His play as a rookie didn't make me optimistic: 5.8 yards per target and 0.93 yards per route run are not good numbers. But I still have him rated right about where I did a year ago, because TE development usually takes time and his coaching staff does seem optimistic.I'm pretty comfortable saying that ASJ ranking will be adjusted significantly after a few months.
?Oh, the irony...None of that is changing anytime soon.Of course Cooks has better efficiency stats. He plays in NO as a WR2/3 in a much better system, out of the slot a majority of the time and Brees at QB vs. Cam. Benjamin has 7 TDs to his 4 and a YPC of 15.3 to 10.4. Benjamin is playing the role of a WR1 on a significantly worse offense.Kelvin Benjamin has relied on a high volume of targets in Carolina's barren receiving corps to get his numbers. His play has been uneven. He's going to need to improve as a receiver. Cooks has put up similar totals (with a couple fewer TDs) with better efficiency stats.
There are more Zach Sudfelds than Julius Thomases. I wouldn't want to put Josh Hill ahead of someone like Fleener who has similar athleticism, a similarly great QB (but much younger), and was already a top 8 fantasy TE last year.I think you're too low on Hill. Preseason will give us a better idea though.
Actually, I think I was underrating Fleener by a lot.There are more Zach Sudfelds than Julius Thomases. I wouldn't want to put Josh Hill ahead of someone like Fleener who has similar athleticism, a similarly great QB (but much younger), and was already a top 8 fantasy TE last year.I think you're too low on Hill. Preseason will give us a better idea though.
Actually, I'm probably underrating Fleener.
Jordy lost about 45% of his value and dropped 2 tiers (10 spots).How much did White, Benjamin, and Jordy's value change based on missing 15?
They are all in the same tier and approximately the same age. Doubt there's anything but a cosmetic preference there.Why is A. Brown lower than Green or DT?
I know, but I was curious to his reasoning.They are all in the same tier and approximately the same age. Doubt there's anything but a cosmetic preference there.Why is A. Brown lower than Green or DT?
I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.
It's close, but I believe a bit more in Green & Thomas's talent. They've been producing for longer (2014 is the first time that Brown outproduced them), and they're built more like a prototypical WR1. Green has also produced with averageish QB play. If Manning, Roethlisberger, and Dalton all retired tomorrow, I'd guess that Brown would be the most likely to fall out of the top 12 fantasy WRs for the season. In Brown's favor, he did produce more last year, I have him projected to produce more this year, and Ben will probably keep playing at a high level for the next few years. So it is close.I know, but I was curious to his reasoning.They are all in the same tier and approximately the same age. Doubt there's anything but a cosmetic preference there.Why is A. Brown lower than Green or DT?
Do you think Mariota and Winston will become elite QBs? Unlike other positions I don't think youth is important enough at the QB position to move guys ahead of proven productive players. Of course if you do see something in them then it makes sense. I like both, but feel young QBs are harder to project than other positions.
Mariota and Winston are that high because they still have a chance to become elite fantasy QBs. The "proven productive players" have also mostly proven themselves non-elite (or they are nearing the end of their career).Why so low on Bridgewater?
Eta: I mean I guess it's one big tier, just surprised he brings up the rear of it
It seems the huge QB tier of "okay starter" is warranted and accurate. Rivers is closer to Ben than this huge ranking discrepancy implies. Ben was QB5 last year but he was QB12 or worse the previous 4. Rivers was QB12 last year but QB6 the previous year. You prefer Winston to Roethlisberger because you can get arbitrage Roethlisberger 50 picks later.(I should probably stick another tier break in after Roethlisberger.)
Having Kaepernick over Bridgewater makes little sense to me. Kaepernick has 1 career VBD and his only upside comes from becoming a bad QB on a bad team and compiling garbage stats. Bridgewater at least presents the promise of having draftnik approval and similar "what-if" potential as Mariota and Winston.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
That tier (from Brady at #9 through Bridgewater at #19) is pretty tightly packed. Bridgewater at #9 wouldn't seem crazy to me. I may have been underestimating Bridgewater's upside by a bit; a mediocre rookie season with a few great games late in the year is not very strong evidence about how good a QB someone is, but it is a sign of high-end upside. The rankings are tricky, though, since guys like Bradford & Griffin also have upside.It seems the huge QB tier of "okay starter" is warranted and accurate. Rivers is closer to Ben than this huge ranking discrepancy implies. Ben was QB5 last year but he was QB12 or worse the previous 4. Rivers was QB12 last year but QB6 the previous year. You prefer Winston to Roethlisberger because you can get arbitrage Roethlisberger 50 picks later.(I should probably stick another tier break in after Roethlisberger.)
Having Kaepernick over Bridgewater makes little sense to me. Kaepernick has 1 career VBD and his only upside comes from becoming a bad QB on a bad team and compiling garbage stats. Bridgewater at least presents the promise of having draftnik approval and similar "what-if" potential as Mariota and Winston.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
Overall his statistical year was below average but over his last 6 games he had 10 TDs, a completion % of 69%, and a QB rating of 98. The question is really will his talent translate to FP or not. But Mariota has the same questions. Mariota doesn't project as a 4500/30 QB and it's hard to predict his rushing usage.
This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
Agree with Landry. He should be higher and is very underrated by a lot of folks. Blackmon being that high? Seriously, WTH? This guys career is over.Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me
After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.
I get where he's coming from: Landry is very similar to Kendall Wright or late-'00s Wes Welker. A possession guy who you can always flip in and out of your WR3/flex slot, but who isn't going to put your team on his back and carry them to a title a la OBJ.Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me
Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
Landry is a one-dimensional underneath possession receiver, and players like that have rarely had much fantasy value outside of New England.Agree with Landry. He should be higher and is very underrated by a lot of folks.Blackmon being that high? Seriously, WTH? This guys career is over.Jarvis Landry at 52 reallly stuck out to me. He is young. He had a great rookie season. This off-season reports are even better with his speed getting better. Great hands and route runner. I think top 20 myself but 52 behind a guy like Justin Blackmon seems pretty wrong to me
I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.
Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.
Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7. Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
This is a rather unorthodox level of optimism in Blackmon. The chances of him even making it back into the NFL are probably less than 20%, let alone that he becomes a top 15 WR.Landry is a one-dimensional underneath possession receiver, and players like that have rarely had much fantasy value outside of New England.
I think that Blackmon & Gordon each have about a 20% chance of coming back and being a top 15 WR. It's hard to find that kind of upside at that part of the rankings.
How has he been wrong about Stafford? A top 5 season does not necessarily equal a top 5 QB. Stafford has been hugely dependent upon volume, and still hasn't been elite. In exactly one season, which was 4 years ago, he provided an advantage at the position over some of your leaguemates. I think ZWK nailed Stafford two years ago, and is 100% correct in his assessment of him today. The only potential gripe I'd have about Stafford ranked as QB12 is ranking Brady in front of him, simply due to the fact that while Brady may play 5 more years, he's more likely to play 2-3 more. And I'd probably take 10 years of Stafford over 2-3 of Brady unless my team was completely loaded.Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.
Stafford has 24 VBD, in total, over the past 2 seasons. He has been 11th in fpt/g over that period. That seems pretty much in line with what I was guessing 2 years ago - slightly worse, actually.Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.
I think that Stafford has 3-4 years left in his current form (with Calvin) as a low-end QB1, and then another 3-4 where he's basically just Joe Flacco. Whereas Brady has a good shot at another 1-2 top 5 seasons (at least in PPG).How has he been wrong about Stafford? A top 5 season does not necessarily equal a top 5 QB. Stafford has been hugely dependent upon volume, and still hasn't been elite. In exactly one season, which was 4 years ago, he provided an advantage at the position over some of your leaguemates. I think ZWK nailed Stafford two years ago, and is 100% correct in his assessment of him today. The only potential gripe I'd have about Stafford ranked as QB12 is ranking Brady in front of him, simply due to the fact that while Brady may play 5 more years, he's more likely to play 2-3 more. And I'd probably take 10 years of Stafford over 2-3 of Brady unless my team was completely loaded.
My take on the NYG running backs is that Jennings is a good all-around back, Andre Williams is not good, and Vereen is a relatively one-dimensional receiving back. The fantasy value of guys like Vereen is pretty dependent on their team's offense, and I don't get the sense that NY is the sort of team that is going to throw a ton to their RBs. It's possible that I should rank Vereen a little higher just because of the uncertainty about his role. I don't think I should put Jennings any lower - he's basically the last guy in my rankings who has a good shot to be a solid fantasy starter this year (except maybe Ivory, who I should move up after the recent good news about his role).Vereen seems low IMO, or maybe it is that Jennings is too high. Or both. I'm surprised to see Jennings a full tier ahead of Vereen, who is four years younger. Vereen could easily outproduce Jennings this season.
Remember what happened the last time New England's third down RB moved on. Woodhead went to the Chargers in 2013, and he finished as a top 15 RB. Vereen could easily do the same and is younger than Woodhead was at that time.
Wrong in that 2 years ago Stafford was a QB7 and that was with Calvin getting injured, missing 2 games and being hobbled in others. Irronically he played very well in one of those games, combining for 604 yds 4 TDs & 0 Ints in both. That's not a low end QB1. It's a firm QB1. From a VBD hardly any QBs provide much after the top few. Associating that to Stafford alone doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's one of the main reasons I won't ever draft QBs early. There are a bunch of them who don't separate from a VBD standpoint. The past 2 years, after QBs 1 & 2 only 100 points have separated QBs 3 thru 16 and 3 thru 17. That's a ton of guys with poor VBD and basically just a slew of options for you as a drafter when looking at QBs. Personally, I think the VBD angle as it applies here is being hugely overemphasized. I'd say that about a slew of other guys as well. Just saw the post by ZWK.... Brady has a VBD of 14 combined the past 2 years. How is it he doesn't get punished for this yet, Stafford does. The same could be said about a bunch of other QBs. Plus, Brady is much older. Other guys with a WORSE VBD over the 2 year span; Keapernick, Tannehill, Romo, Ryan, Wilson & Newton. Again, it seems highly inconsistent to apply this methodology to Stafford yet none of these guys.How has he been wrong about Stafford? A top 5 season does not necessarily equal a top 5 QB. Stafford has been hugely dependent upon volume, and still hasn't been elite. In exactly one season, which was 4 years ago, he provided an advantage at the position over some of your leaguemates. I think ZWK nailed Stafford two years ago, and is 100% correct in his assessment of him today. The only potential gripe I'd have about Stafford ranked as QB12 is ranking Brady in front of him, simply due to the fact that while Brady may play 5 more years, he's more likely to play 2-3 more. And I'd probably take 10 years of Stafford over 2-3 of Brady unless my team was completely loaded.Huh, the last 2 years have confirmed your stance? 2 years ago directly conflicts with your stance, he was QB7.Last season was clearly a down year for him and there are many factors that led to it. Primarily the loss of Calvin and Det morphing into the #1 D in the NFL. This year however, Calvin is healthy and they lost arguably the best dlineman in the game as well as another pretty dominant DT. They added everyone's preseason darling, Ameer and also have a leading TE breakout candidate in Ebron.Stafford is not a top 10 passer (in terms of NFL efficiency, not fantasy value). In terms of his track record of fantasy value, he had one huge season in 2011, which involved leading the league in passing attempts and a flukishly high number of TDs. Since then has not been a difference-maker, picking up 49 VBD over 3 seasons and averaging only half a fpt per game more than Kaepernick from 2012-2014. And he has had relatively favorable circumstances over the past 3 years - he is 2nd in the NFL in pass attempts over that period and has had Calvin Johnson at WR. My guess is that Stafford will continue to be a low-end fantasy starter as long as Calvin remains elite, and then he'll slip down into fantasy QB2 territory.I've probably gotten more pushback in this thread on Stafford than on anyone else. I was saying similar things about Stafford 2 years ago, and the past 2 years have not given me reason to update in favor of Stafford.This is strange considering Stafford has had finishes of 5, 11, 7 & 16 the past 4 years.Stafford, Kaepernick, and Tannehill have all been around for a few years (they're all 27), and don't look like top 5 QBs to me. Bridgewater has significantly worse draft pedigree than Winston or Mariota (the track record of late 1st rounders isn't nearly as good as the top few picks), and he was a below average QB as a rookie.
I don't really care if Stafford puts up points because he throws a 1000 passes in a season. I only care about the points. In that regard, you have by and large been wrong about Stafford. He's had a top 5 finish,11 and 7.
Next suspension is 10 games. After that is a full year.I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.
Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.
The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.
And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).
This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.
Didn't Gordon play the last six games last season?After the 2015 season, Blackmon and Gordon will have missed 44 and 27 consecutive games, respectively. Is there a precedent for a player (any skill position) being relevant after missing the better part of 2-3 seasons for disciplinary reasons?
* I could see it more with Gordon, at least to attempt a return, though he would just continue to be a massive recidivism/re-suspension risk barring some extraordinary shift in his lifestyle and priorities (technically, I think the latest suspension was for drinking on a team flight which he claimed he didn't know was a violation, not due to pot, though he was subject to those draconian terms due to previousOt violations). Blackmon seems completely done, like he isn't even interested in playing again and meeting reinstatement compliance.
** Vick missed two seasons. His two year prison-related absence was of course due to an issue far worse than pot, though didn't come with attendant addiction concerns.
It depends on what you categorize as "disciplinary reasons". The Ricky Williams saga might qualify. He missed all of 2004, ostensibly due to retirement, but in reality it was triggered by a suspension for a failed drug test and might be counted as "disciplinary reasons". He came back in 2005 (when he learned Miami could recoup his signing bonus if he retired early), but then missed 2006 and almost all of 2007 after another failed drug test and a stint in the CFL, which again could be categorized as "missed time - disciplinary reasons".After the 2015 season, Blackmon and Gordon will have missed 44 and 27 consecutive games, respectively. Is there a precedent for a player (any skill position) being relevant after missing the better part of 2-3 seasons for disciplinary reasons?
* I could see it more with Gordon, at least to attempt a return, though he would just continue to be a massive recidivism/re-suspension risk barring some extraordinary shift in his lifestyle and priorities (technically, I think the latest suspension was for drinking on a team flight which he claimed he didn't know was a violation, not due to pot, though he was subject to those draconian terms due to previousOt violations). Blackmon seems completely done, like he isn't even interested in playing again and meeting reinstatement compliance.
** Vick missed two seasons. His two year prison-related absence was of course due to an issue far worse than pot, though didn't come with attendant addiction concerns.
I wrote a couple of articles this offseason about how I'm calculating player value:The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.
And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).
This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.
The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)
There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.
Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.
Saw this earlier. What Adam says above makes me real nervous...Next suspension is 10 games. After that is a full year.I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.
Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.
Also worth noting: the new Substance Abuse policy doubled the limits of detection, so testing positive is harder and the "second-hand" argument carries less weight. Also, under the new policy a 4-game suspension doesn't come until the 4th strike, which means Bryant has either failed four tests in the last 16 months, or else he entered the league in the program and then failed three tests in the last 16 months.
Either way, there is non-trivial cause for concern.
Since 1985, here are all of the top fantasy QBs/RBs/WRs who went at least 2 years in the middle of their career without providing any fantasy value (using my very low "replacement level" baselines, and remembering that I'm calculating value per-game so even an injury-abbreviated season can produce positive value):I almost dropped the disciplinary qualifier in the above post, and was going to cite the "donut years" portion of Kurt Warner's career.
Not exactly the same, but Joe Horn (28) and Rich Gannon (34) were notoriously late blooming in terms of their first breakout years.
Good work, some blasts from the past there for sure, like Cunningham, Hearst, Fryar and Kennison.Since 1985, here are all of the top fantasy QBs/RBs/WRs who went at least 2 years in the middle of their career without providing any fantasy value (using my very low "replacement level" baselines, and remembering that I'm calculating value per-game so even an injury-abbreviated season can produce positive value):I almost dropped the disciplinary qualifier in the above post, and was going to cite the "donut years" portion of Kurt Warner's career.
Not exactly the same, but Joe Horn (28) and Rich Gannon (34) were notoriously late blooming in terms of their first breakout years.
Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Joe Montana, Kurt Warner, Rich Gannon, Drew Bledsoe
Ricky Williams, Ernest Byner, Charlie Garner, Garrison Hearst, Travis Henry, Mike Anderson, Eric Rhett, LeRoy Hoard, (Marshawn Lynch didn't technically qualify, but he's an interesting name to consider)
Irving Fryar, Plaxico Burress, Ed McCaffrey, James Lofton, Jeff Graham, Vance Johnson, Eddie Kennison (twice!), Bobby Engram, Ricky Proehl, (Joey Galloway another name that didn't "technically" qualify, but is worth considering)
A lot of this won't really meet the spirit of what you're looking for. Some of that is just junk where a QB threw in one last QB17 season after years of QB23 finishes before retiring, for instance. Or like Charlie Garner, where he *technically* produced non-zero fantasy value in 1994 and 1995 before his 1998 breakout, but that was really just an illustration of how low the baselines really are.
That does sound pretty serious. There is some major risk there for Bryant.Next suspension is 10 games. After that is a full year.I meant that missing 4 games doesn't matter much. The concern about additional suspensions (or other trouble) in his future does matter, and is a reason to downgrade him. Probably to somewhere on the next tier, but I'm not sure how far down it. I'm trying to remember the details of the new marijuana policy - do they still do a yearlong ban?After what we have seen with Gordon and Blackmon, I find your stance that multiple failed marijuana tests "means very little for his dynasty value" to be very surprising.I posted these before the suspension news (now being reported as "multiple failed marijuana tests"), but I don't think that news changes things all that much. Bryant has tons of upside and was ridiculously productive when he was on the field last year - in addition to the TDs, he was 3rd in the NFL in yards per route run (behind only AJ Green & Demaryius Thomas). The 4-game suspension means very little for his dynasty value (though the risk of future off-the-field issues does hurt him enough to drop him down a bit).Marcus Wheaton at 85 and Bryant at 33 are upside down. Wheaton has won the starting job and now Bryant has a four game PED suspension. Big Ben has been praising Wheaton all off season and he could easily solidify his spot in the next four weeks. Even if you think Bryant has more long term talent, you would have to drop him some and move Wheaton up into the mid-40s or 50s.
Bryant now carries a very significant risk that was not associated with him or priced into his value before his suspension was announced. If he fails another test, he will be suspended for a year, and we know he has failed multiple tests in the past year.
Also worth noting: the new Substance Abuse policy doubled the limits of detection, so testing positive is harder and the "second-hand" argument carries less weight. Also, under the new policy a 4-game suspension doesn't come until the 4th strike, which means Bryant has either failed four tests in the last 16 months, or else he entered the league in the program and then failed three tests in the last 16 months.
Either way, there is non-trivial cause for concern.
That's good research.I wrote a couple of articles this offseason about how I'm calculating player value:The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.
And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).
This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.
The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)
There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.
Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadValueOverBaseline
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadVBDBaselines
For non-subscribers, the first one just laid out the case for calculating VBD on a per-game basis and introduced the idea of splitting it into two forms- value over "worst starter" and value over "average starter". The second one trolled through a bunch of MFL leagues to measure what qualified as actual, real-world "worst starter" production. That's how I got the QB21/22 baseline in PPG, because in actual MFL leagues, that's about what the least-productive QB team was producing. Think of it as "in the absolute worst case scenario, this is what you can expect to get at the position". "Average Starter" baseline was calculated similarly- by going to actual MFL leagues and recording what the actual average ppg at the position was across the entire league.
I think the two different baselines provide a useful snapshot of value over absolute worst-case scenario and of the actual advantage a player is giving you over your entire league. Especially if we go with the idea that "anyone under baseline scores as a zero", I think it's more justifiable with a baseline that represents true "replacement level". QB12 still provides some value, because at least you aren't forced to start Geno Smith. QB30 doesn't really provide value, though, because you could have always started Geno Smith instead.
(In terms of Value over Average Starter, Stafford hasn't produced anything since 2011. Of course, there are only 14 total QBs who gave *any* value over average starter over the last three years.)
Regardless of how you calculate it, the fact remains that Stafford has produced little value despite high volume and is trending down to boot.
To some extent, that's the nice thing about the "value above average starter" metric. A relatively small amount of players are actually going to qualify, and those are the guys who you're going to be starting every week, no matter what. Also, since the average doesn't represent a single static player, it shifts with the distribution of talent. If the talent curve is unusually concave (high peak, but with a huge cluster of players right around baseline, such as at quarterback), then "average starter" will be relatively higher in the distribution, and a proportionally smaller part of the population will qualify. If the talent curve is not quite so concave, (a lot more players clustered at the peak and a bit less of a broad plateau right around the baseline, such as at wide receiver), "average starter" baseline will fall a bit lower in the rankings and you're going to have more "no-brainer" weekly starts.That's good research.I wrote a couple of articles this offseason about how I'm calculating player value:The VBD numbers I gave are just from PFR, since that is a nice easy-to-communicate default.Regarding Stafford: I worked on my own value formula over the summer that's basically just another flavor of what ZWK is using. It's (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played, but I'm pretty sure my baseline is much lower than his. Over the last three years, my baseline came out to QB21, QB22, and QB21 in terms of PPG average; the lower baseline is a huge help to guys who stay healthy every year like Matt Stafford.
And using my extremely-friendly methodology, and a relatively passer-friendly scoring system (1/20 passing, 5pts per TD), Matt Stafford was the 12th-most-valuable fantasy QB over the last three years. Behind Robert Griffin III. And trending down, to boot, (50.88, 44.64, and 10.72 points over baseline).
This is despite Stafford ranking top-5 in pass attempts each of those three seasons, (and despite 2012 shattering the NFL record for pass attempts by 36 attempts). Which means there's not a lot of upside, volume-wise. Very little room to grow, but plenty of room to shrink.
The VBD-like-thing that I actually use is also based on ppg, but I use a last-starter baseline. Baseline-level ppg is set at a level so that the number of games played by players at or above baseline is equal to the total number of starts needed at that position (which would be 12x17=204 games for QB, if I'm using full-season stats). Then I do the same: (PPG - Baseline PPG) * Games Played. That is equivalent to giving a player credit for baseline-level performance for each game that he misses, and then doing season-long VBD.)
There is a case for setting the baseline lower, since players who score slightly below the "worst starter" level have some use and will occasionally end up in your lineup ahead of even worse players. But there is also a case for setting baseline higher, since players who score slightly above the "worst starter" level sometimes stay on your bench behind even better players. The "baseline should be lower" issue (playing below-baseline players) happens more often than the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players). On the other hand, good fantasy teams face more of the "baseline should be higher" issue (benching above-baseline players), and fantasy points matter more when you have a good team since that's when you're in contention for a championship. So, on the whole, I think the baseline I'm using is pretty close to where I want it to be.
Ideally, I would use some nonlinear curve for the relationship between fpts and something-like-VBD instead of just subtracting off a single baseline. And I think I do something like that intuitively when I'm making roster decisions. For the number-crunching part of the process, the VBD-like-thing that I use seems good enough.
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadValueOverBaseline
http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/article.php?article=HarstadVBDBaselines
For non-subscribers, the first one just laid out the case for calculating VBD on a per-game basis and introduced the idea of splitting it into two forms- value over "worst starter" and value over "average starter". The second one trolled through a bunch of MFL leagues to measure what qualified as actual, real-world "worst starter" production. That's how I got the QB21/22 baseline in PPG, because in actual MFL leagues, that's about what the least-productive QB team was producing. Think of it as "in the absolute worst case scenario, this is what you can expect to get at the position". "Average Starter" baseline was calculated similarly- by going to actual MFL leagues and recording what the actual average ppg at the position was across the entire league.
I think the two different baselines provide a useful snapshot of value over absolute worst-case scenario and of the actual advantage a player is giving you over your entire league. Especially if we go with the idea that "anyone under baseline scores as a zero", I think it's more justifiable with a baseline that represents true "replacement level". QB12 still provides some value, because at least you aren't forced to start Geno Smith. QB30 doesn't really provide value, though, because you could have always started Geno Smith instead.
(In terms of Value over Average Starter, Stafford hasn't produced anything since 2011. Of course, there are only 14 total QBs who gave *any* value over average starter over the last three years.)
Regardless of how you calculate it, the fact remains that Stafford has produced little value despite high volume and is trending down to boot.
If you're really serious about trying to upgrade VBD into something that comes closer to tracking what we actually care about, I do think you're going to have to go nonlinear.
An elite WR who scores 8 ppg above "baseline" gives you 8 extra fpts every time he's in your lineup (we'll say), and he'll be in your lineup all 15 times.
A decent WR who scores 2 ppg above "baseline" gives you 2 extra fpts every time he's in your lineup, and he might only be in your lineup 10 times.
The elite WR is adding 6x as many fpts to your squad (120 vs. 20), even though he's only scoring 4x as many points over baseline. And moving the baseline around can't fix this problem with the formula. The player value curve (relative to the players' ppg) is a lot flatter near the level that typically gets called "baseline" - there are a lot of players who are moderately useful options to plug in for a few games when you need them, but who probably won't be starting for you for most of the season.
For high-end players, a linear relationship makes sense: each additional fantasy point that they score does translate into 1 more fantasy point for your team, because they're in your lineup every week. But that's not true near baseline.