Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

PranksterJD

Members
  • Content Count

    1,407
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PranksterJD

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  1. Certainly Alex and Troy don't help, but I'm getting the feeling that he's Randy Moss in Oakland already. The "diva" characteristics that he's shown just seem to keep him from caring about a 49ers team that, to be fair, doesn't inspire a lot of caring.I still think he's a **potential** top 5 dynasty WR, but my percentages for that happening have lowered a bit. Still a guy I'd like to have on my team, but I have a hard time even finding a spot for him in my top 15 WRs right now, so I'm not sure how much luck I'll have targeting him this offseason.In the end I think he's an outstanding talent, but the NFL right now is full of high caliber WRs that are outstanding talents.
  2. Moreno ***WAAAAAY*** low. Criminal for any league, even more so for PPR. This is the only one that I don't even understand. There are quite a few I disagree with, but at least can appreciate. Moreno behind Mathews, Felix, and Beanie is fascinating. He's got every single quality I look for in a young back that finally "got it". He'll make a serious play for my personal top 10 at my next ranking session.Oh... and what's the basis for Lynch being so high?Notable others....Hard to see Gore at 10 and Deangelo/Turner at 16/17People keep trying to write off Joe Addai, and I'll keep reaping the rewards. There's a reason this kid was the only Colts RB to do anything useful this year. He's better than people think.Thanks for the rankings.
  3. Ben's the #5 QB in my league since he came back, so calling him #6 can't be too far off. Regardless, those top 8 are the top 8 in some order, with a significant drop after.When I try to pull tiers out of this list its Schaub and Stafford who seem the most out of place. Schaub has been riding last year's numbers for too long now, and the market needs to correct itself. I'm apprehensive of Stafford's injuries, but this guy has the skills to be in the top 5 ( as long as he's got Calvin ), and he's a gamer. Definitely in the Ryan, Bradford tier for me ( though just behind both ) Interestingly ( and I've got Bradford a spot over Ryan, so not really chastizing this pick ), but Ryan is known for being an uber-cerebral QB, and he had a higher completion percentage his rookie year than Bradford does now. He's also got almost identical TD and INT percentages, while Ryan had a dramatically better YPA ( 7.9 to 6.0 ). I'm not willing to put that entirely on Roddy White.
  4. Looks like some of you are lost. You want to be here.... http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showforum=4
  5. Good to know. Thanks. :(I knew he was writing for Rotoworld, but he'd made comments in the past that redraft articles were taking up his time. I didn't know the dynasty ranks were being updated behind the pay wall.
  6. Tough call. Elite talent at either is pretty hard to replace. Honestly, I think I could replace Andre easier than I could replace Adrian, simply because of supply. On a weekly basis, there are tons of WRs getting touches, but relatively few RBs. You can't fairly compare a "top 3" WR to a "low RB1".I agree that Nicks has more value than Bradshaw, but because he's a better football player, not because he can be replaced more easily.
  7. Another point to consider for the original question is that the above isn't exactly accurate, at least for most dynasty owners. Typically we see guys use windows of 2, 3, maybe 5 years. Anything beyond that is too difficult to project because of the variables.For example, if I use a 3 year window, and project Roddy White to perform at the same level as Nicks for those 3 years, then I will value Nicks more highly because his age is the kicker. However, if I project Roddy to perform at even 5% more over that 3 year span, then Nicks' 6 additional years aren't going to even it out, and Roddy will be higher in my ranks. Pretty much the same reason why we see Andre consistently higher than Calvin. Its a virtual lock that Calvin will score more points in his career from this point forward, but not over the same (relatively) stable amount of time. This matters because the shorter lifespan of the RB is mitigated by this window. Sure, Gore might only have 3 years, while Jennings has 6, but if my window is "3" then Bradshaw wins as he's more likely to have better points over that time.
  8. Orton's playing fine, fine ball right now, but I think he's being over-rated for dynasty. He's a nice player, and certainly better than the Palmer tier that we've been talking about, but IMO he's nowhere close to making the jump in with the elite guys. He's comparable to Schaub... a guy with enough talent to take advantage of a situation that's incredibly favorable to QBs.... but as we're seeing with Schaub, he shouldn't be spoken about in the same breath as guys like Roethlisberger and Rivers.SSOG has warned us about ranking a guy based on a hot streak.... and its pretty obvious that Orton's on a hot streak. He's playing lights out, but he's doing it in a QB-production haven that **might** last the entire year. However there's no chance that Denver's running game remains as putrid as it has been, and Orton's numbers will plummet when it improves. He's throwing a ton of balls, and while he probably remains right around the Matt Ryan/Eli territory, and there's so many guys in that tier that all of their values are deflated. Orton's not going to be a fantasy QB1 for much longer, and thus he's not going to have premium dynasty value for much longer... if he has much now anyway. I haven't seen any deals for him, but my guess is that this is one of those Peyton Hillis situations where most owners won't take what others are willing to pay.SSOG, was wondering whether you could comment here. Its close to one of those semantic debates, since I'm not talking about a tier change, but something about seeing Orton at #11 rubs me the wrong way. All the guys in your 3rd tier have flaws, and all have strengths, whether it be offensive scheme, talent level, simple age, etc. Orton seems to be the "jack of all trades, master of none" in this regard.But, we've been debating about how QB upside is the holy grail for this tier, and I'm just not sure I see Orton as having more upside that he has right now. It feels like this is his ceiling, and that its not a sustainable result. Granted, its a hell of a ceiling, but when he falls back down to Eli Manning-level numbers, I can't see him being the best of this tier.Corollary: Matt Schaub is over-rated.
  9. FBG has game logs back to 2002 so covering the last eight full seasons plus six weeks into this season using FBG scoring you get:Manning ahead 64 times (8 of these were a McNabb bye), McNabb ahead 55 times (8 of these were a Manning bye) plus 23 more times Manning wins because McNabb was injured. Just plug in Shaun Hill or Ryan Fitzpatrick during those weeks and get back to us.Haha. I've done my work. Homer can do what he wants with the info.... I only did the work because his statement had me curious what the result would be. It's clearly not a 2 to 1 Manning advantage.Not that clearly. Manning was ahead of Donovan 87 out of 142 games, over 61%. Pretty close to 2:1 if you don't include the injury plug-ins.Homer's statement is correct.... Manning is better week-in, week-out.... but almost exclusively because Donovan doesn't get on the field often enough. The problem is that the statement has nothing to do with SSOG's point. However, SSOG's statement is also correct... McNabb can hold his own in PPG with Manning, since its close to even in games that Donovan actually played. The problem is that this is a relatively useless stat when dealing with McNabb. In its original context ( the debate between Donovan and **Eli** ), its an interesting point to consider, but getting sidetracked on Peyton is a bit silly. Really... all this line of analysis does is to provide the news flash that Peyton Manning is a more valuable quarterback than Donovan McNabb.
  10. Orton's playing fine, fine ball right now, but I think he's being over-rated for dynasty. He's a nice player, and certainly better than the Palmer tier that we've been talking about, but IMO he's nowhere close to making the jump in with the elite guys. He's comparable to Schaub... a guy with enough talent to take advantage of a situation that's incredibly favorable to QBs.... but as we're seeing with Schaub, he shouldn't be spoken about in the same breath as guys like Roethlisberger and Rivers.SSOG has warned us about ranking a guy based on a hot streak.... and its pretty obvious that Orton's on a hot streak. He's playing lights out, but he's doing it in a QB-production haven that **might** last the entire year. However there's no chance that Denver's running game remains as putrid as it has been, and Orton's numbers will plummet when it improves. He's throwing a ton of balls, and while he probably remains right around the Matt Ryan/Eli territory, and there's so many guys in that tier that all of their values are deflated. Orton's not going to be a fantasy QB1 for much longer, and thus he's not going to have premium dynasty value for much longer... if he has much now anyway. I haven't seen any deals for him, but my guess is that this is one of those Peyton Hillis situations where most owners won't take what others are willing to pay.Cassel seems to have the same upside, which is to say... not much long term. IMO, the only guys with even a slight possibility of reaching the never-bench-your-studs tier for QBs are Bradford and Cutler, and even Cutler's going to require help from his situation to get there.
  11. The better analogy is that Dwyer hasn't proven that he's not better than Cadillac Williams or Fred Taylor, and yes... I value him more highly. You want to know who is even easier to aquire in dynasty leagues? Long-shot rookie QBs like Max Hall. Sure, you can get Cassel for a 2nd. But you can get Hall, Kafka, LeFevour for free.I can also get the next Bruce Gradkowski or Shaun Hill for free, and get Palmer/Cassel level production. Why would I waste the roster spot on a guy I know is replaceable with a FA? What?! Based on what?! There is a very slim chance he is ever a year in, year out starter like Palmer is. And you keep saying Palmer and Cassel have no value. They have more value than Max Hall, seeing as how they are owned more often, are more proven, and will put up more points. 1) Agreed that its a slim chance he becomes a year-in, year-out fantasy starter, and 2) I disagree that Palmer is one.Accoding to % owned, Antonio Bryant is more valuable than DHB, Seattle Mike, and a slew of others. All Carson and Cassel have proven is that they can ride name value from years ago in drastically different situations, and that they can consistently provide bye-week level points. These are not the best measures here I feel. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, outside of all that... your argument has merit. I certainly can't say that you're wrong for having Cassel and Palmer higher, as we're all really discussing semantics around a bunch of low-value guys at this point. The better question is whether Max Hall is a buy low as a guy with the opportunity to reach Stafford/Sanchez/Kolb status, or if he's destined to stay at the replacement-level.
  12. And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.How many Miles Austins are there? What is the ratio of 3rd string players at any position, after 3 years, turning it around to become top 3? >1%?I am not sure how relevant, while true, your comment is?Becoming top 3 is one thing. Beating out Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel in a dynasty ranking is another thing entirely. The Austin example is extreme, but its relevant as a counter-argument to your belief that a 3rd string guy implies desperation, as it shows that a 3rd stringer starting can simply imply depth.... or at least can show that the talent level of the 3rd stringer is comparable to that of those before him, even if the experience level is not.QB2 is the most easily filled position in most dynasty leagues, so those players have little to no value. Its normally easy enough to find guys to fill that hole if QB is a position of need, so guys that have proven their lot in life is to fill that hole have equally small value.Max Hall has more value to me simply because he hasn't **proven** that's his spot. Is there a 95% chance that's where he belongs?.... probably. But so far all we know is that he's a guy willing to put his body on the line to beat the defending Super Bowl champs. That's as much as he could have realistically done in that game, and he did it... so he gets an opportunity to see whether he can capitalize on that slim 5% and become Kyle Orton.Personally, I have no problem with him being over Palmer and Cassel. I'd probably have Tebow over him, and move Freeman and Young into a tier above, but he's certainly in the right ballpark with guys like Whitehurst and Gradkowski.... which is to say, a ballpark with very little value in any case.
  13. And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.
  14. That seems to be a fair assumption. Despite all the rhetoric, neither side wins if there is a lockout/strike - especially during this time period where the NFL is absolutely flourishing.You are reading it wrong. First, he wouldn't be reporting for a "couple of hundred thousand dollars." He would be reporting for Millions. If he doesn't report, they are telling him that he will NOT be a Free Agent. He will still be owned by the Chargers. They are letting him know that they won't support him if he continues to hold out and wants to claim free agency next season.The only thing Jackson is guaranteed at this point is about $200K from my understanding ( $300K tender minus fines for time missed ). The NFL PA is saying to him... "Look, Bud... you've been holding out thinking that you'll be a UFA at the beginning of next year. Well, we're saying that if you don't report, then there's a good chance you won't be."In **ANY OTHER YEAR**, the CBA would have made Jackson a UFA before this season. Since the NFLPA is advising him to play, its logical that they're saying that the CBA verbiage of 2009 is as good as dead. Since they know what the 2011 CBA **won't** contain, it implies in turn that they have some semblance of an idea of what it **will** contain. From my standpoint, the logical options are... 1) there's a new, long-term CBA that's close to being decided, which increases the UFA from 4 to 6 years permanently , or 2) there's a temporary CBA in place that keeps the current uncapped year and temporary requirement at 6 years in place for another year. I don't really care about Vincent Jackson. I'm trying to infer something about what the NFLPA's actions might say about football in 2011. Admittedly, it might be a stretch to go this far.