that would seem like a hero pick.

 

[coolnerd]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

I try to keep my trades as filler free as possible. In short, one man's filler could be another's targeted sleeper. When someone keeps asking about a player that I don't value highly, I will try and find out the why. Also, generally I have players on my roster for a reason, so I rarely look at someone as just a filler part. What I do balk at strongly is the person who all of a sudden needs some 3rd string RB or 4th round pick after you have settled on the important details. Don't get in the habit of just adding guys to get the deal done because someone asks. You may be trading away a Vincent Jackson or Miles Austin or even one year wonder types. I would say the 2nd part of your question is really a roster management issue. I divide dynasty squads into 3 sections redraft, developmental, and roster managment. Roster Mangament contains 2nd kickers, 3rd QBs, handcuff only type players, etc. who are constantly being turned over. Should be no more than 4 or 5 players in 24 man league. These maybe easily replacable and may often constitute what you are calling trade filler (but see above note). The ease of replacement depends on your league's general activity and rules and the personality of the owners.

 

[gheemony]

On Hero Syndrome: This could only exist if I cared what anyone else thought of my picks. The only thing I care about is winning. I am taking Best over Spiller with 1.02 because I want to win. If Best outplays Spiller, than I'll be happy because I am winning, not because you (or my leaguemates) think I was brilliant. If Spiller produces better than Best, I'll be crying because I won't be winning. But I'll learn from the result and hope to do better next time.

On Filler Players: I think of this in terms of "replacement level players". If I believe I can easily replace the player with another player from the waiver wire, I won't hesitate to add them in a deal as "filler" and there would be no limit to what I add. Usually, I have lots of filler because I think I have a better eye for talent than my league mates. I'm often shocked at what is on their roster vs. what is on the wire. If the players are better than "replacement level", then there is a limit - I do add up the cost to replace the players and I'll stop when the trade becomes imbalanced.

On the flip-side, I am always asking for "fillers" in return. If I think a player is above "replacement level", I'll try to get that player as "filler" in the deal. Last year I got Andre Caldwell and Jerome Harrison as fillers. Still a good deal for me even if they didn't hit. A much better deal because Harrison hit.

 

[dmac37]

Hey guys can you give your opinion on the value of these RB's for PPR dynasty. Bottom line I was able to acquire McCoy for cheap at the start of the offseason but now I'm kind of down on him and I want to try and trade him for one of these guys:

Turner- thinking because it is PPR and his age that his value is lower than it really should be

Moreno- I think he has enough talent and will have long term value

P. Thomas- IMO weaker than the other 2 but I also own R. Bush

Who would you trade McCoy for?

 

[SSOG]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

It really depends on what you're calling "filler". In this case (Derrick Ward, a late 3rd rounder, Andre Caldwell), I think we have three examples of true, honest-to-goodness "filler". Basically, I doubt there's really any difference at all between those three assets and whatever you can scoop up off the wire to replace them. To give an example, last year I was trying to trade my Miles Austin for his Donald Driver (yes, that trade really blew up on me, but at the time I had a contender with a weakness at WR3 and I needed a quality contributor). He was balking a bit, so I tossed in Austin Collie as filler. Now, Collie is worth more today than he was last year, so someone might say that I should have waited him out a couple of days to see if he would have done the trade sans filler... but that empty roster spot that was created by the 2-for-1 trade was used to add Mike Wallace from off the street. In this case, there was an example of there being a guy on the street (Wallace) who I viewed as essentially equal to the "filler" (Collie), so including the "filler" really had no net cost for me.I think when people get in trouble is when they have a habit of throwing in non-filler players as filler. Basically, whenever you're adding players whose value is greater than the value of the best street free agent, then you're not adding filler... you're adding assets. Adding assets will get you in trouble. Adding filler is a great way to make a trade seem more attractive without weakening your squad in the slightest.

My general policy is that the last 3-4 guys on my roster, as well as any rookie 3rd rounders I might own (our rookie draft is 3 rounds long and I generally draft late), are all available at any time. I'll even include every single one of them in a single trade if that's what it takes to get someone else to move on a trade that I think really benefits my squad, but that's because I have a lot of confidence in my ability to replace them with equivalent assets off the street.

Derrick Ward is a 30+ year old RB with a mediocre fantasy history mired in an RBBC on one of the worst offenses in the league. I sincerely doubt he will ever contribute anything to anyone's fantasy success. Andre Caldwell is a young WR3 who had his chance to shine and missed it. There are scores of virtually identical prospects all over the league. Rookie 3rd rounders are generally just dross, especially in leagues that only have a 3-round rookie draft (meaning the last pick of the 3rd round is just a glorified free agency transaction). I wouldn't be losing any sleep at all over giving those three assets up to seal a deal that I felt benefited my team. If anything, I'd be excited at the possibilities of what I could do with the now-vacant roster spaces.

 

[TitansFan10]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

It really depends on what you're calling "filler". In this case (Derrick Ward, a late 3rd rounder, Andre Caldwell), I think we have three examples of true, honest-to-goodness "filler". Basically, I doubt there's really any difference at all between those three assets and whatever you can scoop up off the wire to replace them. To give an example, last year I was trying to trade my Miles Austin for his Donald Driver (yes, that trade really blew up on me, but at the time I had a contender with a weakness at WR3 and I needed a quality contributor). He was balking a bit, so I tossed in Austin Collie as filler. Now, Collie is worth more today than he was last year, so someone might say that I should have waited him out a couple of days to see if he would have done the trade sans filler... but that empty roster spot that was created by the 2-for-1 trade was used to add Mike Wallace from off the street. In this case, there was an example of there being a guy on the street (Wallace) who I viewed as essentially equal to the "filler" (Collie), so including the "filler" really had no net cost for me.I think when people get in trouble is when they have a habit of throwing in non-filler players as filler. Basically, whenever you're adding players whose value is greater than the value of the best street free agent, then you're not adding filler... you're adding assets. Adding assets will get you in trouble. Adding filler is a great way to make a trade seem more attractive without weakening your squad in the slightest.

My general policy is that the last 3-4 guys on my roster, as well as any rookie 3rd rounders I might own (our rookie draft is 3 rounds long and I generally draft late), are all available at any time. I'll even include every single one of them in a single trade if that's what it takes to get someone else to move on a trade that I think really benefits my squad, but that's because I have a lot of confidence in my ability to replace them with equivalent assets off the street.

Derrick Ward is a 30+ year old RB with a mediocre fantasy history mired in an RBBC on one of the worst offenses in the league. I sincerely doubt he will ever contribute anything to anyone's fantasy success. Andre Caldwell is a young WR3 who had his chance to shine and missed it. There are scores of virtually identical prospects all over the league. Rookie 3rd rounders are generally just dross, especially in leagues that only have a 3-round rookie draft (meaning the last pick of the 3rd round is just a glorified free agency transaction). I wouldn't be losing any sleep at all over giving those three assets up to seal a deal that I felt benefited my team. If anything, I'd be excited at the possibilities of what I could do with the now-vacant roster spaces.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

You didn't say which part of the deal you acquired. In this specific case, it looks like it depends on how much you like Garcon. But it also seems like you're looking for general answers to two specific questions as opposed to a trade grade.

1. No. No limit to fillers. I'm always happy to throw in fillers because it frees up roster space for me to pick up players on the waiver wire that I can turn around and use as fillers for more trades down the road.

2. Easier than most people believe. A basic philosophy that all fantasy leaguers (be it baseball, football, whatever) need to master is to pick up free talent, package it with another lesser talent and get an upgrade in your starting lineup.

Dynasty rule #37: *Always trade fillers for superiors talents.

*Corollary: Never worry about overpaying in quantity to get quality.

 

[EthnicFury]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

You didn't say which part of the deal you acquired. In this specific case, it looks like it depends on how much you like Garcon. But it also seems like you're looking for general answers to two specific questions as opposed to a trade grade.

1. No. No limit to fillers. I'm always happy to throw in fillers because it frees up roster space for me to pick up players on the waiver wire that I can turn around and use as fillers for more trades down the road.

2. Easier than most people believe. A basic philosophy that all fantasy leaguers (be it baseball, football, whatever) need to master is to pick up free talent, package it with another lesser talent and get an upgrade in your starting lineup.

Dynasty rule #37: *Always trade fillers for superiors talents.

*Corollary: Never worry about overpaying in quantity to get quality.

I tend to agree with this strategy (and especially the corollary at the bottom)...would you extend it to a startup auction or similar proceeding? Is it a good idea to spend nearly the whole budget on a few core guys and try to scrape something together at the end based on the assumption that depth is most easily replaceable?(this relates to one of my own teams but I think the general question is a good one so I'll try to keep it in general terms for now)

recently I participated in my first dyno auction draft and this led me to pursue studs hard and stack my lineup. I have 5 young-to-youngish core studs (IMO at least) out of 7 skill-position starters, 2 slightly-below-average starters, and very little (two decent prospects and a bunch of dollar bid guys) behind them, and am curious whether i've shot myself in the foot or set myself up for long-term success.

Typically I have a lot of faith in my prospecting abilities (especially at WR) but in an auction if you proceed this way you're grabbing guys from the very bottom of the barrel in that respect so the schilens/jacoby/doucet types are gone (along with all but the deepest rookies) and this consists of shotgunning the raw 5th-round longshot naanee's and the first-round bust roy/mike/reggie williamses of the world.

Anyhow, curious what your thoughts are on such a strategy in a startup. It gives up a lot of "value," i know, but then there's the quality over quantity thing (which usually seems to work out best in the long run).

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

You didn't say which part of the deal you acquired. In this specific case, it looks like it depends on how much you like Garcon. But it also seems like you're looking for general answers to two specific questions as opposed to a trade grade.

1. No. No limit to fillers. I'm always happy to throw in fillers because it frees up roster space for me to pick up players on the waiver wire that I can turn around and use as fillers for more trades down the road.

2. Easier than most people believe. A basic philosophy that all fantasy leaguers (be it baseball, football, whatever) need to master is to pick up free talent, package it with another lesser talent and get an upgrade in your starting lineup.

Dynasty rule #37: *Always trade fillers for superiors talents.

*Corollary: Never worry about overpaying in quantity to get quality.

I tend to agree with this strategy (and especially the corollary at the bottom)...would you extend it to a startup auction or similar proceeding? Is it a good idea to spend nearly the whole budget on a few core guys and try to scrape something together at the end based on the assumption that depth is most easily replaceable?(this relates to one of my own teams but I think the general question is a good one so I'll try to keep it in general terms for now)

recently I participated in my first dyno auction draft and this led me to pursue studs hard and stack my lineup. I have 5 young-to-youngish core studs (IMO at least) out of 7 skill-position starters, 2 slightly-below-average starters, and very little (two decent prospects and a bunch of dollar bid guys) behind them, and am curious whether i've shot myself in the foot or set myself up for long-term success.

Typically I have a lot of faith in my prospecting abilities (especially at WR) but in an auction if you proceed this way you're grabbing guys from the very bottom of the barrel in that respect so the schilens/jacoby/doucet types are gone (along with all but the deepest rookies) and this consists of shotgunning the raw 5th-round longshot naanee's and the first-round bust roy/mike/reggie williamses of the world.

Anyhow, curious what your thoughts are on such a strategy in a startup. It gives up a lot of "value," i know, but then there's the quality over quantity thing (which usually seems to work out best in the long run).

A little of my thoughts on auction dynasty startups, as I have done a few now. Most of my leagues have been PPR,4 pts QB passing TD's, 12 teams, a lineup something like QB, RB, WR, TE, DEF, 3 FLEX. $400 cap.

1) Put most of your money in ELITE young WR's. These guys will give you good production for years as well as maintaining elite trade value much longer than their RB counterparts. In my leagues I have targeted some combination of Calvin, Dez, Crabtree, Nicks and S. Rice. You want elite talent's, not a roster full of Mike Wallace's and Jeremy Maclins, who have staying power. Now I know I am including Dez, Crabtree and Nicks in that, who have yet to prove things over a long period of time, but that brings me to the next point.

2) Trust your instincts. If you think like I do that Dez is a surefire top 10 dynasty WR, then its not crazy to pay more for him than Steve Smith (NYG) or DeSean Jackson. You have to be willing to stick your neck out for a player, because it is likely at least one other owner will be willing to do so for each player.

3) Don't worry about overpaying. I see people all the time saying, well I really wanted Fitzgerald, but when the bid when up from $87 to $92 that was too rich for me. What? If you want Fitz, get Fitz. Don't worry about losing the cash to pick up Jonathan Dwyer or Anthony Dixon later in the draft.

4) DO NOT try to jack up bids on players you have no interest in. If you don't like LeSean McCoy but feel he is still going for too cheap, well then let him go for cheap. Only bid on players at prices you are comfortable with winning them at.

5) Keep it cheap at QB and TE, you can find productive players at these positions for cheap and focus your money elsewhere.

Following this strategy, here is a recent auction roster I ended up with (prices in parenthesis)

QB

Eli Manning (18)

Matt Stafford (17)

RB

Ryan Grant (35)

Montario Hardesty (25)

Michael Bush (14)

WR

Calvin Johnson (82)

Dez Bryant (66)

Hakeem Nicks (58)

Chad OchoCinco (26)

Mike Williams (8)

Chaz Schilens (7)

Laurent Robinson (6)

Brandon Tate (4)

Louis Murphy (3)

Chris Chambers (1)

TE

Zack Miller (9)

Jared Cook (7)

Martellus Bennett (2)

Tony Moeaki (1)

Garret Graham (1)

Ed Dickson (1)

 

[shader]

Since this is a dynasty strategy thread I thought this would be the best place to post this question. Sorry if it's already been touched on here, but I'm not going to search through 180+ pages to see.

Note: I'm not looking for any feedback on this trade. I'm just using a point of reference.

Recently, I made a trade in which the core of it was the 1.01 rookie pick & Devin Thomas for the 1.03 rookie pick, Pierre Garcon, & the 2.04 rookie pick.

As far as fillers go, I gave up Derrick Ward, the 3.09 rookie pick, and Andre Caldwell for two guys that I released after the trade.

I liked my end of the core part of the trade better (which side is irrelevant is mine to what I'm getting at), but I'm feeling a bit of trader's remorse because I feel like I may have given up to many fillers to make the core of the trade happen (or at least not trying to offer a trade with fewer fillers first).

So I have two questions,

1.) Is there a limit to how many filler players you are willing to give up in a trade?

2.) How easy/hard do you find it to be to replace these guys with players from the waiver wire during the season (if it makes any difference the dynasty league is 12 teams with 24 man rosters)?

You didn't say which part of the deal you acquired. In this specific case, it looks like it depends on how much you like Garcon. But it also seems like you're looking for general answers to two specific questions as opposed to a trade grade.

1. No. No limit to fillers. I'm always happy to throw in fillers because it frees up roster space for me to pick up players on the waiver wire that I can turn around and use as fillers for more trades down the road.

2. Easier than most people believe. A basic philosophy that all fantasy leaguers (be it baseball, football, whatever) need to master is to pick up free talent, package it with another lesser talent and get an upgrade in your starting lineup.

Dynasty rule #37: *Always trade fillers for superiors talents.

*Corollary: Never worry about overpaying in quantity to get quality.

I tend to agree with this strategy (and especially the corollary at the bottom)...would you extend it to a startup auction or similar proceeding? Is it a good idea to spend nearly the whole budget on a few core guys and try to scrape something together at the end based on the assumption that depth is most easily replaceable?(this relates to one of my own teams but I think the general question is a good one so I'll try to keep it in general terms for now)

recently I participated in my first dyno auction draft and this led me to pursue studs hard and stack my lineup. I have 5 young-to-youngish core studs (IMO at least) out of 7 skill-position starters, 2 slightly-below-average starters, and very little (two decent prospects and a bunch of dollar bid guys) behind them, and am curious whether i've shot myself in the foot or set myself up for long-term success.

Typically I have a lot of faith in my prospecting abilities (especially at WR) but in an auction if you proceed this way you're grabbing guys from the very bottom of the barrel in that respect so the schilens/jacoby/doucet types are gone (along with all but the deepest rookies) and this consists of shotgunning the raw 5th-round longshot naanee's and the first-round bust roy/mike/reggie williamses of the world.

Anyhow, curious what your thoughts are on such a strategy in a startup. It gives up a lot of "value," i know, but then there's the quality over quantity thing (which usually seems to work out best in the long run).

A little of my thoughts on auction dynasty startups, as I have done a few now. Most of my leagues have been PPR,4 pts QB passing TD's, 12 teams, a lineup something like QB, RB, WR, TE, DEF, 3 FLEX. $400 cap.

1) Put most of your money in ELITE young WR's. These guys will give you good production for years as well as maintaining elite trade value much longer than their RB counterparts. In my leagues I have targeted some combination of Calvin, Dez, Crabtree, Nicks and S. Rice. You want elite talent's, not a roster full of Mike Wallace's and Jeremy Maclins, who have staying power. Now I know I am including Dez, Crabtree and Nicks in that, who have yet to prove things over a long period of time, but that brings me to the next point.

2) Trust your instincts. If you think like I do that Dez is a surefire top 10 dynasty WR, then its not crazy to pay more for him than Steve Smith (NYG) or DeSean Jackson. You have to be willing to stick your neck out for a player, because it is likely at least one other owner will be willing to do so for each player.

3) Don't worry about overpaying. I see people all the time saying, well I really wanted Fitzgerald, but when the bid when up from $87 to $92 that was too rich for me. What? If you want Fitz, get Fitz. Don't worry about losing the cash to pick up Jonathan Dwyer or Anthony Dixon later in the draft.

4) DO NOT try to jack up bids on players you have no interest in. If you don't like LeSean McCoy but feel he is still going for too cheap, well then let him go for cheap. Only bid on players at prices you are comfortable with winning them at.

5) Keep it cheap at QB and TE, you can find productive players at these positions for cheap and focus your money elsewhere.

Following this strategy, here is a recent auction roster I ended up with (prices in parenthesis)

QB

Eli Manning (18)

Matt Stafford (17)

RB

Ryan Grant (35)

Montario Hardesty (25)

Michael Bush (14)

WR

Calvin Johnson (82)

Dez Bryant (66)

Hakeem Nicks (58)

Chad OchoCinco (26)

Mike Williams (8)

Chaz Schilens (7)

Laurent Robinson (6)

Brandon Tate (4)

Louis Murphy (3)

Chris Chambers (1)

TE

Zack Miller (9)

Jared Cook (7)

Martellus Bennett (2)

Tony Moeaki (1)

Garret Graham (1)

Ed Dickson (1)