Turbo Punch

Members
  • Content count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Turbo Punch

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,894 profile views
  1. I've actually given a lot of thought to that problem, and I've seen various different sites and people take various different approaches to it over the years. I've seen people create multiple sets of rankings, which is obviously a time-consuming workaround. I've seen people try to tackle the problem with algorithms, but they usually produce some pretty monstrous results. As a fan, the easiest solution is just to find expert rankings from guys with different mindsets and work from all the different sets. Which is one of the reasons why I'm such a big proponent of not trying to silence dissenting thought. As a ranker, I'm not sure I can see an easy, workable, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. And as a proud member of #TeamHeuristics, I'm not even sure that it's actually a problem. Would the "diversified viewpoints" solution really outperform a naive "get the best players" heuristic in the long run? I don't know. I don't think so. I think there's a lot to be said for an approach that just says "the best players are the best players regardless of what the rest of my team looks like, (notwithstanding my preference for a team to be truly terrible than merely mediocre)." I've talked some about this on Twitter this offseason, but I often think that "winning championships" is the wrong goal for a dynasty team. I think it's sometimes more productive to think of championships, not as an end goal unto themselves, but as a natural byproduct of our REAL goal, which is merely relentlessly improving our team year after year after year. If we keep making our team better, eventually those championships are going to follow. But if we're chasing specific championships, then we're going to be leaking player value in a vain quest to turn a low-percentage play into a slightly-lower-percentage play. The goal in dynasty should be to win multiple championships - to make your fantasy team a fantasy league dynasty, by winning multiple and/or consecutive championships. Can you do better than the Steel Curtain who won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years in the 70’s, or how about the Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years in the 90’s, or how about the Packers who won 5 championships in 7 years in the ‘60’s. Better yet can you beat the greatest sports dynasty ever and win 8 consecutive championships like the Boston Celtics did between 1959 and 1966. Given this as the ultimate dynasty league goal I would agree that your argument for the Demaryius Thomas for Matt Forte trade as being a mistake is correct, regardless of the results it led to for one season. Personally I doubt that trade had much to do with a 2014 championship given that Thomas scored 340.9 pts in PPR last year and Forte scored 350.6. I doubt that that difference of less than 10 points was the deciding factor between a championship or not. Given the well documented differences in the career arcs of RB vs WR it seems that Wood weakened his chances of being a true dynasty. Of course this is unknown as of this writing and his team could still be a true dynasty. Please let us know how his team does over the next several years.
  2. assuming the first isn't top 3, I like it for you.Thanks for the reply. Should be a very late 1st. My team is a very strong contender.
  3. Looking for some opinions on this trade I just made Give AP/J Randle/LaFell/ 2016 1st Get A Cooper/Gore/ Herron Thought this was a good exit price for AP and also a sell high on Randle.
  4. 12 team PPR Gave Gerhardt, G Tate, 2015 3rd Got Jeremy Hill, Paul Richardson, 2015 2nd
  5. 12 team PPR Gave Joique Bell Get Tavon Austin
  6. EBF. this is why I like posting my trades here. I count 4 preferring the Vereen/Davis side and one preferring the Cameron side. My team is very strong and Cameron is my back up TE - I also have Graham. Makes it easier to part with Cameron. Taking a chance Vereen can become a more consistent RB. Make it 5 to 1. I looked at that trade as you basically getting Vereen for close to nothing. Davis had a big season in 2013, but that was with Crabtree out. The year prior he finished right around TE20 despite playing in all 16 games. Over the course of his career he's put together a few really good seasons, but he's 30 years old and he's always been a better raw athlete than receiver. Once he loses a step, a lot of what makes him special will be gone. He's not the innate pass catcher that Witten and Gonzo are. Add it all up and I don't think he's worth very much moving forward. He'll probably give you 2-3 years of TE8-TE12 production. That's not going to put you over the edge in a typical league. Vereen vs. Cameron isn't that close for me. Cameron is one of the top 3-4 talents in the league at his position. He has a chance to give you real difference maker production at a required starting spot. Vereen had nice ppg down the stretch last year, but three years out he still hasn't put together a top 20 FF season. He doesn't carry the ball, so you're basically relying on his receptions for his FF points. That makes him equivalent to someone like Sproles, who has always been useful but never really a difference-maker. I just think it's giving up two fringe FF starters for a guy who could be top 2-3 at his position next year. I'd rather have the one really good player than the two moderately useful pieces. Depends if you really think Cameron is a top 2-3 TE. Of course we don't know how consistent Cameon will be since he only had one good season out of 3 in the NFL. We do know that in season he was inconsistent in his one good year. Also I have much more confidence in SF offense going forward. The way NE uses and rotates their RBs is a concern. I'm worreid Vereen could be the next Kevin Faulk but overall the dropoff (if any) from Cameron to Davis is worht the chance Vereen can become a solid PPR RB.
  7. Martin side. Martin, Bell, Jeffrey, VJax are all solid fantasy starters. Other than Calvin not sure any of those other players can be considered fantasy starting material.
  8. EBF. this is why I like posting my trades here. I count 4 preferring the Vereen/Davis side and one preferring the Cameron side. My team is very strong and Cameron is my back up TE - I also have Graham. Makes it easier to part with Cameron. Taking a chance Vereen can become a more consistent RB.
  9. Gave Vereen & V Davis for Cameron, Alex Smith & 3.10 rookie pick
  10. Wow, that is a lot to aquire Fitz. I know he's as good as it gets, but I probably wouldn't pull that kind of deal unless I was absolutely stacked at WR.I would pay that all day for Fitz. You're talking about someone who is a virtual lock to be a top 5 WR for a long time. The only way to get a player like Fitz is to overpay with roster depth. It's still a great trade.The thing is...while this is overpaying, check back in a couple of years and it will look like a steal.Can't agree that this is a great call. With Q still producing and out producing Fitz in 2012 and so far this year and without knowing who the # 1 draft pick was in 2010 this is impossible to call. 2010 was the year Dez and Demaryius came out. Suppose he got one of those 2 guys with that future #1 pick. In that case this is a win for the guy trading Fitz. Also, after your discussion on the low percentage increase on how much 1 player increases the chances of a championship I don’t see the big advantage over getting Fitz. Fitz gave you a 3.7 ppg advantage in 2010 and a 5.1 ppg advantage in 2011. In 2012 Q gave you the advantage by 1.3 ppg and so far this season Q gives an advantage of 2.4 ppg. I think the jury is clearly still out on this trade and depending who that #1 pick was, this could very easily go the other way. Also the comment about Fitz being a top 5 WR for a long time needs a little context. Since 2010 he has finished 15th, 14th, 24th and so far this season is 21s in ppg ranking. You don't need to know who the 1st rounder was to know whether it was a good trade. That's confusing outcome with process. That first might have yielded Dez or Demaryius, or Spiller or Mathews. It might have yielded Jahvid Best, Sam Bradford, Dexter McCluster, Montario Hardesty, or Jermaine Gresham. The proper way to evaluate the trade isn't to look at individual names- it's not like the other guy taking Best over Spiller at 3 or Hardesty over Demaryius at 6 would somehow make that a better trade for the guy giving up the pick- it's to look at the EV of an average first. Using standard FBGs scoring, in the 3+ years since the trade Larry Fitzgerald has outscored Anquan Boldin 488 points to 400 points (in 52 vs. 49 games). Mike Sims-Walker has produced practically no positive value (he had one season as a WR4 and then was out of the league). The EV of the third rounder was negligible. ZWK can come weigh in, but I believe he found that an average 1st rounder has an EV of 150-200 points of VBD. And that's just evaluating the trade over the last three years, saying nothing about the expected value going forward (where Fitzgerald absolutely crushes Boldin + generic 2010 1st, based on consensus dynasty rankings). I would look at it this way. The drop off from Ftiz to Boldin over the last 4 years reduces the chances for a championship by 5% - 10% (based on your discussion of what acquiring 1 player will do for a team). Is that small reduction in championship probablity worth the chance to hit the rookie lottery. Not to mention the trade value of rookie picks next year when rookie fever hits. If you can turn 1 asset into 2 or more assets with upside then it is probably worth it. The value of depth as a season progresses is severely underrated.
  11. Wow, that is a lot to aquire Fitz. I know he's as good as it gets, but I probably wouldn't pull that kind of deal unless I was absolutely stacked at WR.I would pay that all day for Fitz. You're talking about someone who is a virtual lock to be a top 5 WR for a long time. The only way to get a player like Fitz is to overpay with roster depth. It's still a great trade.The thing is...while this is overpaying, check back in a couple of years and it will look like a steal.Can't agree that this is a great call. With Q still producing and out producing Fitz in 2012 and so far this year and without knowing who the # 1 draft pick was in 2010 this is impossible to call. 2010 was the year Dez and Demaryius came out. Suppose he got one of those 2 guys with that future #1 pick. In that case this is a win for the guy trading Fitz. Also, after your discussion on the low percentage increase on how much 1 player increases the chances of a championship I don’t see the big advantage over getting Fitz. Fitz gave you a 3.7 ppg advantage in 2010 and a 5.1 ppg advantage in 2011. In 2012 Q gave you the advantage by 1.3 ppg and so far this season Q gives an advantage of 2.4 ppg. I think the jury is clearly still out on this trade and depending who that #1 pick was, this could very easily go the other way. Also the comment about Fitz being a top 5 WR for a long time needs a little context. Since 2010 he has finished 15th, 14th, 24th and so far this season is 21s in ppg ranking.
  12. I am the Brees side of this trade and I' m rebuilding. I think Brees has more elite years left than AJ since you can't touch a QB. Any other opinions on this trade?
  13. I like the Trent side. I think he's pretty clearly > Wilson at the moment. Between Hopkins, Wright, and the 1st, you'll be lucky if one of them turns out as good as Cruz. This was my thought process as well, which is why I made this trade. Does the fact that the team getting Richardson is not going to be a contender thsi season change your opinion?
  14. Team A gives Trent Richardson Victor Cruz Kendall Hunter Juron Criner Team B gives David Wilson Andre Brown Kendall Wright DeAndre Hopkins 2014 1st
  15. 12 team ppr 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1 flexK/D Team A gives Kendall Wright Team B gives Danario Alexander