Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About MrTwo94

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/30/1980

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Houston, TX

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Houston Texans

Recent Profile Visitors

2,329 profile views
  1. Not to be rude, but we're not looking for new ideas. We're looking for opinions on draft pick value. Like if you had the 1.01 last year and weren't picky between Fournette and Davis, would you have taken the 2.01 to move down to the 1.02? Do you think the 1.08 is worth the 1.11+2.04? Is 2.05 fair for 3.01+3.02? Have you seen recent pick for picks trades that you thought were fair? If so, how do they match up with these numbers?
  2. That's a relatively small amount. It would be akin to telling you that you couldn't barter with your future 1sts or 2nds.
  3. Thanks. That's an interesting method. I'm not sure the hypothetical trade values will work out, though. Before smoothing, It would only take 1.02 + 2.07 to equal 1.01.
  4. Because auction $, like draft order, is determined after the season (with the core idea of awarding the worst teams with the most auction $, like how the worst teams are awarded the best rookie picks). You wouldn't know how much you had to work with and can't have people going into debt by trading more than they ended up with at the end of the season. That would be a commissioner nightmare.
  5. As recently as last year, Fournette and Davis were neck and neck. In fact, they flip flopped between July and August. Sort by "rookies only" and choose a month: Zeke and Barkley are not the norm. In 2015, Cooper and Gurley were neck and neck. In 2014, Watkins and Evans were very close. In 2013, Bell and Gio were very close. I don't have ADP data for before that, but I found this from 2012 and this. I believe 2011 was pretty close between Ingram, Julio, AJG, and DT. So I maintain that 1.01 has not always been as skewed in value as 2016 and 2018.
  6. Hello shark pool, This has the potential to get long so I'll get straight to the point and add details later. A friend and I are trying to convert a traditional dynasty rookie snake draft into auction format and I'm seeking opinions on the value of each pick. During the season, everything will operate as normal. Managers will have 4 rookie picks per year to trade, so you can trade a future 2nd for a player mid-season if you want. At the end of the season a draft order will be determined (IMO, this should always be reverse order of potential points so the weakest team is awarded the earliest pick and it makes tanking absolutely useless). As soon as that draft order is set, all the picks are then converted to auction dollars by a predetermined set of values. That's the tricky part... My friend and I have been tinkering with the values by testing them against a few random hypothetical trades to see if the values seem accurate/fair. We got a start from this article, but quickly determined those values were really out of whack. It at least provided a starting point, though, and we've done probably 20+ iterations since then to arrive at the current one. Please let me know your thoughts on these values. Also, try to not solely think about it in terms of 2018 rookies. This year is a bit of an aberration with Barkley commanding so much value. In most years, the gap between 1.01 and 1.02 is not nearly as big. So here goes: Pick Value Pick Value Pick Value Pick Value 1.01 $600 2.01 $90 3.01 $36 4.01 $12 1.02 $510 2.02 $84 3.02 $34 4.02 $11 1.03 $434 2.03 $78 3.03 $32 4.03 $10 1.04 $368 2.04 $72 3.04 $30 4.04 $9 1.05 $313 2.05 $67 3.05 $28 4.05 $8 1.06 $266 2.06 $62 3.06 $26 4.06 $7 1.07 $226 2.07 $57 3.07 $24 4.07 $6 1.08 $192 2.08 $53 3.08 $22 4.08 $5 1.09 $163 2.09 $49 3.09 $20 4.09 $4 1.10 $139 2.10 $45 3.10 $18 4.10 $3 1.11 $118 2.11 $42 3.11 $16 4.11 $2 1.12 $100 2.12 $39 3.12 $14 4.12 $1 The hypothetical trades we used to gauge accuracy (along with this format's result in parentheses) are as follows: 3.01+3.02 (2.05+) 2.03+2.05+2.07 (1.08+) 1.02+X=1.01 (2.01) 1.08+1.09 (1.05++) 2.04+X=1.08 (1.11) So what say you? These values seem fair or is something glaringly askew? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If anyone cares, this set of values is based on only 3 variables. I left rounds 3 and 4 static (after trying a few different sets of values), but used a consistent % drop (call it "A") from picks 1-12 (at one stage I varied the % from 1-6 and 7-12 but ultimately abandoned that), then used a different % for 1.12-2.01 ("B"), and finally a dollar drop ("C) from 2.12 to 3.01. I used a formula {pick above*((2.12/2.01)^(1/11))} to smooth the drop from 2.01 to 2.12. In this case, A=15%, B=10%, C=$3. ETA: just to be clear, the 1.01 value is also a variable. So I should've said 4 variables. Secondary thought: maybe this doesn't matter. Who is to say the original paradigm was perfect and must be replicated in value? This could just be a new, random model that everyone must learn to work with. Much like other league settings, you adapt to change. Either way, still seeking opinions on how well these prices mimic actual/normal rookie pick value.
  7. Fellas, stop arguing. Take a step back and realize no one cares. I can't believe this worthless thread is 8 pages long now.
  8. No. It's not the same concept. Teams CHOOSE whether to pass or to rush. They do not CHOOSE to punt, they are forced to punt. If a team is devoting a lot of resources to the passing game, it likely indicates they are going to CHOOSE to pass more. If a team devotes a lot of resources to the punting game, it likely indicates that they anticipate being FORCED TO punt more- not that they anticipate choosing to punt. See below. You're basically saying that dump trucks aren't juicy, so apples must not be juicy, either. When I read this, I see "when Ben was a rookie, Pittsburgh had the #1 D, the #1 running game, and they called way more runs than passes. When Sanchez was a rookie, NYJ had the #1 D, the #1 running game, and they called way more runs than passes."Seems like two pretty comparable situations to me, no? See below.If Pittsburgh could go out and become a pass-first team, then why not the Jets? No one is TRYING to become a pass first team. If they can win as a run first team then that's what they'll do. This is the DYNASTY rankings thread, right? Do you really think that the Jets are going to be a run-first team for the next 16 years of Sanchez's career? See below. Do you really think that the Jets are collecting WRs in an effort to use them as little as humanly possible? No. As I've stated before, they are acquiring players in an effort to improve a weak spot in their offense. Do you really think that what a player does as a rookie defines what they're going to do for their entire career? No, but situation can dictate outcome. I don't get why it's so controversial to suggest that just because NYJ isn't a good situation for passing right now doesn't mean it won't be a good situation for passing in the next couple of years. Things change fast. How many defenses remain at #1 for more than a season or two? Do they really have to be #1? I think top 5 with a good turnover differential should be sufficient. Very, very narrow thinking here. And wrong, too. A team can upgrade a punter without anticipating punting more. They could just want to punt more effectively when they have to. Which is exactly what the Jets were trying to accomplish by upgrading their WR. They don't necessarily want to pass more, just pass more effectively when they do need to pass. I really feel like you are just being stubborn here. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.As for your analysis on the stats I gave you, no, those situations don't seem comparable to me. Only if you really dumb it down do they seem comparable. What you are missing* is that their rushing attack wasn't all that potent. They just stuck with it because they could. They were 19th in ypc in the league yet they led the league in yards. So did they really have the #1 running game? If you only look at total yards, then yes, but in reality, no. The Jets had extremely lopsided playcalling last year and still maintained a top 5 ypc stat. To me that indicates a much stronger run game. They also achieved a #1 defensive ranking despite the fact that their offense was giving the ball away just as quickly as they could steal it from the other team's offense. Pit had a +11 ratio in Ben's rookie year. So as the Jets decrease turnovers, the easier it will be for their defense to remain at the top. And while this is a dynasty thread, I think people would like returns on their investments sooner rather than later. The Jets o-line is very young and Rex Ryan will likely maintain a strong defense. If anyone really believes in Sanchez then I hope they are very patient. *I put an asterisk there because I've seen your stat breakdowns before. You would see this if you wanted to. I agree that things change quickly in the NFL, but I think signs point to this situation being unique. Anyone acquiring Sanchez in a dynasty league should do so expecting their return on investment to take longer than usual for a 2nd year QB who started his rookie year. Or at the very least, for the increase in production from year 1 to 2 to 3 to be in small increments.
  9. Just for fun, I looked up Pit's stats when Big Ben was a rookie. Their defense was the #1 ranked D and they were the #1 rushing (yards) team and the #11 scoring team, but they were not that impressive on ypc in the run game (4.0 ypc - 19th in the league). Their turnover differential was also +11. Last year their defense was #12 and they were #19 in rushing yards and #12 in scoring. Their ypc was 4.2 which was good for 16th in the league. Turnover differential was -3. Last year the Jets' defense was #1 and they were #1 in rushing yards and #17 in scoring. Their ypc was 4.5 which was good for 5th in the league. Turnover differential by +1. I'd say the Jets are actually more likely to keep up the running pace than the Steelers were since I'd expect that differential to improve as Sanchez becomes less error prone.
  10. Actually, no, your punter example is awful logic. Punting is a play of last resort. On defense, you have to defend what the offense calls. The only time that you can actually CHOOSE what you're going to do is when you have the ball on offense. As a result, where you invest your money on offense probably says a lot about what you plan on doing when you have the ball. If a team signed Randy Moss, Larry Fitzgerald, and Andre Johnson, I'd imagine they were planning on passing a lot. If a team spent $200 million in guaranteed money assembling the best run-blocking OL the league had ever seen, I'd opine that they were probably expecting to call a lot of running plays. Money is a limited resource, even in an uncapped season like this one, and so how a team allocates its funds indicates how it anticipates using its resources. You don't spend resources on something you aren't going to use. That'd be a stupid waste of your limited funds, and for all their flaws, front offices are not stupid.I never said that NYJ was going to suddenly become the 2010 version of the late-decade Arizona Cardinals, but I do think they want to feature their passing game far more prominently going forward. Which is sort of a "no duh" statement, since NOBODY calls more runs than passes several years in a row. It just doesn't happen. Today's NFL is a passing league. All I'm saying is that anyone who thinks that New York is a bad situation in the long term doesn't understand the commitment the front office has been making to ensure that Sanchez has all the tools he needs to thrive and excel.Hell, everything that people are saying about the Jets right now was said about the Steelers when Big Ben was a rookie... but that didn't stop Ben from putting up a 4600 yard passing pace last season, did it?Yes, I know the punter is bad logic. That was the point. It is the same concept. The ridiculousness just happens to highlight the flaw in the logic you two were on board with. The NFL may be a passing league but how many coaches wouldn't prefer to have the luxury of running the ball more often? Coaches always talk about wanting to run the ball 40 times a game, but how often does it actually happen? The Jets had an ineffective passing attack. They traded a 5th for 12 games of Holmes. Whoopie. That is not the same as signing AJ or Fitz. If you were to put a list of needs together for the Jets, I'd think the passing game would be up there and that's where they made a move. The trade is nothing more than an attempt to improve a weakness. I have absolutely no doubts that nobody calls more runs than passes several years in a row. But have you explored why that is? I expect these teams had a significant drop off in running production and/or defense. They didn't do it just for giggles. When ramming the ball down an opponent's throat is an option, any coach will take it. It limits turnovers and controls the clock. The Jets will certainly be forced to pass the ball more often as some point. We all must guess when the bottom will fall out of their defense or when the wheels will come off the running game, but until one of those two things happen I see no reason to expect much of a transition.
  11. :confused:Follow the money. You want to know what a front office wants to do, just follow the trail of green. Add in Cotchery and Keller and I'd go so far as to say that New York has more weapons in the passing game than it does in the running game. Now it's just a matter of Sanchez taking advantage of them.Sorry fellas, you guys both make some great posts but this is awful logic. I mean, if a team upgraded their punter would you assume they plan to punt more often?The Jets have a great run game and a great D. That is going to be the staple for them. Their passing game was bad last year. So it only makes sense to spend a little money to upgrade it, right? That doesn't mean they WANT to pass the ball more. They just want to pass the ball more effectively.As for the quote from Ryan, if you are really reading into quotes from him, you are in trouble. The guy was entertaining for about 30 seconds. After that his drivel became extremely annoying and increasingly worthless.
  12. My favorite league is an 8-teamer. It all depends on the other owners.Yeah, i suppose if you had good owners, it could be fun. It just seems to take any skill away with everyones rosters full of studs.It emphasizes different skills. Guys who are great at weekly projections and who dominate WDIS decisions do better in smaller leagues. So do guys who are really flexible and able to think critically, able to determine what kind of impact different settings will have on player values (for instance, QBs are more valuable in small leagues and RBs are less valuable). If anything, I think big leagues de-emphasize skill to a much greater degree than smaller leagues, because you're much more at the mercy of injuries. In a league where everyone has 1 stud, if your guy gets injured then your season is over. In a league where everyone has 3 studs, if one of them gets injured you've still got a chance. You might have to work some magic to get him replaced, or you might have to rely on your quality depth to keep you afloat, but it's still possible to remain competitive. You're never just one torn ACL away from being completely out of it.At the end of the day, any discussion of how much "skill" a certain format takes is silly. If everyone threw darts at a dartboard for every decision, then everyone in the league would have a 1-in-N chance of winning (where N is the number of people in the league). If you are better than your leaguemates, you'll have better odds of winning. If you're worse than your leaguemates, you'll have worse odds of winning. It'd be easier to win a 12-team league full of idiots and new players than it would be to win an 8-team league full of competitive and experienced owners. Skill level isn't determined by league format, it's determined by the skill level of the people in the league.I'm a little late on this topic but I'd like to jump in to say, it's clearly true that it's easier to win a 12 team league full of idiots than an 8 team full of savvy owners, but the real rub on small leagues is that it is much harder to win an 8 team league full of idiots than it is a 12 team league full of idiots. But that's only if you're being conventional. The problem is that everybody has 3 strong WR and 2 stud RB, right? Well, expand the starting lineups. I've never played in an 8-team league, but I've been stuck in a few 10 team leagues. That's when it's time to try 2QB and/or add in a few flex positions or an extra RB + WR or something like that. I don't really buy into playing fantasy just to see who can predict which 2 of their 4 stud RBs will go off each week. Hell, just picking between 2 running backs, you only seem to have a 53% chance of being right. There's enough luck in fantasy football that you might as well let your studs decide the outcome rather than a guessing game, so if you've got a lot of studs, incorporate a lot of lineup spots.Most people like QB/3WR/2RB/TE/K/D. Seems pretty standard. 7 skill positions. 7x12=84. If you've got 8 teams, 84/8=10.5. So find a way to incorporate 11 skill positions in an 8 team league (maybe 2QB/4WR/3RB/TE/Flex) while increasing bench size accordingly (if you usually do 6* bench spots, 6x12=72. 72/8=9 bench spots.) *For the record, I am always in favor of more than 6 bench spots in a 12 team league - just using that as an example.
  13. IMO this fact isn't very meaningful when you consider the context during his years as OC or HC.From 1999 to 2005, he had Bruce and/or Holt in their primes. Two HOF candidates. I don't think Hester compares to either of them in terms of talent or playing style. So throw out those years for comparison purposes. In 2006, he had Roy Williams, who had his one good season, so that is perhaps a credit to Martz. But in 2007, McDonald was the leading WR, despite the fact that Martz had Calvin Johnson, who as a rookie had just 48/756/4, then exploded the next season with Martz gone. IMO both Williams and Johnson are more talented WRs than Hester; one succeeded and the other didn't under Martz. In 2008, he had lousy WRs in San Francisco, so it's hard to judge. IMO the WRs Martz had with the Lions and 49ers were much more comparable to the group he has with the Bears than the group he had with the Rams. So those three seasons seem to be more valid for predictive purposes than his years with the Rams. Plus, they are his most recent seasons as OC. And he had just 1 top 20 WR out of those 3 years. Not compelling. Two words for you: Mike FurreyFor more, check out Hester's spotlight: It went a couple days w/o any posts and still isn't getting much interest. As for your comment about the Lions and 49ers WRs, you gotta think Cutler is a little better than Kitna and Hill/Smith. Plus, Hester is a little more exciting with the ball than Furrey or McDonald or an old Bruce. And as a Calvin Johnson owner his rookie year.... One, he was a rookie in a complicated Martz system. Two, he had a back injury which he played through but was very limiting. We all like Calvin's potential, but did you really expect a Boldin-esque rookie year? That is a little nit-picky to complain about 48/756/4 for a rookie WR.