Moonlight
Footballguy
Well put.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Dynasty Rankings (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
munchkin
Footballguy
I certainly believe a dynasty league is only as strong as its weakest owners. Cycling owners as a result of poor decisions is a nightmare. However, I also believe very, very few understand the dynamics of roster management right out of the gate. The fact that veteran RBs can fall off a cliff and the wild card potential of young WRs are some hard lessons we've all had to swallow. In my oldest dynasty, there are countless trades and waiver moves we look back on and laugh about how they turned out. However, the reason we have 12 strong owners now is not that a Garcon/Forsett for Stewart trade never happened (several did), it's because the guys who were not willing to learn from mistakes have left and the guys that were determined to learn have stayed and built their franchises.
In a League such as this perhaps the current owners are less apt to "prey" on a new owner anyway.
Your point is well taken, however, running a Dynasty team (or a re-draft) for that matter, has a certain learning curve to it any way.
In a League such as this perhaps the current owners are less apt to "prey" on a new owner anyway.
Your point is well taken, however, running a Dynasty team (or a re-draft) for that matter, has a certain learning curve to it any way.
DoubleG
Footballguy
I think, especially in dynasty, that "slaughtering" or even "sheering" trades are difficult to evaluate. Here are two examples as to why:
In my dynasty league, I am fairly deep at WR - possessing Colston, R. White, D. Jackson, M. Crabtree, C. Chambers, A. Gonzalez and Jacoby Jones. My weakness has historically been RB. I targeted Mendenhall several weeks ago. I approached the owner offering him Shonn Greene and A. Gonzalez (he is out of the playoffs and very weak at WR). He said he was actually more interested in L. Washington (whom I also happen to have) and a 3rd round draft pick. In summary - I ended up giving up S. Green, L. Washington and Gonzalez for Mendy. Now, I think highly of S. Green AND Gonzalez, but to me it was worth it. I have had leagumates suggest I "slaugtered" or at least "sheered" - and one who suggested I actually overpayed. I guess it goes to show tha value is in the eye of the beholder.
Second example:
Last season there was an owner who was weak at RB and trying to make a playoff run (similar to me in the example above). It was week 8 or 9, the trade deadline was coming up and he was looking to pick up an RB2. Earnest Graham had about 500 yards rushing, about 4 TDs (on pace for about 1k rushing and about 35 receptions for 250-300 receiving yarsd) and was consistantly putting up double digit fantasy points. He offered his first round pick for Graham - I accepted. At the time other friends in the league again had mixed reactions (some, again thinking I got too good a deal, some thinking giving up a solid RB2 when TB had no one else in place was dumb on my part.)
Fast forward. Graham got hurt, became useless. The team that gave up his first round pick not only didn't make the playoffs, but tumbled so badly they ended up in dead last. I now had the very first rookie pick (and the 2nd, as my season went poorly anyway). Earnest Graham turned into Knowshon Moreno for me.
However, if that team had gone on to make the playoffs, and won $, that pick might have been 6 or 7, not 1.
My point is that dynasty trades are difficult to evaluate, even a year or two removed, let alone at the time.
In my dynasty league, I am fairly deep at WR - possessing Colston, R. White, D. Jackson, M. Crabtree, C. Chambers, A. Gonzalez and Jacoby Jones. My weakness has historically been RB. I targeted Mendenhall several weeks ago. I approached the owner offering him Shonn Greene and A. Gonzalez (he is out of the playoffs and very weak at WR). He said he was actually more interested in L. Washington (whom I also happen to have) and a 3rd round draft pick. In summary - I ended up giving up S. Green, L. Washington and Gonzalez for Mendy. Now, I think highly of S. Green AND Gonzalez, but to me it was worth it. I have had leagumates suggest I "slaugtered" or at least "sheered" - and one who suggested I actually overpayed. I guess it goes to show tha value is in the eye of the beholder.
Second example:
Last season there was an owner who was weak at RB and trying to make a playoff run (similar to me in the example above). It was week 8 or 9, the trade deadline was coming up and he was looking to pick up an RB2. Earnest Graham had about 500 yards rushing, about 4 TDs (on pace for about 1k rushing and about 35 receptions for 250-300 receiving yarsd) and was consistantly putting up double digit fantasy points. He offered his first round pick for Graham - I accepted. At the time other friends in the league again had mixed reactions (some, again thinking I got too good a deal, some thinking giving up a solid RB2 when TB had no one else in place was dumb on my part.)
Fast forward. Graham got hurt, became useless. The team that gave up his first round pick not only didn't make the playoffs, but tumbled so badly they ended up in dead last. I now had the very first rookie pick (and the 2nd, as my season went poorly anyway). Earnest Graham turned into Knowshon Moreno for me.
However, if that team had gone on to make the playoffs, and won $, that pick might have been 6 or 7, not 1.
My point is that dynasty trades are difficult to evaluate, even a year or two removed, let alone at the time.
FUBAR
Footballguy
honestly, I've stopped doing this. I'll email the owner with a list and ideas instead of offering something that shouldn't be considered. I might send that email through MFL or the league trade site - list the players I want from them maybe add some of mine I'd deal but in the comments write "not an offer, simply looking at what you'd want..." Just my way of doing things. I certainly did the lowball style for awhile but it gets different reactions from people, usually not good and I've had better results from not doing it.IMO, the usual "sheep shearing" in dynasty leagues is getting a high 1st round pick for a scrub (or even a decent player but nowhere near the value) or trading an old guy for a young guy producing about the same stats. For example, Tomlinson for JStew or Moreno. The trades that when you just look at the names and stats and this year seem like a decent deal, but long term will destroy that team.BigJim® said:I'm not following this. Whether you are the team that shears the sheep or you sit on the sidelines while others shave him bald repeatedly, I'd take very little solace in the integrity of my inaction. I've jumped at offers some might call dubious but if it wasn't me, it would be one of my competitors. I'm just saying this is great in theory but nowhere near resolving the problem unless you play with 10 other saints. The real problem is the sheep owner, no?Secondarily, near as I can tell 80% of the initial offers I get are lowball feelers, hoping for a counter. Trust me, that's not because they think I'm a sheep. There was another thread on this somewhere but it's a fact most FFers won't initiate with their best offer, and the first one is often ridiculously weak. Ooops the guy accepted it.... that's not taking advantage, it is a dumb owner not countering an initial offer.Fear & Loathing said:Again,GreatLakesMike said:I've sheared a few sheeps.... never butchered one, but I've sent a few hogs and cattle to be butchered....
Anyway, I'd need a very, very, very good reputation in my league before I offered a Garcon and Forsett for Stewart. To each his own, but I just don't think trying to take advantage of other owners, or just plain offering bad deals, is a good way to run a dynasty team. More often than not, leagues where trades like this happen, are short. Just saying.... I love this GreatLakesMike guy. Stick around.Trying to shear sheep is for young punks. You guys will learn that the real reward is flying the championship banner without taking advantage of any other owner. Call me a cad, but I enjoy trying to help the bottom half of the league reach their epiphany while building their rosters up.
az_prof
Footballguy
Marshall is 15th WR in scoring in my PPR league this year--with a new HC, OC, and QB, and missing all preseason and recovering from a pretty serious off season injury. His perceived value may have fallen but his real value is climbing. To be able to be a top 15 WR with Orton as his QB is really something. He has rehabilitated his image too. This is now his third year of solid production, which proves that he isn't going to burn out like some young guys who have one or two good years.GreatLakesMike said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Spike
Footballguy
Thank you! Yes, it would be great if a league in which there is a sheep had only saints for owners but that's not the way it is. So what should you do? If the person doesn't want to be edumacated (yes, that's on purpose), why am I a bad guy for taking advantage of trades that I feel I win handily? How many of you out there say "You're offering me DeAngelo Williams for Clinton Portis? Sorry, but no way I can accept that - it's too much in my favor."BigJim® said:I'm not following this. Whether you are the team that shears the sheep or you sit on the sidelines while others shave him bald repeatedly, I'd take very little solace in the integrity of my inaction. I've jumped at offers some might call dubious but if it wasn't me, it would be one of my competitors. I'm just saying this is great in theory but nowhere near resolving the problem unless you play with 10 other saints. The real problem is the sheep owner, no?Secondarily, near as I can tell 80% of the initial offers I get are lowball feelers, hoping for a counter. Trust me, that's not because they think I'm a sheep. There was another thread on this somewhere but it's a fact most FFers won't initiate with their best offer, and the first one is often ridiculously weak. Ooops the guy accepted it.... that's not taking advantage, it is a dumb owner not countering an initial offer.Fear & Loathing said:Again,GreatLakesMike said:I've sheared a few sheeps.... never butchered one, but I've sent a few hogs and cattle to be butchered....
Anyway, I'd need a very, very, very good reputation in my league before I offered a Garcon and Forsett for Stewart. To each his own, but I just don't think trying to take advantage of other owners, or just plain offering bad deals, is a good way to run a dynasty team. More often than not, leagues where trades like this happen, are short. Just saying.... I love this GreatLakesMike guy. Stick around.Trying to shear sheep is for young punks. You guys will learn that the real reward is flying the championship banner without taking advantage of any other owner. Call me a cad, but I enjoy trying to help the bottom half of the league reach their epiphany while building their rosters up.
SSOG
Moderator
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, but I've PM'd an owner a trade offer, and then 5 minutes later PM'd him back to sweeten the offer just a touch (even though I thought there was a better than 50% chance he'd accept the first offer straight up) just because I felt it was a little bit light, whether he'd take it or not.Concrete example: I offered an owner Schaub for VJax around week 6 or 7, then quickly PM'd him back to up my offer to Schaub + Garcon for VJax. Not a huge change, but I feel like that little bit did even it out, I felt that Garcon was a very expendable commodity, and I also felt that the gesture would probably make him look on me a bit more favorably in future discussions.
Feel like we could use a bit of a TE discussion in here. Especially since the rankings haven't been updated for awhile. I'm thinking the top-10 looks something close to this at the moment:
1. Dallas Clark, he's just such an advantage, and he's tied to the best QB in the game. He also seems to be getting over previous durability concerns.
2. Antonio Gates, still extremely solid, doesn't seem to have the upside he once did, but I still feel he's the most reliable TE in the NFL.
3. Vernon Davis, too soon? I've been extremely impressed with him all year and he's been even better since the switch to Alex Smith. With his athletic ability, I don't think a Gates-like run is unrealistic, however I don't trust him enough to move him higher quite yet.
4. Jason Witten, he's having a down year, but I still think he's an elite guy. He's had a bit of a resurgence since teams began doubling Miles Austin.
5. Kellen Winslow, I've always liked him more than most so maybe this is too high, he's been solid since Freeman took over.
6. Brent Celek, he's locked into a long term deal in a very favorable situation, and he's tough to game plan against because the Eagles have so many weapons. Of course those same weapons are probably what keeps Celek out of the top-5.
7. Greg Olsen, hasn't broken out like many thought he would with Cutler, but he's still young and hasn't fully showcased his talent yet.
8. Owen Daniels, before the injury I'd have had him 3rd, I wonder if he's a product of the system a little bit. Which is really my concern with all Texans except AJ. If Kubiak is fired, how valuable is the TE position in Houston?
9. Tony Gonzalez, I want to rank him lower, but I can't really find anyone to put ahead of him. He's still a top-5 TE at the moment, he seemingly has to slow down soon, then again, maybe we are watching the Jerry Rice of the TE position.
10. Chris Cooley, would have been 7th before his injury. Its tough to rank Redskins in general, I have no idea who will be coaching or quarterbacking the Redskins next year, but I feel pretty confident it won't be the guys they have now.
Does that sound about right?
1. Dallas Clark, he's just such an advantage, and he's tied to the best QB in the game. He also seems to be getting over previous durability concerns.
2. Antonio Gates, still extremely solid, doesn't seem to have the upside he once did, but I still feel he's the most reliable TE in the NFL.
3. Vernon Davis, too soon? I've been extremely impressed with him all year and he's been even better since the switch to Alex Smith. With his athletic ability, I don't think a Gates-like run is unrealistic, however I don't trust him enough to move him higher quite yet.
4. Jason Witten, he's having a down year, but I still think he's an elite guy. He's had a bit of a resurgence since teams began doubling Miles Austin.
5. Kellen Winslow, I've always liked him more than most so maybe this is too high, he's been solid since Freeman took over.
6. Brent Celek, he's locked into a long term deal in a very favorable situation, and he's tough to game plan against because the Eagles have so many weapons. Of course those same weapons are probably what keeps Celek out of the top-5.
7. Greg Olsen, hasn't broken out like many thought he would with Cutler, but he's still young and hasn't fully showcased his talent yet.
8. Owen Daniels, before the injury I'd have had him 3rd, I wonder if he's a product of the system a little bit. Which is really my concern with all Texans except AJ. If Kubiak is fired, how valuable is the TE position in Houston?
9. Tony Gonzalez, I want to rank him lower, but I can't really find anyone to put ahead of him. He's still a top-5 TE at the moment, he seemingly has to slow down soon, then again, maybe we are watching the Jerry Rice of the TE position.
10. Chris Cooley, would have been 7th before his injury. Its tough to rank Redskins in general, I have no idea who will be coaching or quarterbacking the Redskins next year, but I feel pretty confident it won't be the guys they have now.
Does that sound about right?
lyon812
Footballguy
Good topic. The problem at TE (if it's a problem) is the wealth of young, enticing dynasty prospects. For example, I could easily see Miller, Finley, or Keller having more value over the next 3-5 years than the latter half of your list--and that's not even considering the raw talent of Jared Cook or the potential steadiness of Pettigrew.
SSOG
Moderator
F&L does what updates he has time for when he has time for them, so sometimes the rankings don't go as deep as others. The second most recent WR rankings (November 11th) go all the way to 122, which should be plenty deep enough. Besides, it's not as if there's that much difference between WRs once you get past 50 or so. Really, at that point, it mostly just comes down to personal preference.
I don't have any hard TE rankings at the moment, but off the top of my head, my top 10 would look something vaguely like this:#1- Antonio Gates.
Still the most talented TE and arguably the most difficult matchup in the league. It's that simple.
#2- Jason Witten.
He posted the two best seasons of his career in back to back years, then followed it up with a 1-TD season as he saw his fantasy value fall from elite to barely a TE1. No, I'm not talking about this year, I'm talking about 2006. In '06, Witten had the same receptions and yardage for the same ypr as '05, but his TDs fell and Witten became fantasy TE12. In '09, Witten is on pace for pretty much the same receptions and yardage (with a very slight downtick in ypr) as '08, but is TDs fell and Witten is currently fantasy TE13. Last time it happened, he rebounded with back-to-back top 2 finishes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Jason Witten- nothing that hasn't happened to him before, at any rate. The TDs are the only thing keeping his value down, and the TDs are a fluke. The TDs will follow the yards, if not this year then next year. He's 27, and he's proven. Stay the course. Look into buying low.
Now we hit a big gap. The only other TE with the track record of those two is Clark, but I think his huge uptick this year is largely the result of Gonzalez's injury, and I'm also a bit wary of his age (30's pushing it for TEs, and while Gates is only a year younger, Gates is a better talent). Other than Clark, you've got a boatload of question marks. Winslow's still a tease, Daniels is injured and likely changing teams, Cooley doesn't have the upside, Olsen and Keller haven't done anything, Gonzalez is ancient, Celek and Davis don't have much of a track record. It's really hard to make sense of this tangle... but that doesn't mean I can't try!
#3- Vernon Davis.
Is this year a fluke? Yup. 9 TDs in 11 games ain't happening again. The yardage and receptions are both a bit low, and the ypr isn't anything to write home about. His situation isn't that great unless San Fran does the improbable and switches to the spread more or less full time. Despite all of this, he's the best physical specimen playing TE today (one of the biggest physical freaks at any position, to be honest). He deserves this ranking, in my mind, based on age and upside alone.
#4- Dallas Clark.
Sure, he's aging. Sure, he's probably not as talented as the other guys ahead of him. Sure, his numbers will regress once Peyton gets his full complement of receivers back. Doesn't matter. I think he's more likely to produce more difference-making seasons than anyone else left out there.
#5- Kellen Winslow Jr.
#6- Dustin Keller
#7- Greg Olsen
I'll admit, I don't have a lot of reasoning behind these three beyond simple gut feeling. These are the guys who I think are most likely to make the next step to "fantasy difference maker", ranked in the order of likelihood.
#8- Owen Daniels
#9- Chris Cooley
Daniels is this low because I'm assuming he's not in Houston next year. He's a good talent, but not a transcended talent, and TEs are more dependent on situation than any other offensive position. Cooley is this low because I think the upside is gone, and at TE I'd always rather gamble on upside.
#10- Jermichael Finley
#11- Brent Celek
Promising young upside plays.
valhallan
Footballguy
I was underrated him.Sigh. You're taking this pretty seriously.1 - Yeah he doesn't have many targets for his career. Henderson also had none his rookie season and only 22 catches his sophomore year and that was before Payton brought the circus to town, so presumably there'd be quite a few more balls to go around. I get that Henderson has a longer track record, but I also don't see a reason to believe Meachem wouldn't have similar numbers over the same number of seasons. In fact, he'd probably have far better numbers simply by not having Henderson's stone hands.1) Robert Meachem has 39 targets for his entire career. 39. For his entire career. In two and a half years. Henderson has more targets so far this year (in 8 games!) than Meachem has for his entire career. Henderson had more targets last year than Meachem has for his entire career. Henderson had more targets in 2007 than Meachem had for his entire career. Henderson had more targets in 2006 than Meachem had in his entire career. Henderson had more targets in 2005 than Meachem has in his entire two and a half year career. Can you see why I might consider Henderson's per-target numbers to be a little bit more valid and indicative than Meachem's? Heck, the opposing defenses are still always borderline shocked whenever Brees actually throws it in Meachem's direction. Also, who says Henderson is in no danger of getting an increased role? His targets this year are up 40% over his targets last year. I don't think he'll ever get a massive volume of targets, but as I said, when you're the best role player in the entire league you are never in any danger of having your role decreased. Meachem is likewise in no danger of having his role decreased, but that's mostly a function of it being impossible for him to have any smaller of a role than the one he currently has.2) Colston, Meachem, and Henderson are going to become Fitz, Boldin, and Breaston? Aside from the fact that Colston's a different player from Fitz, Meachem is no Boldin, and Henderson has a completely different skillset than Breaston, that's pretty feasible. More seriously, there aren't enough targets in New Orleans for that trio to turn out like the Arizona trio. The Cards are on pace for 600 passing attempts this season. Last year, they had 630. Two years ago, they had 590. This year, the Saints are on pace for 530. Yes, the Saints did have massive pass attempt numbers last year and the year before, but that was when the defense was a seive and the team had a losing record. As long as this is a winning team with a solid defense, there aren't enough balls to support 3 fantasy receivers... and as I said, I think Henderson is too good in his role for him to be the guy the Saints cut out.
3) Yes, Meachem has been effective the 19 times he has been targeted this season. You know who else has been super-effective on a miniscule number of targets this year? Brian Hartline. Jarrett Dillard. And in the case of both of those WRs, there's no question of their QB making them look better than they truly are. I can't be sure that Henderson's ability is the result of his talent rather than Brees, but it doesn't matter, because HENDERSON ALREADY HAS A ROLE IN THE OFFENSE. As I said, either Meachem stays and plays 3rd fiddle with Brees, or he goes elsewhere and plays 2nd fiddle with someone else. Henderson, on the other hand, is locked in to the 2nd fiddle role with Drew Brees.
4) If you think I'm out of line on Meachem and Britt, then who did I put above them that you'd but them over? Gonzo, who is my odds-on pick for the #2 WR role in Indy? James Jones, who is my odds-on pick for the #2 role in GB? Maclin, who's looked great and already has the #2 role in Philly? Jacoby, who's looked fantastic and is really taking a step forward this year? Kellen Winslow, who is the highest paid TE in the league and an absolute target monster? Malcolm Floyd, who is my odds-on pick for the #2 WR in San Diego? Greg Olsen, who's coming off a 3-TD game and was a chic pick as a top 5 dynasty TE before the season? I could easily move Meachem ahead of Collie- those two are a tossup for me, with Collie representing a higher ceiling and Meachem representing a higher floor. Other than that, who am I ranking too high? It's not that I'm saying I wouldn't want either Meachem or Britt, it's that I'm saying that I wouldn't want either over the guys I have above them.
2 - I didn't say they'd be the same players, I said they'd have similar roles. I don't think Henderson is nearly as irreplaceable as you do and I firmly don't believe the pass-happy Saints days are over, which is coming from a fan's perspective.
3 - Ditto, no need to rehash it. You think Henderson is an outright MVP, I think he's marginal at best... and that's after seeing every snap he's ever played.
4 - I didn't really care about your list so I didn't spend anytime crafting a rebuttal. But if you must know, I'd go:
Winslow
Britt
Maclin
Olsen
James Jones
Jacoby Jones
Meachem
Collie
Gonzalez
Floyd
That's right - I don't like Gonzalez and I've never regretted trading him two years ago for a high 2nd and Berrian.
EDIT: oops, should have put Collie over Gonzo.
az_prof
Footballguy
I wouldn't trade Meachem for a low end first; it would take at least a mid level first. The guy is already producing and has proven he belongs as a starter in NFL. The only question is when he gets consistent looks.
FUBAR
Footballguy
crazy thing is when I read this I'm thinking to myself, they entered the league at the same time! How is one aging and the other young? Then I looked it up, I didn't realize Witten was that much younger, I've always linked these two together.
Tau837
Footballguy
It seems to me that Meachem has good hands, good speed, and a nose for the end zone... and runs good routes... and has a great catch percentage and no drops. He also has a first round pedigree; not that it matters a lot at this point, but it is at least some evidence of his talent level (or at least his perceived talent level at the time he was drafted). For those who rely upon talent over situation to rank players, it seems to me he should be ranked pretty high. It is becoming apparent that he has been held back prior to the past few weeks by the small number of targets he has received, which is an artifact of his situation, not his talent.The guy is a playmaker, and IMO the Saints should be working to get him more opportunities. Judging from recent weeks, it seems the coaches may be in agreement with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
That, more than anything, is why I love F&L's blog- it has all the player ages in the same place. I never would have guessed that Steven Jackson was younger than Deangelo Williams, that Wes Welker was the same age as Andre Johnson, or that Jonathan Stewart was the same age as C.J. Spiller.
MountainMan0726
Footballguy
Jermichael Finley gave us another snapshot of his immense potential. 7 catches on 8 targets (2nd to Jenning's 10), 79 yards, and 2 big TD's. It's become clear that when he is healthy he is a red-zone matchup nightmare. Good to see that he's not shy of the spotlight too - his other big game came on national tv vs. Minny. Has a pro-bowl caliber young QB in a passing offense.
A giant is stirring.
A giant is stirring.
I haven't seen enough to convince me to start him yet. But I am certainly holding him to see what happens. Someone else can verify, but I think his target -> catch ratio is really high so far which bodes well.
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
It's 75.5% after last night, which puts him right around 10th in TE that have at least 20 targets. Not too bad.ETA - another factor that makes Finley interesting is that of TEs with at least 20 catches, he ranks 3rd in YAC/reception behind Gates and Z. Miller.
Last edited by a moderator:
geoff8695
Footballguy
Are we still keeping an open mind about the WR situation in Indy? 
This won't be truly settled until next year, but I think the 23 year old Garcon has a great outlook and based on his talent level, a potential for Marvin Harrison-like production in the next couple of years.
He's more than a "one-trick pony"/deep threat (see Meachem, Robert and his 18.8 YPC & 8 TDs on only 39 targets), but rather Garcon and his role in the Colts offense is maturing much faster than I had even hoped earlier this season.
As SSOG has pointed out elsewhere, when you have Peyton Manning leading your offense, all that is required to become a FF difference maker at WR is targets. Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the 2009 season, I believe it's now safe to say that Garcon is getting these on a regular basis. And based on the front office's public affection for Garcon, Manning's increasing trust in him (3rd in targets now on the team with 80 - behind Wayne's 121, and Clark's 97), and the fact that Collie/Gonzalez are better suited to play the slot, then I feel more confident than ever before to say that Garcon is the receiver to target for potential future stardom in this offense going forward.
Meanwhile even if/when Gonzo returns, I think Collie will be negatively impacted moreso than Pierre. This offseason if you can grab Garcon without having to pay a WR2 price tag, I'ld recommend doing so...
Edit to add: I am probably going to get flamed for citing Meachem, so maybe I shouldn't have chosen him. I know that many are high on Meachem lately and consider him to be the next big thing in NO. I wasn't really trying to run him down, or tick off his admirers. All I'm really trying to demonstrate is that Garcon receives more targets than a situational WR, NOT a comparison between Meachem and Garcon going forward. Go ahead and substitute whoever you prefer as a better example of a situational deep threat if you like. I'm not really interested in engaging in a Meachem vs. Garcon debate.
This won't be truly settled until next year, but I think the 23 year old Garcon has a great outlook and based on his talent level, a potential for Marvin Harrison-like production in the next couple of years.
He's more than a "one-trick pony"/deep threat (see Meachem, Robert and his 18.8 YPC & 8 TDs on only 39 targets), but rather Garcon and his role in the Colts offense is maturing much faster than I had even hoped earlier this season.
As SSOG has pointed out elsewhere, when you have Peyton Manning leading your offense, all that is required to become a FF difference maker at WR is targets. Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the 2009 season, I believe it's now safe to say that Garcon is getting these on a regular basis. And based on the front office's public affection for Garcon, Manning's increasing trust in him (3rd in targets now on the team with 80 - behind Wayne's 121, and Clark's 97), and the fact that Collie/Gonzalez are better suited to play the slot, then I feel more confident than ever before to say that Garcon is the receiver to target for potential future stardom in this offense going forward.
Meanwhile even if/when Gonzo returns, I think Collie will be negatively impacted moreso than Pierre. This offseason if you can grab Garcon without having to pay a WR2 price tag, I'ld recommend doing so...
Edit to add: I am probably going to get flamed for citing Meachem, so maybe I shouldn't have chosen him. I know that many are high on Meachem lately and consider him to be the next big thing in NO. I wasn't really trying to run him down, or tick off his admirers. All I'm really trying to demonstrate is that Garcon receives more targets than a situational WR, NOT a comparison between Meachem and Garcon going forward. Go ahead and substitute whoever you prefer as a better example of a situational deep threat if you like. I'm not really interested in engaging in a Meachem vs. Garcon debate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Good post.However, I disagree with the notion that Meachem is a "one-trick pony"/deep threat. In watching him play, I think he is very capable of effectively running possession routes as well as deep routes. I posted about him a couple days ago and no one responded. IMO those who rank players more on talent than situation should be moving him up into the top 30 range. It is clear from the past few weeks that he will produce given targets, and I see no reason why the New Orleans coaches and Brees won't be looking to give him more targets the way he's playing.Are we still keeping an open mind about the WR situation in Indy?
This won't be truly settled until next year, but I think the 23 year old Garcon has a great outlook and based on his talent level, a potential for Marvin Harrison-like production in the next couple of years.
He's more than a "one-trick pony"/deep threat (see Meachem, Robert and his 18.8 YPC & 8 TDs on only 39 targets), but rather Garcon and his role in the Colts offense is maturing much faster than I had even hoped earlier this season.
As SSOG has pointed out elsewhere, when you have Peyton Manning leading your offense, all that is required to become a FF difference maker at WR is targets. Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the 2009 season, I believe it's now safe to say that Garcon is getting these on a regular basis. And based on the front office's public affection for Garcon, Manning's increasing trust in him (3rd in targets now on the team with 80 - behind Wayne's 121, and Clark's 97), and the fact that Collie/Gonzalez are better suited to play the slot, then I feel more confident than ever before to say that Garcon is the receiver to target for potential future stardom in this offense going forward.
Meanwhile even if/when Gonzo returns, I think Collie will be negatively impacted moreso than Pierre. This offseason if you can grab Garcon without having to pay a WR2 price tag, I'ld recommend doing so...
valhallan
Footballguy
SSOG and I had a back and forth on Meachem back on 11/12. I'm not surprised at all by his performance since then. You probably won't see much discussion while the regulars here wait for Meachem to put up a stinker and proclaim "see, it was just a nice streak." I'm sold on his talent and future outlook and I hated the pick when the Saints drafted him.Good post.However, I disagree with the notion that Meachem is a "one-trick pony"/deep threat. In watching him play, I think he is very capable of effectively running possession routes as well as deep routes. I posted about him a couple days ago and no one responded. IMO those who rank players more on talent than situation should be moving him up into the top 30 range. It is clear from the past few weeks that he will produce given targets, and I see no reason why the New Orleans coaches and Brees won't be looking to give him more targets the way he's playing.Are we still keeping an open mind about the WR situation in Indy?
This won't be truly settled until next year, but I think the 23 year old Garcon has a great outlook and based on his talent level, a potential for Marvin Harrison-like production in the next couple of years.
He's more than a "one-trick pony"/deep threat (see Meachem, Robert and his 18.8 YPC & 8 TDs on only 39 targets), but rather Garcon and his role in the Colts offense is maturing much faster than I had even hoped earlier this season.
As SSOG has pointed out elsewhere, when you have Peyton Manning leading your offense, all that is required to become a FF difference maker at WR is targets. Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the 2009 season, I believe it's now safe to say that Garcon is getting these on a regular basis. And based on the front office's public affection for Garcon, Manning's increasing trust in him (3rd in targets now on the team with 80 - behind Wayne's 121, and Clark's 97), and the fact that Collie/Gonzalez are better suited to play the slot, then I feel more confident than ever before to say that Garcon is the receiver to target for potential future stardom in this offense going forward.
Meanwhile even if/when Gonzo returns, I think Collie will be negatively impacted moreso than Pierre. This offseason if you can grab Garcon without having to pay a WR2 price tag, I'ld recommend doing so...
Spike
Footballguy
Flip it the other way, though. What happens if he offered you Schaub for VJax? This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.
GreatLakesMike
Footballguy
I picked up Casey in a few leagues, and I've had my eye on Fred Davis for a while. I know your thoughts on the situation in Houston, and I generally agree.What are your thoughts on Fred Davis, and the TE situation in general for the Redskins? Davis was a former high school WR who bulked up to play TE at USC. I liked him coming out, but the Cooley situation kept me from adding him to my roster. I honestly haven't been able to watch Davis play much this year.
Cooley's contract status:
8/1/2007: Signed a six-year, $30 million contract. The deal contains $14 million guaranteed, including an $11 million roster bonus in the second year. Annual $100,000 workout bonuses are available 2009-2013. 2009: $620,000, 2010: $2.325 million, 2011: $3.7 million, 2012: $3.8 million, 2013: $3.85 million, 2014: Free Agent. Cap charge: $3 million (2009).
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Yep, I've been hanging onto Meachem for a long time waiting for him to emerge. It's happening right now.SSOG and I had a back and forth on Meachem back on 11/12. I'm not surprised at all by his performance since then. You probably won't see much discussion while the regulars here wait for Meachem to put up a stinker and proclaim "see, it was just a nice streak." I'm sold on his talent and future outlook and I hated the pick when the Saints drafted him.Good post.However, I disagree with the notion that Meachem is a "one-trick pony"/deep threat. In watching him play, I think he is very capable of effectively running possession routes as well as deep routes. I posted about him a couple days ago and no one responded. IMO those who rank players more on talent than situation should be moving him up into the top 30 range. It is clear from the past few weeks that he will produce given targets, and I see no reason why the New Orleans coaches and Brees won't be looking to give him more targets the way he's playing.Are we still keeping an open mind about the WR situation in Indy?
This won't be truly settled until next year, but I think the 23 year old Garcon has a great outlook and based on his talent level, a potential for Marvin Harrison-like production in the next couple of years.
He's more than a "one-trick pony"/deep threat (see Meachem, Robert and his 18.8 YPC & 8 TDs on only 39 targets), but rather Garcon and his role in the Colts offense is maturing much faster than I had even hoped earlier this season.
As SSOG has pointed out elsewhere, when you have Peyton Manning leading your offense, all that is required to become a FF difference maker at WR is targets. Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the 2009 season, I believe it's now safe to say that Garcon is getting these on a regular basis. And based on the front office's public affection for Garcon, Manning's increasing trust in him (3rd in targets now on the team with 80 - behind Wayne's 121, and Clark's 97), and the fact that Collie/Gonzalez are better suited to play the slot, then I feel more confident than ever before to say that Garcon is the receiver to target for potential future stardom in this offense going forward.
Meanwhile even if/when Gonzo returns, I think Collie will be negatively impacted moreso than Pierre. This offseason if you can grab Garcon without having to pay a WR2 price tag, I'ld recommend doing so...
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
I didn't have time last week to re-do the whole list.For what it's worth, I aim to update all of the positions all the way through this week. I know I've been lax on tight ends in particular ... though travdogg's and SSOG's lists are going to be awfully similar to mine.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
honestly, I've stopped doing this. I'll email the owner with a list and ideas instead of offering something that shouldn't be considered. I might send that email through MFL or the league trade site - list the players I want from them maybe add some of mine I'd deal but in the comments write "not an offer, simply looking at what you'd want..." Just my way of doing things. I certainly did the lowball style for awhile but it gets different reactions from people, usually not good and I've had better results from not doing it.IMO, the usual "sheep shearing" in dynasty leagues is getting a high 1st round pick for a scrub (or even a decent player but nowhere near the value) or trading an old guy for a young guy producing about the same stats. For example, Tomlinson for JStew or Moreno. The trades that when you just look at the names and stats and this year seem like a decent deal, but long term will destroy that team.I'm not following this. Whether you are the team that shears the sheep or you sit on the sidelines while others shave him bald repeatedly, I'd take very little solace in the integrity of my inaction. I've jumped at offers some might call dubious but if it wasn't me, it would be one of my competitors. I'm just saying this is great in theory but nowhere near resolving the problem unless you play with 10 other saints. The real problem is the sheep owner, no?Secondarily, near as I can tell 80% of the initial offers I get are lowball feelers, hoping for a counter. Trust me, that's not because they think I'm a sheep. There was another thread on this somewhere but it's a fact most FFers won't initiate with their best offer, and the first one is often ridiculously weak. Ooops the guy accepted it.... that's not taking advantage, it is a dumb owner not countering an initial offer.Again,I've sheared a few sheeps.... never butchered one, but I've sent a few hogs and cattle to be butchered....
Anyway, I'd need a very, very, very good reputation in my league before I offered a Garcon and Forsett for Stewart. To each his own, but I just don't think trying to take advantage of other owners, or just plain offering bad deals, is a good way to run a dynasty team. More often than not, leagues where trades like this happen, are short. Just saying...
I never noticed until recently that it's a common practice to make a ridiculously weak first offer ... I guess it's because my trade talks are always more along the lines of "here's what I need, I see that I have these players that could help you, so let's find common ground."If guys want to play around with sending "ridiculously weak first offers," they can take a hike. I have better things to do with my time than play silly little games trying to guess if this guy is really interesting in making a fair deal or not. Spin the wheel and make a deal. Don't waste time with this sophomoric little trade dance.
valhallan
Footballguy
Same here. It's always most effective to send an e-mail explaining what you want, what you can offer, and why it might make sense for both. If they're interested, a dialog should ensue and the best trade offer for both sides will emerge.
This makes little to no sense. Based on this logic, do you then abstain from making waiver wire claims that won't immediately help your team in order to allow the bottom half of the league access to these players? If you do in fact make waiver wire claims, then this invalidates a lot of the sentiment of your statement, as both trading and the waiver wire have the same general premise behind them- improving your team with players not currently on your roster, unfortunately (but necessarily) at the expense of others. In the case of trading, it is direct who you are doing it at the expense of- your trading partner. With the waiver wire, it is at the expense of all other owners in the league who are unable to claim whichever player/players you pick up. While I agree with the general sentiment that it is a bit underhanded to openly attempt to screw an owner over or deliberately fleece them, there is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to maximize value when trading- upgrading your team in some way, shape, or form is the general idea behind the exchange in the first place. In an ideal world and in a perfect league, completely fair trades are great and would happen all the time. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world and very few leagues have that perfect mix of owners who all possess a vast knowledge of football. Because of that, almost every trade is going to slant one way or another, and it is far better to be on the 'winning' side of a deal than the 'losing' side. When I say you are doing things at the expense of someone else, I don't necessarily mean that you are outright ripping them off or completely taking advantage of them. However, I do believe that it is virtually impossible to do any exchange without SOMEONE coming out on top.In any good negotiation, you are going to start at point A with your offer and eventually move your way to point B, C, D, etc... in a linear progression before arriving at your final and maximum offer. To start at point D and pay more than you otherwise would have had your trading partner accepted your point B or C offer would simply be poor team management and show poor negotiation skills. That does not mean that your point A offer needs to be something ridiculous and outrageously unfair or something that takes advantage of an owner. I agree that it should be a reasonable offer and be justifiable for an owner to accept, but does not at all need to be your best offer or the maximum of what you would be willing to pay. It is also very easy to do this without hurting your reputation or the league as a whole- simply make sure your point A offer is acceptable and not laughable and negotiations will move from there.**Edit to add that I was in the middle of writing this post as F & L made his most recent post on the matter. Everything I said here also pertains to those comments and illustrates why I feel his general mindset in regards to the topic of fantasy football trading is not correct.Again,I've sheared a few sheeps.... never butchered one, but I've sent a few hogs and cattle to be butchered....
Last edited by a moderator:
corpcow
Footballguy
What do you guys think of Sam Aiken's future prospects? I haven't seen him play much, but obviously that was an amazing catch... I always thougth he was just more of a speed guy, but he really had a "my ball" attitude on that catch. Could he be the guy to own in the future in NE, and not Tate?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Great posting.This whole "I try to make every trade perfectly fair" is ridiculous for a million reasons, the least of which being that in time very few trades will ultimately end up being fair, even if you thought they were.This is fantasy football, where guys blow-up inexplicably and where guys fall off a cliff inexplicably. Who's to say that Garcon doesn't become the next Harrison and Jonathan Stewart doesn't end up with a career full of nagging injuries that keep him from ever grabbing a starting spot? Then does everyone start complaining that the guy who was seen as the "sheep" is ruining the league by taking advantage of the people?Bottom line, even if your #1 goal is to make a perfectly fair trade, realistically one of the owners is going to end up being screwed by the trade within a couple years. Think about all the people that traded Addai after his impressive first year. Or even better, think about all the guys who traded Portis/Westbrook at the beginning of 2008 or 2009. Why did they do it? Because they felt like those guys were about to fall off a cliff and were soon to be worthless within a year or two, and wanted to get something while they could. Now, even if they were "fair" according to the "perceived value" of those players, really they were trying to rip someone off because they felt that that perceived value was too high.Think of SSOG with Vincent Jackson. He believes Vjax is the next Randy Moss, so he offers Schaub/Garcon for him early this year. That's a reasonable trade from a perceived value point at that time, but clearly SSOG thinks that Vjax is worth way, way, way more than those two guys if he believes Vjax is the next Randy Moss. So does that mean that he's trying to rip the guy off?The biggest catalyst for making a trade is getting guys that you believe are better than their perceived value, and moving guys that you believe are worse than it. That's no different than accepting an offer of Stewart for Garcon/Forsett, as bad as that trade is.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
I'm with you here. That is a waste of time. The best offers are ones that make you take notice and make you think there is a deal somewhere. I can't even counter a ridiculous deal...unless I am feeling sarcastic and send a worse one back. 
SSOG
Moderator
I used to be a catch% whore, but I'm cooling on it. It's still useful as a red flag if it's abominably low enough, but yards per target is a SUBSTANTIALLY better statistic. It's basically just catch% adjusted for route difficulty. A guy who has an 80% catch% but only 8 yards per reception isn't doing as well as a guy who has a 60% catch% but 15 yards per reception. The first guy has 6.4 yards per target (on the low end of mediocre), while the second guy has 9.0 yards per target (awesome).thevidon said:
I'm standing by my position. Nothing has changed for Meachem. He's still worse than Marques Colston, and Devery Henderson is still the most successful 1-trick-pony in the league. Fact of the matter is that, 16 targets in the last two weeks aside, Meachem has posted 3 or fewer targets in 75% of his games this year. Yes, he's managed to produce on that famine of targets, but such production is unsustainable in the long term. A game with 1 rush and 1 target that results in 68 yards and a score is fantastic, but you have to ask how often that's going to happen? If Meachem averages 9 yards per target and 6 yards per rush, in the long run that will be a 15 yard/0 TD performance. Ditto that for his 3 target, 2 TD performance. Meachem is currently averaging FOURTEEN yards per target, and over 20% of his targets result in TDs. Historically, both of those rates are either UNBELIEVABLY unsustainable. Which means that Meachem's per-play numbers are going to crash and burn in a big way going forward, and I'm not convinced his role is really going to increase enough to offset (it'll take more than 2 weeks of an increased role to change my mind there, too).It's easy to be down on a player when he's ice cold, and a lot harder to still be down on him when he's red hot... but I'm staying the course on this one. Meachem is overrated and now is the time to sell, imo.valhallan said:
Slim to none, and slim just left town. He's about to turn 29, and this is his 7th year in the league. He had 27 receptions in his first 6 years, and if not for injuries ahead of him, he wouldn't have added much this year (as it is, he only has 17 grabs, anyway). He is who we thought he was: a special teamer and quality NFL depth with no fantasy value.corpcow said:
SSOG
Moderator
Building upon this some... I can think of one other player in my history of following football that has produced per-play metrics like Meachem's. The player in question was a very young WR who was the #3 option on an explosive offense. He averaged 13 yards per target, 21 yards per reception, and scored 8 TDs on fewer than 40 targets just like Meachem has (actually, this WR's TD/Target rate was even higher- 24.2% to Meachem's 20.5%). What WR? Marc Boerigter with the 2002 Kansas City Chiefs. For the rest of his career, Boerigter had 19 catches and 0 TDs. He washed out of the league two years later.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Re: Boerigter, does pedigree mean nothing? Dude was a small college kid who went to the CFL for a year or two. Meachem was a 1st round pick.How's this for a similar Y3 breakout
Code:
G Rec Yds Avg Lng TD Att Yds Avg Lng TD FUM Lost16 45 605 13.4 42 11 2 16 8.0 11 0 -- --
Last edited by a moderator:
valhallan
Footballguy
That's pretty weak, SSOG. What was Boerigter's pedigree coming into the league? Would F&L have put him near the top 30 as he has now with Meachem? I understand you feel the need to be stubborn with your opinion but no one really thinks he'll sustain his TD%, so you might as well stop beating a dead horse. All we're seeing is a first-round pick who has finally earned playing time and is showing us plenty of reason to be optimistic that he's earning a significant role in the league's #1 offense. Combine that with is pedigree and it's easy to be excited about his long-term prospects.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Based on....??First off, for some reason people simply beleive that Garcon is faster than Gonzalez. Obviously this is pre-knee injury, but based on their 40 times, that simply is not true. Garcon and Gonzalez are virtually the same height and the same speed (Garcon is a little thicker).geoff8695 said:Are we still keeping an open mind about the WR situation in Indy?
This won't be truly settled until next year, but I think the 23 year old Garcon has a great outlook and based on his talent level, a potential for Marvin Harrison-like production in the next couple of years.
He's more than a "one-trick pony"/deep threat (see Meachem, Robert and his 18.8 YPC & 8 TDs on only 39 targets), but rather Garcon and his role in the Colts offense is maturing much faster than I had even hoped earlier this season.
As SSOG has pointed out elsewhere, when you have Peyton Manning leading your offense, all that is required to become a FF difference maker at WR is targets. Now that we're 3/4 of the way through the 2009 season, I believe it's now safe to say that Garcon is getting these on a regular basis. And based on the front office's public affection for Garcon, Manning's increasing trust in him (3rd in targets now on the team with 80 - behind Wayne's 121, and Clark's 97), and the fact that Collie/Gonzalez are better suited to play the slot, then I feel more confident than ever before to say that Garcon is the receiver to target for potential future stardom in this offense going forward.
Meanwhile even if/when Gonzo returns, I think Collie will be negatively impacted moreso than Pierre. This offseason if you can grab Garcon without having to pay a WR2 price tag, I'ld recommend doing so...
Second, the assumption that Manning "trusts" Garcon based on the fact that he is 3rd in targets is a little far fetched. First off, he doesn't have that many targets to chose from. Wayne and Clark are both on pace for career highs in targets and receptions. Now obviously for Wayne, that makes a certain degree of sense. But Clark, has never had more than 77 receptions in a season - he has that many already with 4 games left. If anything, Manning is leaning on Clark more, not Garcon.
Also in the realm of Manning "trusting" him more I would also add 72.2% >>>> 53.0%. That is Gonzalez' catch %/targets last season compared to Garcon's this season. To put his reception numbers in perspective - at his current pace Garcon will end the season with exactly 57 receptions this year - the irony is that that is the exact number Gonzalez had last year. The problem is that Gonzo was the 3rd WR behind Harrison and Wayne - not the 2nd. If anything this shows that Garcon has been less productive and Manning trusts him less than he did Gonzalez last season.
If (and I realize it is a fairly decent sized IF), Gonzalez is 90-95% by next year, I am fully convinced that Gonzalez, not Garcon will be the WR opposite Wayne in most 2 WR sets.
ETA: As a Manning owner, but not owning any Colt WRs, I have no dog in this fight
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
I have to question whether SSOG has actually watched him play much. The guy is a playmaker with really good talent. It's not just his fantastic production, it's how he looks doing it... impressive. IMO opportunity will inevitably follow the talent, and that's what we are seeing with Meachem right now.The problem with the bolded in SSOG's post is that his value and corresponding price are likely already climbing. If you keep waiting until he is entrenched with an increased role, you missed the opportunity.
Tau837
Footballguy
1. Apples and oranges to compare their catch percentages, since Garcon has operated mostly as an outside WR with mostly medium to deep routes, whereas Gonzalez was a third WR who operated a lot out of the slot on possession routes last year. One would expect Gonzalez's to be higher.2. As you have shown, Gonzalez flourished in that WR3 role last year. Why is it so farfetched to think he would return to that same role and Garcon could continue playing well on the outside?I have none of these guys, but I've been impressed with Garcon when I've seen him play this year.All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the grouping of Gonzalez, Garcon, and Collie behind Wayne and Clark will be sharing the WR2 and WR3 roles to the extent that none of those three will be particularly fantasy worthy for the next couple of years barring injury or departure.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
You can't use full season stats when Garcon is obviously a developing player and his last 3 weeks are 6/100, 5/60/1, 6/130. It's a very fluid situation. Obviously he was leaning on Wayne and Clark HARD when Collie and Garcon were green. Now that they aren't so green, and perhaps because Wayne was destroying so much earlier and defenses adjusted, Garcon is getting a lot of love from Peyton right now.I like your argument that Gonzalez is just as valid an outside WR as Garcon is. But Gonzalez is better suited for the slot than Garcon for just the reasons you mentioned (better hands, experience). If Garcon is legit, Gonzalez can play the slot (pushing back Collie). If Garcon stagnates, Gonzalez can play outside (Garcon can be a situational deep threat, Collie can play slot). Either way works for Gonzalez, he just has to come back healthy.
BigJim®
Footballguy
For the record, I don't lowball. I try to always send solid offers. However, here is a recent thread that opened my eyes to how many FFers do, knowingly and strategically, initiate with a lowball:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&hl=lowballFear & Loathing said:honestly, I've stopped doing this. I'll email the owner with a list and ideas instead of offering something that shouldn't be considered. I might send that email through MFL or the league trade site - list the players I want from them maybe add some of mine I'd deal but in the comments write "not an offer, simply looking at what you'd want..." Just my way of doing things. I certainly did the lowball style for awhile but it gets different reactions from people, usually not good and I've had better results from not doing it.IMO, the usual "sheep shearing" in dynasty leagues is getting a high 1st round pick for a scrub (or even a decent player but nowhere near the value) or trading an old guy for a young guy producing about the same stats. For example, Tomlinson for JStew or Moreno. The trades that when you just look at the names and stats and this year seem like a decent deal, but long term will destroy that team.I'm not following this. Whether you are the team that shears the sheep or you sit on the sidelines while others shave him bald repeatedly, I'd take very little solace in the integrity of my inaction. I've jumped at offers some might call dubious but if it wasn't me, it would be one of my competitors. I'm just saying this is great in theory but nowhere near resolving the problem unless you play with 10 other saints. The real problem is the sheep owner, no?Secondarily, near as I can tell 80% of the initial offers I get are lowball feelers, hoping for a counter. Trust me, that's not because they think I'm a sheep. There was another thread on this somewhere but it's a fact most FFers won't initiate with their best offer, and the first one is often ridiculously weak. Ooops the guy accepted it.... that's not taking advantage, it is a dumb owner not countering an initial offer.Again,I've sheared a few sheeps.... never butchered one, but I've sent a few hogs and cattle to be butchered....
Anyway, I'd need a very, very, very good reputation in my league before I offered a Garcon and Forsett for Stewart. To each his own, but I just don't think trying to take advantage of other owners, or just plain offering bad deals, is a good way to run a dynasty team. More often than not, leagues where trades like this happen, are short. Just saying...
If guys want to play around with sending "ridiculously weak first offers," they can take a hike. I have better things to do with my time than play silly little games trying to guess if this guy is really interesting in making a fair deal or not. Spin the wheel and make a deal. Don't waste time with this sophomoric little trade dance.
My main point was when 60% of FFers send lowball initial offers fully expecting a counter, and 5% of FFers who receive those offers are shark-food, it results in dubious trades but doesn't necissarily mean a guy was trying to take advantage of another.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
You're really reaching here. Meachem is legit.
az_prof
Footballguy
SSOG, I was going to complement you on your advocacy of Target % over Catch %--the argument makes sense, at least for fantasy purposes. But then in the next paragraph as you discuss Meachem you IGNORE the theory you just explained! If he only had 10 or 20 targets you could discount his productions, but he has 40, which is enough data to be meaningful. The guy is getting open, making the catches, and getting good yac and TDs. The fact that he has a high catch % on so many long passes, according to your own theory, indicates that he is doing really well.
Is it sustainable if he were to be targeted more and used more? Can you extrapolate this production for a full 16 game season? No. But that doesn't detract from the compelling production and how it speaks to his talent. Is he more or less talented than Colston? I don't know. He hasn't had the chance to show what he can do if he is featured like Colston and being a WR1 (and drawing primary coverage and double coverage) could put a dent in his production. But I just can't understand how one cannot be impressed. Over the last few weeks he is catching more than the deep post patterns too, which is a good sign as far as him not being a 'one trick pony.'
EBF
Footballguy
The only thing that would concern me about Meachem is the fact that Drew Brees is in god mode right now and everything he touches turns to gold. Colston. Moore. Meachem. Henderson. All of them have benefited at one point or another. You won't find a friendlier situation for a WR than New Orleans.
The question is whether Meachem is closer to Colston or Moore. I've never been the biggest fan of his game and I would be reluctant to trade much for him, but there are reasons for optimism. He was a high draft pick. He's big and fast. He's been improving every season. His NFL career seems to be following the same path as his college career: he was a highly-touted recruit, he struggled early on, then everything clicked and he suddenly started living up to his hype.
I don't think he has officially "arrived" as a reliable dynasty player yet, but if you like what you see then you should buy right now because his value will keep climbing if he turns out to be the real deal. I would probably rank him alongside guys like Donnie Avery, Devin Thomas, Andre Caldwell, Johnny Knox, and James Jones. All have shown flashes. None are sure things.
The question is whether Meachem is closer to Colston or Moore. I've never been the biggest fan of his game and I would be reluctant to trade much for him, but there are reasons for optimism. He was a high draft pick. He's big and fast. He's been improving every season. His NFL career seems to be following the same path as his college career: he was a highly-touted recruit, he struggled early on, then everything clicked and he suddenly started living up to his hype.
I don't think he has officially "arrived" as a reliable dynasty player yet, but if you like what you see then you should buy right now because his value will keep climbing if he turns out to be the real deal. I would probably rank him alongside guys like Donnie Avery, Devin Thomas, Andre Caldwell, Johnny Knox, and James Jones. All have shown flashes. None are sure things.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
The trading vs. waiver wire comparison is preposterous and you know it. For the record, nobody has put forth the "I try to make every trade perfectly fair" argument. It's a strawman.Herm23 said:This makes little to no sense. Based on this logic, do you then abstain from making waiver wire claims that won't immediately help your team in order to allow the bottom half of the league access to these players? If you do in fact make waiver wire claims, then this invalidates a lot of the sentiment of your statement, as both trading and the waiver wire have the same general premise behind them- improving your team with players not currently on your roster, unfortunately (but necessarily) at the expense of others. In the case of trading, it is direct who you are doing it at the expense of- your trading partner. With the waiver wire, it is at the expense of all other owners in the league who are unable to claim whichever player/players you pick up. While I agree with the general sentiment that it is a bit underhanded to openly attempt to screw an owner over or deliberately fleece them, there is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to maximize value when trading- upgrading your team in some way, shape, or form is the general idea behind the exchange in the first place. In an ideal world and in a perfect league, completely fair trades are great and would happen all the time. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world and very few leagues have that perfect mix of owners who all possess a vast knowledge of football. Because of that, almost every trade is going to slant one way or another, and it is far better to be on the 'winning' side of a deal than the 'losing' side. When I say you are doing things at the expense of someone else, I don't necessarily mean that you are outright ripping them off or completely taking advantage of them. However, I do believe that it is virtually impossible to do any exchange without SOMEONE coming out on top.In any good negotiation, you are going to start at point A with your offer and eventually move your way to point B, C, D, etc... in a linear progression before arriving at your final and maximum offer. To start at point D and pay more than you otherwise would have had your trading partner accepted your point B or C offer would simply be poor team management and show poor negotiation skills. That does not mean that your point A offer needs to be something ridiculous and outrageously unfair or something that takes advantage of an owner. I agree that it should be a reasonable offer and be justifiable for an owner to accept, but does not at all need to be your best offer or the maximum of what you would be willing to pay. It is also very easy to do this without hurting your reputation or the league as a whole- simply make sure your point A offer is acceptable and not laughable and negotiations will move from there.Again,I've sheared a few sheeps.... never butchered one, but I've sent a few hogs and cattle to be butchered....
Anyway, I'd need a very, very, very good reputation in my league before I offered a Garcon and Forsett for Stewart. To each his own, but I just don't think trying to take advantage of other owners, or just plain offering bad deals, is a good way to run a dynasty team. More often than not, leagues where trades like this happen, are short. Just saying.... I love this GreatLakesMike guy. Stick around.Trying to shear sheep is for young punks. You guys will learn that the real reward is flying the championship banner without taking advantage of any other owner. Call me a cad, but I enjoy trying to help the bottom half of the league reach their epiphany while building their rosters up.
**Edit to add that I was in the middle of writing this post as F & L made his most recent post on the matter. Everything I said here also pertains to those comments and illustrates why I feel his general mindset in regards to the topic of fantasy football trading is not correct.
What we have said is that it's weak to purposely rip off another owner, and it's a silly little game to send out weak initial offers as opposed to trying to find common ground from the beginning. These points obviously have nothing in common with putting in a waiver claim.
And "openly attempting to screw an owner over or deliberately fleece them" isn't a bit underhanded. It's the essence of underhanded.
I stand by my main points. It's a lot more rewarding to win when you're making mutually beneficial trades. I've always thought that all trades should hurt both sides just a little bit to hit the "accept" button, or else one side is probably screwing the other.
And, furthermore, (not addressed to you specifically) don't come on here and crow about your roster or your awesome trading ability when all you're doing is taking advantage of the dregs in your league. It's not much of an achievement.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
I wasn't saying that Meachem is the next Boerigter, I was simply demonstrating just how freakishly unsustainable his current production level is.You agree that his production is unsustainable. The point of contention between us is his role going forward. I see a guy who is going to be stuck behind Colston and who won't reduce Henderson's situational role (because Henderson is PHENOMENAL in his situational role). You see a guy who is going to become a #1 or #2 WR for the Saints (I'm assuming, here- you might just think that he'll be fantasy relevant as a WR3).
I don't feel the need to be stubborn. I can and do change my mind about players. I'm simply sticking to my original points because I believe they still apply. I do agree that it's easy to be excited about his long-term prospects... but I'm not. Feel free to think it's stubbornness or a refusal to admit I was wrong. I personally believe it's me sticking to a good process in the middle of a bad outcome. History will show which of us was right.
I agree- if you don't buy Meachem now and he becomes legit, you'll really have missed the boat. On the other hand, if you keep waiting and he never gets entrenched, then you missed the opportunity to sell him while his value was through the roof as everyone was looking to buy him before "missing the boat".That's the conundrum of fantasy football. One person's buy low is another person's sell high.
He might be, but his production is unsustainable. Something's gotta give.
I'm not ignoring my theory. I have been impressed with Meachem's production, but that doesn't mean I can't also think it's unsustainable. It also doesn't mean I can't be wary of the fact that he's putting up great rate stats in an offense that has also gotten off-the-page rate stats out of Lance Moore and Devery Henderson.Anyway, yards per target doesn't mean anything by itself. The first step is to identify the players producing awesome rate stats, and then the second step is to find which of those are likely to see a major role increase. It doesn't matter if a guy averages 99 yards per target if he only gets 2 targets a year. I can see Meachem's unreal rate stats without immediately trading everything to acquire him because I'm not sold that he's in line for a major role increase. I'm not convinced that he's going to top 80-100 targets in New Orleans. My Marc Boerigter example was meant to show that awesome rate stats really don't mean anything in and of themselves.
I'm not saying that Meachem is a scrub, or unrosterable, I'm saying that if I owned him I'd be looking to sell him. In theory, you should be higher on everyone on your roster than everyone else in your league, because if you're not, then why aren't you trading those guys to whoever else might like them even more? That's the case with Meachem- I think he's a quality asset, but I don't think he's as good of an asset as everyone else seems to think (well, aside from EBF- I'm tracking 100% with him on Meachem), so why wouldn't I trade Meachem to a guy who is salivating at the prospect of rostering him and get some more quality value in return? Do I like Meachem? Sure... but I'd like a mid 1st round pick or Percy Harvin even more.
