Dynasty Rankings (10 Viewers)

geoff8695 · Dec 8, 2009

Just Win Baby said:
DoubleG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Polian back in September:When Polian, now in his 12th season as the Colts' president, saw Garcon when the team returned to its Westide Indianapolis training facility for the start of the offseason conditioning in early spring, he was struck by what he saw.And he figured that potential had a very real chance to turn into production.And it had a chance to do so sooner, not later.…"When I saw him in the first workouts of the offseason program (this past offseason) and I saw how much he had grown up in terms of physical growth, I was astounded," Polian said Monday on his weekly radio show on Hank FM 97.1 in Indianapolis."It has turned out to be translatable to the game field. He's a man now, not a boy coming out of college, and he's able to make plays out there with both his strength and his speed. The graph is all up for him."…"You would think most people would recognize that the speed that he ran at his workout is the correct speed," Polian said. "Somehow or another, those things tend to get lost in translation, I think. He is so big that he can fool you to a certain extent in that most people don't expect him to be that fast. He does run fast and most importantly he has a burst at the end of his route, which is rare among receivers and certainly rare among big receivers. ""That burst, which is what (former Colts wide receiver) Marvin (Harrison) had, allows you to get big plays. Because as the ball is out there and the defensive back and you are step for step if you can just get that one and a half steps at the end of the route and have good enough hands to control the ball – which he does – then you're going to get a lot of big plays."

What Polian described earlier this season is translating onto the field on Sundays, and I've never heard him talk in these glowing terms about gonzo or Collie. Garcon doesn't play Gonzalez's postion in this offense. He is much more than a possession/slot receiver, his GM has lavished praise on him all season long, indicated that his career is all upside from here on out and compared him to a HOF WR, plus Pierre is only in his 2nd year in the NFL, is only 23 yrs. old, is developing much faster than previous WRs have in Indy in recent memory, and oh yeah he has that Manning guy for at least a few more years throwing the ball to him.As DoubleG and Colts' GM Bill Polian have mentioned, Garcon is noticeably thicker and stronger than Gonzalez which makes his unnatural combination of size/strength + burst/speed that much more impressive than Gonzo's skillset. In the words of GM Polian, just last week, Garcon is "turning into a run-after-the-catch threat that we've never had here." Think about that for a second... Now consider that Polian has been pimping Garcon pretty much all year long to the exclusion of Collie and others...I'm not at all worried about gonzo cutting into Garcon's numbers. Heck Garcon is only in his 1st season as a starter and next year Garcon is most likely going to play on the outside in Harrison's old role, and Gonzo and Collie will most likely play the slot. I would much rather place my bets on Garcon vs. Collie or Gonzo going forward. As a matter of fact, I already have...

Anthony Borbely · Dec 8, 2009

geoff8695 said:
Just Win Baby said:

DoubleG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Polian back in September:When Polian, now in his 12th season as the Colts' president, saw Garcon when the team returned to its Westide Indianapolis training facility for the start of the offseason conditioning in early spring, he was struck by what he saw.And he figured that potential had a very real chance to turn into production.And it had a chance to do so sooner, not later.…"When I saw him in the first workouts of the offseason program (this past offseason) and I saw how much he had grown up in terms of physical growth, I was astounded," Polian said Monday on his weekly radio show on Hank FM 97.1 in Indianapolis."It has turned out to be translatable to the game field. He's a man now, not a boy coming out of college, and he's able to make plays out there with both his strength and his speed. The graph is all up for him."…"You would think most people would recognize that the speed that he ran at his workout is the correct speed," Polian said. "Somehow or another, those things tend to get lost in translation, I think. He is so big that he can fool you to a certain extent in that most people don't expect him to be that fast. He does run fast and most importantly he has a burst at the end of his route, which is rare among receivers and certainly rare among big receivers. ""That burst, which is what (former Colts wide receiver) Marvin (Harrison) had, allows you to get big plays. Because as the ball is out there and the defensive back and you are step for step if you can just get that one and a half steps at the end of the route and have good enough hands to control the ball – which he does – then you're going to get a lot of big plays."

Click to expand...

What Polian described earlier this season is translating onto the field on Sundays, and I've never heard him talk in these glowing terms about gonzo or Collie. Garcon doesn't play Gonzalez's postion in this offense. He is much more than a possession/slot receiver, his GM has lavished praise on him all season long, indicated that his career is all upside from here on out and compared him to a HOF WR, plus Pierre is only in his 2nd year in the NFL, is only 23 yrs. old, is developing much faster than previous WRs have in Indy in recent memory, and oh yeah he has that Manning guy for at least a few more years throwing the ball to him.As DoubleG and Colts' GM Bill Polian have mentioned, Garcon is noticeably thicker and stronger than Gonzalez which makes his unnatural combination of size/strength + burst/speed that much more impressive than Gonzo's skillset. In the words of GM Polian, just last week, Garcon is "turning into a run-after-the-catch threat that we've never had here." Think about that for a second... Now consider that Polian has been pimping Garcon pretty much all year long to the exclusion of Collie and others...I'm not at all worried about gonzo cutting into Garcon's numbers. Heck Garcon is only in his 1st season as a starter and next year Garcon is most likely going to play on the outside in Harrison's old role, and Gonzo and Collie will most likely play the slot. I would much rather place my bets on Garcon vs. Collie or Gonzo going forward. As a matter of fact, I already have...

I couldn't agree more...and let's not forget how raw Garcon was after coming from a small college.

az_prof · Dec 8, 2009

SSOG wrote: "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."

SSOG, there aren't too many players that are untradeable if the right trade is offered IMO (maybe you NEVER trade a guy like ADP in his prime or Calvin Johnson..but, not many fit this elite status). Really, the question isn't is a player a Sell or Buy: it's is he a Sell or Buy at THIS price??? I would definitely trade him for Harvin but I doubt too many Harvin owners would be willing to make that deal.

So in the case of Meachem, most of us spent either a mid to late first round rookie pick on him. We have held him through two and a half years of little production. Would I be willing to "call it even" and take another mid-first round pick? Not likely, unless I thought he really wasn't talented, which I don't. I would want a rookie pick higher than what I spent and it would depend on my analysis of the upcoming draft, which I don't know yet. In terms of current players, I would want a WR2 for him or a RB who is currently in a time share but who I think has the talent to emerge as a RB1 in the next year or two, someone like Wells or Donald Brown. But I doubt those owners would make that trade.

You seem to think that Devry Henderson is an obstacle to his production, but he has been doing what he has done the past five weeks with Henderson sharing equal snaps. What will happen if next year Meachem gets a larger share of the snaps? In any case, the real obstacle isn't Henderson, who doesn't have the size to be as much of a possession and endzone threat as Meachem. The threat is Moore, who is a FA in the off season. If Moore comes back then it really is a mess againn and probably none of those three are consistent fantasy players. With Moore out, in that offense, with that QB, I don't see why both Colston and Meachem cannot be regular fantasy starters, with Henderson a spot starter. Reggie Bush leaving can only help because he steals alot of receptions and while Thomas is good as a receiver too I don't envision them throwing to Thomas as much as they did Bush last year.

I see:

1) Physical Talent

2) Proven ability to produce elite numbers in limited role

3) Great QB and system that isn't going away (you can't say he is just a product of his sytem as an argument to assume that his future production will be much less because he is going to be in that system for the next two years at least).

4) Possibility of expanded role if Bush and Moore leave. This is the wild card in terms of whether Meachem explodes in 2010 and 2011.

Let's not forget that Colston has not been the healthiest of receivers either. I could be wrong, but Colston does not strike me as the sort of WR who is going to play 12-14 years in this league.

Dinsy Ejotuz · Dec 8, 2009

DoubleG said:
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).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

Catch % has almost nothing to do with the relative quality of WRs unless they're playing the same role with the same QB for long enough that the stats are meaninful.Garcon is only slightly faster than Gonzo in timed speed, but to say they're almost the same size is just plain wrong. Garcon is roughly as tall at AG, but he's 17 pounds heavier (210 vs 193). That's an enormous difference. And it magnifies what would otherwise be only a slight difference in the speed. 4.42/210 isn't even in the same ballpark as 4.44/193.Garcon is a true deep threat (averaging 15.6 ypc, 4 TDs in 43 catches) and, according to Polian, a run-after-the-catch guy that they've not had in Indy before. He's also a devastating blocker.And the coaching staff and front office RAVE about Garcon. He's made the leap from dominating D3 college players to dominating single coverage in the NFL in about 18 months. His ceiling is unknown, but based on his learning curve so far I'm pretty sure it's considerably higher than where he is today.In short, I think he's better than Gonzalez today at virtually everything you'd want from an outside WR and I'll be absolutely shocked if Gonzalez can get him off the field now that the Colts have had a good look at the gem the drafted in the 6th round two years ago.

az_prof · Dec 8, 2009

wdcrob said:
Catch % has almost nothing to do with the relative quality of WRs unless they're playing the same role with the same QB for long enough that the stats are meaninful.

I disagree. I think catch % is one indicator to look at. It isn't the whole picture and you have to look at in the broader picture of who the QB is and what types of routes the receiver runs, but it is a much better indicator than say "drops," which are not calculated very accurately by the NFL. I think it can be especially useful when evaluating a young WR. SSOG makes a good argument that Touch Production is a better measure because it incorporates both catch % and YAC, and I agree. Numbers never tell the whole story: but they can definitely raise red flags or bring someone to your attention that you might overlook.

SSOG · Dec 8, 2009

az_prof said:
SSOG, there aren't too many players that are untradeable if the right trade is offered IMO (maybe you NEVER trade a guy like ADP in his prime or Calvin Johnson..but, not many fit this elite status). Really, the question isn't is a player a Sell or Buy: it's is he a Sell or Buy at THIS price??? I would definitely trade him for Harvin but I doubt too many Harvin owners would be willing to make that deal.So in the case of Meachem, most of us spent either a mid to late first round rookie pick on him. We have held him through two and a half years of little production. Would I be willing to "call it even" and take another mid-first round pick? Not likely, unless I thought he really wasn't talented, which I don't. I would want a rookie pick higher than what I spent and it would depend on my analysis of the upcoming draft, which I don't know yet. In terms of current players, I would want a WR2 for him or a RB who is currently in a time share but who I think has the talent to emerge as a RB1 in the next year or two, someone like Wells or Donald Brown. But I doubt those owners would make that trade.

It's true that someone who drafted Meachem and sat on him for a couple of years might not make that move, but I'm basing my thoughts on him based on what I would do, and not based on what someone else might do.The Harvin owner might not trade Harvin for him, true. The Donald Brown owner might not trade Brown, the Shonn Greene owner might not trade Greene. My point isn't that I'd trade Meachem for a specific player, the point is that, after looking at all the comments in this thread and around the board, I'm sure that there's someone in my league who is DYING to add Meachem. I'd look around, find him, and then grant him his greatest wish, turning a healthy profit in the process.

thriftyrocker · Dec 8, 2009

SSOG said:
The Harvin owner might not trade Harvin for him, true. The Donald Brown owner might not trade Brown, the Shonn Greene owner might not trade Greene. My point isn't that I'd trade Meachem for a specific player, the point is that, after looking at all the comments in this thread and around the board, I'm sure that there's someone in my league who is DYING to add Meachem. I'd look around, find him, and then grant him his greatest wish, turning a healthy profit in the process.

I found that guy in one league. Saints fan. Was talking to me about Meachem even when he was a healthy inactive. He still wouldn't give me Harvin. Even when I added decent value parts to my side. Most he'd give was his late 1st. The morale? People are still cautious on him. The people that are highest on him based on upside are most cautious on him given the disappearing act Moore and Bush did this year. You might get lucky or be a good salesman, but I don't think it's a great time to sell. Even if he puts up goose eggs all December, his value will still be the same or higher next summer (barring injury). He will still be odds on favorite to start for the Saints in 2010. If he adds to his TD streak or makes some big plays in the playoffs when everyone is watching (Santonio effect), then you get a huge bump in value to "straight up for young RB."

Homer · Dec 8, 2009

F & L dropped 8 5 a half dozen spots last week, which combined with Miles Austin's continued rise, means Austin is exactly where I pushed for him to be relative to 85 six weeks ago.

Good move, F & L, waste of breath by SSOG fighting the inevitable weeks ago and being way behind the curve.

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

Homer said:
F & L dropped 8 5 a half dozen spots last week, which combined with Miles Austin's continued rise, means Austin is exactly where I pushed for him to be relative to 85 six weeks ago.

Good move, F & L, waste of breath by SSOG fighting the inevitable weeks ago and being way behind the curve.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...;#entry11109827

DoubleG · Dec 9, 2009

Okay, first off, there's quite a bit of misinformation going on here in regards to the Garcon discussion. As this is a dynasty thread and not a Colts one, this will be last response in regards to this topic.

wdcrob said:
He's made the leap from dominating D3 college players to dominating single coverage in the NFL in about 18 months.

Wow. Seriously? Just a few weeks ago in the Pats game the analysts were bemoaning the fact that Garcon was not able to beat single coverage regularly (let alone "dominate" - and keep in mind that was with the better cover corner on Wayne and the safeties all over Clark. And that was the same defensive backfield that got lit up by NO just a couple of weeks ago. Along that point, his low catch%/targets is precisely because he is not getting as open (or has not run his routes well and is in the wrong spot). Wayne and Collie both have catch % near 70%, with Clark's being 79% - I don't think Manning suddenly throws worse when he's throwing to Garcon. In case you were wondering, Gonzo's catch %/target - was over 70% his first two seasons.

Also, let's keep in mind his "dominating" performance this past week came against the 31st ranked passing defense.

wdcrob said:
Garcon is only slightly faster than Gonzo in timed speed, but to say they're almost the same size is just plain wrong.

I agree - which is why I never said that:

Garcon and Gonzalez are virtually the same height and the same speed (Garcon is a little thicker).

My position was even noted later by Geoff8695 - that Garcon was bigger (not taller though)Moving on:

wdcrob said:
Garcon is a true deep threat (averaging 15.6 ypc, 4 TDs in 43 catches)

First off, we've already discussed the fact that Gonzo and Garcon are the same speed - and to further illustrate the point, 15.6 YPC also happens to be the exact same YPC that Gonzo had in his first season. It is simply nonsensical to suggest that two guys that are the same height and have the same speed somehow are different in regards to deep threat ability.

geoff8695 said:
Garcon doesn't play Gonzalez's postion in this offense. He is much more than a possession/slot receiver, his GM has lavished praise on him all season long, indicated that his career is all upside from here on out and compared him to a HOF WR, plus Pierre is only in his 2nd year in the NFL, is only 23 yrs. old, is developing much faster than previous WRs have in Indy in recent memory, and oh yeah he has that Manning guy for at least a few more years throwing the ball to him.

Now, I know you're better than this. First off, Garcon and Gonzalez do play the same position. In fact, in many dynasty leagues Collie was drafted ahead of Garcon for this very reason (including the one you're in). The Colts' plan coming into the season and all through preseason was to have Wayne and Gonzo in 2 wide sets, bringing Collie into the slot for 3 wide sets. Garcon was the 4th WR and was often listed as such. In regards to the bolded part, you must have a very short memory. Garcon is on pace to have the same number of catches Gonzalez did in his 2nd season - the difference? Gonzo was the 3rd WR, not the 2nd as Harrison and Wayne were playing...and yes, Dallas Clark was still on the team. Incidentally, Austin Collie has more receptions than Garcon so far this season - and Collie is a rookie. Gonzalez is 25 - so he is hardly ancient.

Oh and as far as the GM? Let's keep in mind a few things: this is the same GM who drafted Gonzalez in the first round and Garcon in the 6th. Secondly, it is the same GM who said back in the first few weeks that Gonzo would be back from his knee injury by week 7 or 8. As a fellow Bears fan, you really don't put that much stock in what a GM says do you?

That Manning guy will also be throwing to Gonzo for a while too.

In summary Garcon has does a nice job filling in for Gonzo, but if anything his extended playing time, while showing some of his strengths has also revealed his drawbacks. If, and again I do acknowledge that this is a fairly considerable "if", Gonzalez is healthy next season, I see no reason why he won't go back to the same spot he had all through preseason and in the first game - which is the WR2 on the Colts.

Just to make it clear - I do not own any Colt WRs in any league. In fact I used to own Gonzalez in a dynasty league and traded him away. One might think I'd be bad mouthing Gonzo to justify my trading him away.

As I said, if those of you that have been drainking a little too much Garcon Kool-Aid wish to continue to throw out GM quotes and hopes and dreams feel free to do so. I prefer facts, numbers and stats.

As I said, I won't litter this thread any more with Colts WR talk, but just wanted to set the record straight on a few points.

gianmarco · Dec 9, 2009

As a Saints fan, I can tell you I've never been a fan of Meachem from the moment they drafted him. That being said, I'm starting to come around.

SSOG, I understand your reservations about him due to his per play production and his lack of targets. What I think you're underestimating and failing to realize is that that kind of production garners attention and could lead to a sustained increase in targets. Do you think that's not possible? Especially in a game that, needing some clutch plays, Meachem was not only looked to but delivered.

I agree that if you can land a haul for him, then go for it. But unless you're getting something that really adds value to your team (not just something of 2nd round pick value), then why? If you end being right and he regresses, you miss out on a small piece of value. But if you're wrong and he does indeed continue to inflate his value by his production, you've given up a nice lottery ticket.

I don't think you move this guy for anything less than 1st round value at this point.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

gianmarco said:
As a Saints fan, I can tell you I've never been a fan of Meachem from the moment they drafted him. That being said, I'm starting to come around.SSOG, I understand your reservations about him due to his per play production and his lack of targets. What I think you're underestimating and failing to realize is that that kind of production garners attention and could lead to a sustained increase in targets. Do you think that's not possible? Especially in a game that, needing some clutch plays, Meachem was not only looked to but delivered. I agree that if you can land a haul for him, then go for it. But unless you're getting something that really adds value to your team (not just something of 2nd round pick value), then why? If you end being right and he regresses, you miss out on a small piece of value. But if you're wrong and he does indeed continue to inflate his value by his production, you've given up a nice lottery ticket. I don't think you move this guy for anything less than 1st round value at this point.

This is pretty much how I feel as well. Nicely said.

valhallan · Dec 9, 2009

DoubleG said:
As I said, I won't litter this thread any more with Colts WR talk,

You don't get to 125 pages without several digressions.. as long as it's insightful, talk Colts all you want.

gianmarco said:
Especially in a game that, needing some clutch plays, Meachem was not only looked to but delivered.

Precisely. When under duress, Brees was looking to Meachem regularly. He was double-covered several times and still found the holes. Let's not overlook his stripped fumble returned for a touchdown. Sure, there was some good fortune involved but he's not in position to be rewarded with that good fortune if he doesn't hustle and attack the ball carrier. He came up big in a game where the rest of the Saints sometimes looked like they didn't want to be there. I think that speaks volumes about his maturity and hunger to compete.

I agree that if you can land a haul for him, then go for it. But unless you're getting something that really adds value to your team (not just something of 2nd round pick value), then why? If you end being right and he regresses, you miss out on a small piece of value. But if you're wrong and he does indeed continue to inflate his value by his production, you've given up a nice lottery ticket.

Agreed. At this point, you can move him for a small bump in value on paper or you can hold and reap the benefits if he sustains fantasy starter status. I didn't mention what happens if he fizzles out because there is no definable cost to that. You've already spent the 1st round pick to acquire and hold Meachem, so that's a sunk cost. Are there opportunity costs associated with holding him vs. trading him? Sure, but there are no risk-free assets to acquire in return. Anyone you take in place of Meachem will have just as much downside risk (career-ending injury). In fact, the only asset you can acquire and be sure it will maintain some value is a 1st round pick. However, that pick is quickly converted to a player with the same downside risks and, if you're going use the pick for a rookie receiver, murky upside and possibly another two-year waiting period. We can start quantifying it if we want to get really technical, but on the surface I'm feeling more warm and fuzzy about a first-round WR making plays on the #1 offense than I am about some unknown.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

Snacks Slaton to injured reserve. Ouch.

Lost season for Slaton. Perhaps no RB has lost as much future value this season. The Texans will draft an early-round RB in 2010, and Slaton becomes a passing-down role playing asset -- which is what his ideal role has been all along.

Frank Costanza's Lawyer · Dec 9, 2009

DoubleG said:
As I said, I won't litter this thread any more with Colts WR talk, but just wanted to set the record straight on a few points.

I know you said you wont respond and Im not looking to flame you here, but repeating your original points after theyve been countered is not "setting the record straight".You keep harping on the difference in catch percentage between 2008 Gonzalez and 2009 Garcon. No one is arguing the raw numbers with you. Rather, you seem to be ignoring the idea that they were/are catching different types of passes from Manning. This can be seen in Garcon's greater yards per catch average and greater yards per target average.The same can be said about your statement that Garcon is on pace for the same number of receptions as Gonzalez had in 2008 and that Collie has more receptions than Garcon right now. No one is arguing with the raw data. But those statements ignore Garcon's increased involvement during the course of the season. He has twice the number of receptions and yards in games 7-12 as he did in 1-6. Sure, he's on pace to match Gonzalez's 2008 season, but it seems more likely that he will exceed it. Sure, Collie has 4 more receptions right now, but Collie's production has remained largely unchanged while Garcon's has doubled.

Mayor of Bracketville · Dec 9, 2009

Have a few roster spots open, and want to grab a few sleeper RB.

How would our experts (and any other contributors) rank the following for dynasty purposes?

Lex Hilliard

Louis Rankin

Arian Foster

Javon Ringer

Kory Sheets

Kahlil Bell

thevidon · Dec 9, 2009

Mayor of Bracketville said:
Have a few roster spots open, and want to grab a few sleeper RB.How would our experts (and any other contributors) rank the following for dynasty purposes?Lex HilliardLouis RankinArian FosterJavon RingerKory SheetsKahlil Bell

The only RBs on this list I would roster in any league right now are Arian Foster and Javon Ringer. Foster may get significant carries the rest of this season and possibly pick up the complimentary role and start next season with Slaton. Foster has legitimate talent, especially in a one cut system. (He just isn't all that fast) Ringer will be backing up Chris Johnson next year as White should be gone. Ringer doesn't impress me, but he can crank out some yards if he gets carries and will be worth holding as insurance for all CJ4.24 owners. The other RBs you listed are pretty trashy and I wouldn't bother.

MountainMan0726 · Dec 9, 2009

Fear & Loathing said:
Snacks Slaton to injured reserve. Ouch.Lost season for Slaton. Perhaps no RB has lost as much future value this season. The Texans will draft an early-round RB in 2010, and Slaton becomes a passing-down role playing asset -- which is what his ideal role has been all along.

I think it helps to own a player for consecutive years. This usually means you will be the first to sense any change in the wind. Having owned Slaton in 2008 (the waiver pickup of the year?), I got used to monitoring his touches/looks, weekly output, highlights, competition, etc. I doubt the rest of the league bothered to do this. This year came along, and as the first few weeks went by I found myself thinking, "Something's off, something doesn't feel right." Slaton looked bigger, heavier. But to the rest of the league, this was Steve Slaton! Just look at those shiny 2008 stats. I happened to be pursuing Moreno pretty heavily at that time (week 5ish), so I used another trade tactic called "walk into my trap." I asked the Moreno owner if there was a RB of mine he'd be interested in as a return, knowing full well I wanted to deal Slaton. "Hmmm, what would you think about Slaton?" Boom. Let the other owner name his price so it appears that he ran the show, when in fact you wanted that player gone all along. If you open with Slaton, the other owner may get defensive - "That's strange, why is he so quick to want to unload that guy? I'd better investigate." So, I tacked on Dustin Keller and a 2nd, and now sit happily with Knowshon. Every day it seems more uneven, but at the time it was "proven commodities" for a rook.

MountainMan0726 · Dec 9, 2009

I thought of another little trade tactic I employ - seems trivial but if you follow the belief that "anything helps", you might want to try it out. If you open up trade discussions over a certain player say on a Tuesday, go ahead and move that player (on your team) into your starting lineup. Make him your RB1, WR1, etc. When the other owner is flipping between his team and yours, he sees that you place a very high value on this asset. It looks much better than the player lingering at the bottom of your bench. And it has provided me with good follow up negotiation, working from a position of "this is a guy I can fully rely on in my starting lineup" or "you can have the big points day I except to have on Sunday."

Just don't forget to adjust your roster Saturday if the trade falls through! :lol:

az_prof · Dec 9, 2009

Fear & Loathing said:
Snacks Slaton to injured reserve. Ouch.Lost season for Slaton. Perhaps no RB has lost as much future value this season. The Texans will draft an early-round RB in 2010, and Slaton becomes a passing-down role playing asset -- which is what his ideal role has been all along.

I couldn't agree more.

Herm23 · Dec 9, 2009

Fear & Loathing said:
Herm23 said:

Fear & Loathing said:

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...

Click to expand...

Again, . 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The part of the discussion I found preposterous was your assertion that your goal in trading should be to help your team and your trading partners team (I realize I am paraphrasing a bit there, but I do believe that was your general sentiment). I decided to counter your preposterous claim with one of my own in order to illustrate how off base I believe that statement is. Someone that possesses the mindset that trades should be mutually beneficial, help the bottom teams improve, and should not occur otherwise should also possess the mindset that the waiver should only be used if the player immediately benefits you, otherwise the player should be left to improve the bottom teams. Both situations follow the same line of thinking- it is wrong to maximize value at the expense of other owners in the league, and to adhere to one but not the other is at least a touch hypocritical (hypocritical is probably far too strong of a word to use in this situation, but I am at a loss for a replacement). Obviously it is outrageous to expect any owner to abstain from making waiver wire claims simply to ensure other owners can improve their teams instead, just like I think it is outrageous to only trade if you are able to help other teams as well. The entire point of trading is to upgrade YOUR team. If you are a good owner, you will do so without bastardizing the process and ripping off or misleading owners, but in no way should part of your goal be to improve their team. The goal of any trade, at least to me, should be to improve your team and maximize value, while remaining honest, above board, and maintaining integrity. The most rewarding feeling is to know you made a good deal and did so in a way that was fair, honest, and preserved integrity, regardless of whether the deal was mutually beneficial or not.

Herm23 · Dec 9, 2009

MountainMan0726 said:
I thought of another little trade tactic I employ - seems trivial but if you follow the belief that "anything helps", you might want to try it out. If you open up trade discussions over a certain player say on a Tuesday, go ahead and move that player (on your team) into your starting lineup. Make him your RB1, WR1, etc. When the other owner is flipping between his team and yours, he sees that you place a very high value on this asset. It looks much better than the player lingering at the bottom of your bench. And it has provided me with good follow up negotiation, working from a position of "this is a guy I can fully rely on in my starting lineup" or "you can have the big points day I except to have on Sunday." Just don't forget to adjust your roster Saturday if the trade falls through!

In regards to the trade discussion between myself, F & L, and some others earlier, I think this is exactly the kind of behavior we were talking about when we mentioned that intentionally misleading an owner just does not seem like a good thing to do ever (while F & L and I clearly disagree on what the point of trading is and what the goal should be, we are at least in agreement on this part). I am all for maximizing your value when trading and getting the best deal possible (within reason and assuming you aren't blatantly ripping anyone off or clearly taking advantage of a less knowledgeable owner), however it needs to be done in an above board and straightforward way. Offering a useful player that is on your bench for a player you feel is an upgrade is fine and the general point of engaging in trades in the first place. However, doing the same thing while falsely trying to drive the value of the player up by pretending you intend to rely on him is slightly shady and underhanded. Why make the process murky when it doesn't need to be? Whether a player starts for your team or sits on your bench does not change his potential value to your trading partner. It may cause your trading partner to perceive the player to have less value to you (based on the fact that he is a reserve and not a starter), but that is easily handled by simply sticking to your guns with your offers and not accepting any less than your expected value for the player. Long story longer here is that being above board and honest will work out better in the long run than using shady, misleading, underhanded tactics.

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

DoubleG said:
First off, we've already discussed the fact that Gonzo and Garcon are the same speed - and to further illustrate the point, 15.6 YPC also happens to be the exact same YPC that Gonzo had in his first season. It is simply nonsensical to suggest that two guys that are the same height and have the same speed somehow are different in regards to deep threat ability.

Actually, it's simply nonsensical to suggest that two guys that are the same height and have the same speed are somehow THE SAME in regards to deep threat ability. Height and speed are just two components of deep ball ability (arguably two of the smallest components, at that). The two biggest components of deep threat ability, imo, is the ability to set up a defender with your route running in order to get a step on him, and even more importantly, the ability to adjust to the ball in flight. I mean, Garcon and Gonzalez both ran about the same 40 time as Vincent Jackson- would it be nonsensical to suggest that he's somehow different in regards to deep threat ability, despite being the same speed?

gianmarco said:
As a Saints fan, I can tell you I've never been a fan of Meachem from the moment they drafted him. That being said, I'm starting to come around.

SSOG, I understand your reservations about him due to his per play production and his lack of targets. What I think you're underestimating and failing to realize is that that kind of production garners attention and could lead to a sustained increase in targets. Do you think that's not possible? Especially in a game that, needing some clutch plays, Meachem was not only looked to but delivered.

I agree that if you can land a haul for him, then go for it. But unless you're getting something that really adds value to your team (not just something of 2nd round pick value), then why? If you end being right and he regresses, you miss out on a small piece of value. But if you're wrong and he does indeed continue to inflate his value by his production, you've given up a nice lottery ticket.

I don't think you move this guy for anything less than 1st round value at this point.

Of course I realize it's possible that Meachem continues to improve and gets a larger role in the offense. There's a huge, huge difference between not thinking something's going to happen and not thinking something's POSSIBLE. I've said that I can understand why other people are high on Meachem. It's very easy to be high on Meachem. I'm not, though.I do agree that I wouldn't give Meachem away for a 2nd rounder, but that's because 2nd rounders are the barest step above useless. That's why I mentioned guys like Greene, Brown, Harvin, or a mid first. If I couldn't get that, I'd trade him for someone like Britt, Nicks, Boldin, Holmes, or Lee Evans. With all of the hype and buzz surrounding Meachem right now, I have little doubt that I would be able to trade him for some piece that I valued more.

Fear & Loathing said:
Snacks Slaton to injured reserve. Ouch.

Lost season for Slaton. Perhaps no RB has lost as much future value this season. The Texans will draft an early-round RB in 2010, and Slaton becomes a passing-down role playing asset -- which is what his ideal role has been all along.

It sure is a dramatic fall from grace for an RB who is so much more talented than Terrell Davis.

Mayor of Bracketville said:
Have a few roster spots open, and want to grab a few sleeper RB.

How would our experts (and any other contributors) rank the following for dynasty purposes?

Lex Hilliard

Louis Rankin

Arian Foster

Javon Ringer

Kory Sheets

Kahlil Bell

1. Lex HilliardThis is a low percentages "home run" style pick. Ricky's going to be 48 next season, and Ronnie's coming off of a serious, potentially career-ending injury (again). On the 1% chance this actually pans out, you've got the starting RB for one of the best rushing teams in the league. Maybe.

2. Louis Rankin

This is mostly a result of the lack of real competition ahead of him. Of the 6 RBs, this is the only one who I think might possibly be the most talented RB on his own roster. Maybe.

3. Javon Ringer

IF he can secure the LenDale White role, and if Chris Johnson returns to '08 Chris Johnson levels, Ringer could become a quality flex play/emergency RB3. Maybe.

4. Arian Foster

Kubiak might be gone, taking his RB-friendly system with him. Slaton might lose some weight and return to '08 levels. Chris Brown might actually stay healthy. Not a whole lot to be excited about, but at least he's better than Sheets and Bell. Maybe.

Homer · Dec 9, 2009

Yes, SSOG, you were bad process (overvaluing an aging, on the decline WR in a stucK in neutral offense over a far younger, emerging talent in an explosive offense whose opportunity sent him hurtling onto the scene) bad result on pushing Chad 85 over Miles Austin. A good recipe for getting ones's butt kicked in dynasty.

Good thing you don't do that often.

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

Nice TE rankings, F&L. I have one question asked 3 different way, though (not just for F&L, this is for everyone):

1. How likely do you think it is that Daniels is in Houston next year, and how have you accounted for that in his value?

2. How likely do you think it is that Kubiak is in Houston next year, and how have you accounted for that in his value?

3. How much of Daniels' value do you think is a result of his situation, and how much is a result of talent?

I've got my own answers for all three questions, I'm just looking to stimulate some discussion and see how everyone else feels on the subject.

WFR · Dec 9, 2009

In a non-ppr 12-team dynasty who holds more value as a key player to build around, a top-5 WR or a top-5 RB?

I think the WR has more longevity but their performance is tied to their QB's performance.

In the case of the RB's they tend to get dinged more often.

An example:

26-year old Steven Jackson vs 28-year old Andre Johnson

Last week SJax had back spasms but still played.

Last week, Schaub went out and AJ did nothing until late in the game.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

Herm23 said:
The part of the discussion I found preposterous was your assertion that your goal in trading should be to help your team and your trading partners team (I realize I am paraphrasing a bit there, but I do believe that was your general sentiment). I decided to counter your preposterous claim with one of my own in order to illustrate how off base I believe that statement is. Someone that possesses the mindset that trades should be mutually beneficial, help the bottom teams improve, and should not occur otherwise should also possess the mindset that the waiver should only be used if the player immediately benefits you, otherwise the player should be left to improve the bottom teams. Both situations follow the same line of thinking- it is wrong to maximize value at the expense of other owners in the league, and to adhere to one but not the other is at least a touch hypocritical (hypocritical is probably far too strong of a word to use in this situation, but I am at a loss for a replacement). Obviously it is outrageous to expect any owner to abstain from making waiver wire claims simply to ensure other owners can improve their teams instead, just like I think it is outrageous to only trade if you are able to help other teams as well. The entire point of trading is to upgrade YOUR team. If you are a good owner, you will do so without bastardizing the process and ripping off or misleading owners, but in no way should part of your goal be to improve their team. The goal of any trade, at least to me, should be to improve your team and maximize value, while remaining honest, above board, and maintaining integrity. The most rewarding feeling is to know you made a good deal and did so in a way that was fair, honest, and preserved integrity, regardless of whether the deal was mutually beneficial or not.

You're not paraphrasing, you're actually changing the entire sentiment.The general sentiment is that knowingly taking advantage of a lesser owner isn't very challenging or rewarding and shouldn't be acknowledged with kudos. Once in a while I enjoy making a deal that helps my team while also helping to make one of the bottom-feeders better. That's obviously an impossible goal on every trade.

By "mutually beneficial," however, I mean that a trade should help you get what your team needs while also helping the other owner get what he needs. That's the reason behind all trades. It's why they exist. Unfortunately, there's a sentiment on here that as long as I get mine, it doesn't matter what the other owner gets. I believe that's a unfulling way to run your life and your fantasy team. Just my .02.

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

Homer said:
Yes, SSOG, you were bad process (overvaluing an aging, on the decline WR in a stucK in neutral offense over a far younger, emerging talent in an explosive offense whose opportunity sent him hurtling onto the scene) bad result on pushing Chad 85 over Miles Austin. A good recipe for getting ones's butt kicked in dynasty.Good thing you don't do that often.

I stand behind my process. At the time of my posting, Austin was a guy with one good game. There was no difference, in my mind, between ranking Ocho over Austin and ranking Ocho over any of the following guys (who had either shown one incredibly bright flash or a series of smaller flashes over the course of the season): Smith North, Mohammad Massoquai, Austin Collie, Pierre Garcon, Mario Manningham, Mike Wallace, Johnnie Knox. Any process that serves me extremely well in 7 out of 8 instances is a phenomenal process and one that I will defend and stick to. If there was a problem, it was in the fact that Miles Austin was ranked in the same tier as those 8 guys, but unless someone can provide a reliable process for how to determine the difference between a Miles Austin and a Mohammad Massaquoi, then I'm sticking with my current method. Good process, bad outcome.Besides, just because Austin is ranked over Ochocinco in the most recent rankings doesn't mean the book is closed. Austin might be the next Michael Clayton, while Pierre Garcon becomes an every year top-10 WR, and we'll be looking at the "bad process" that led me to rank Ochocinco over Garcon while ignoring the fact that the same process led me to rank him over Austin, too.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Nice TE rankings, F&L. I have one question asked 3 different way, though (not just for F&L, this is for everyone): 1. How likely do you think it is that Daniels is in Houston next year, and how have you accounted for that in his value?2. How likely do you think it is that Kubiak is in Houston next year, and how have you accounted for that in his value?3. How much of Daniels' value do you think is a result of his situation, and how much is a result of talent?I've got my own answers for all three questions, I'm just looking to stimulate some discussion and see how everyone else feels on the subject.

1. I'd say somewhere between 70-75% that Daniels stays in Houston, and yes I have accounted for that. 2. I'd say 51/49 that Kubiak stays. I have not accounted for that. Perhaps I should.3. He's a talented TE, but I agree that a good deal of his value has to do with situation.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Homer said:

Yes, SSOG, you were bad process (overvaluing an aging, on the decline WR in a stucK in neutral offense over a far younger, emerging talent in an explosive offense whose opportunity sent him hurtling onto the scene) bad result on pushing Chad 85 over Miles Austin. A good recipe for getting ones's butt kicked in dynasty.

Good thing you don't do that often.

Click to expand...

I stand behind my process. At the time of my posting, Austin was a guy with one good game. There was no difference, in my mind, between ranking Ocho over Austin and ranking Ocho over any of the following guys (who had either shown one incredibly bright flash or a series of smaller flashes over the course of the season): Smith North, Mohammad Massoquai, Austin Collie, Pierre Garcon, Mario Manningham, Mike Wallace, Johnnie Knox. Any process that serves me extremely well in 7 out of 8 instances is a phenomenal process and one that I will defend and stick to. If there was a problem, it was in the fact that Miles Austin was ranked in the same tier as those 8 guys, but unless someone can provide a reliable process for how to determine the difference between a Miles Austin and a Mohammad Massaquoi, then I'm sticking with my current method. Good process, bad outcome.Besides, just because Austin is ranked over Ochocinco in the most recent rankings doesn't mean the book is closed. Austin might be the next Michael Clayton, while Pierre Garcon becomes an every year top-10 WR, and we'll be looking at the "bad process" that led me to rank Ochocinco over Garcon while ignoring the fact that the same process led me to rank him over Austin, too.

This is a key point. Homer should be given credit for nailing Austin's value, but SSOG is absolutely right that there are tons of talented WRs who blow up for a dominant week and never return to consistent dominance. It's natural to doubt that Austin was going to keep doing what he's done until he had proven himself.

Your Mom · Dec 9, 2009

Mayor of Bracketville said:
Have a few roster spots open, and want to grab a few sleeper RB.How would our experts (and any other contributors) rank the following for dynasty purposes?Lex HilliardLouis RankinArian FosterJavon RingerKory SheetsKahlil Bell

i can't give you a good assesment of anyone except Kahlil Bell. Don't waste a spot with this guy. The two backup Rbs for Chicago got hurt and they are too cheap to go out and get someone else, so they signed him from the practice squad. He is not a NFL RB and i would be shocked to see him on an NFL roster next year. He doesn't run with enough power to offset the fact that he is so slow. He makes Forte look like Chris Johnson in the speed category.

Herm23 · Dec 9, 2009

Fear & Loathing said:
You're not paraphrasing, you're actually changing the entire sentiment.

The general sentiment is that knowingly taking advantage of a lesser owner isn't very challenging or rewarding and shouldn't be acknowledged with kudos. Once in a while I enjoy making a deal that helps my team while also helping to make one of the bottom-feeders better. That's obviously an impossible goal on every trade.

By "mutually beneficial," however, I mean that a trade should help you get what your team needs while also helping the other owner get what he needs. That's the reason behind all trades. It's why they exist. Unfortunately, there's a sentiment on here that as long as I get mine, it doesn't matter what the other owner gets. I believe that's a unfulling way to run your life and your fantasy team. Just my .02.

Then perhaps we think much more closely on the subject than I thought and I just misinterpreted what you were saying. The part in bold is absolutely true and something I completely agree with. I was under the impression you were trying to say it is wrong to try and get maximal value, while all I was saying is that it was entirely possible to get maximal value while not falling into the category of the people that adhere to the statement in bold.As it pertains to people sending low initial first offers as a "feeler", do you ever regret laying out the full value of what you are willing to offer up front, not knowing if you might have been able to acquire the players for a little cheaper? While I agree it should hurt both sides to hit accept on a trade, that doesn't mean it can't hurt you just a little less than it would have had you paid the full price you were willing to pay. Ridiculous offers to start discussions have no place, but I'm not sure I see the problem with starting discussions with reasonable offers that aren't quite your top offer.

Anyway, probably enough on the trade subject and I'll stop unless someone else has something of value not already brought up to add.

Ray Finkle · Dec 9, 2009

WFR said:
In a non-ppr 12-team dynasty who holds more value as a key player to build around, a top-5 WR or a top-5 RB?

I think the WR has more longevity but their performance is tied to their QB's performance.

In the case of the RB's they tend to get dinged more often.

An example:

26-year old Steven Jackson vs 28-year old Andre Johnson

Last week SJax had back spasms but still played.

Last week, Schaub went out and AJ did nothing until late in the game.

Interested in hearing opinion on this as well. Not necessarily in regards to a specific league format but more as a general guideline.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Fear & Loathing said:

Snacks Slaton to injured reserve. Ouch.

Lost season for Slaton. Perhaps no RB has lost as much future value this season. The Texans will draft an early-round RB in 2010, and Slaton becomes a passing-down role playing asset -- which is what his ideal role has been all along.

Click to expand...

It sure is a dramatic fall from grace for an RB who is so much more talented than Terrell Davis.

Fall from grace.

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

Herm23 said:
Fear & Loathing said:

You're not paraphrasing, you're actually changing the entire sentiment.

The general sentiment is that knowingly taking advantage of a lesser owner isn't very challenging or rewarding and shouldn't be acknowledged with kudos. Once in a while I enjoy making a deal that helps my team while also helping to make one of the bottom-feeders better. That's obviously an impossible goal on every trade.

By "mutually beneficial," however, I mean that a trade should help you get what your team needs while also helping the other owner get what he needs. That's the reason behind all trades. It's why they exist. Unfortunately, there's a sentiment on here that as long as I get mine, it doesn't matter what the other owner gets. I believe that's a unfulling way to run your life and your fantasy team. Just my .02.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps we think much more closely on the subject than I thought and I just misinterpreted what you were saying. The part in bold is absolutely true and something I completely agree with. I was under the impression you were trying to say it is wrong to try and get maximal value, while all I was saying is that it was entirely possible to get maximal value while not falling into the category of the people that adhere to the statement in bold.

Herm23 said:
As it pertains to people sending low initial first offers as a "feeler", do you ever regret laying out the full value of what you are willing to offer up front, not knowing if you might have been able to acquire the players for a little cheaper? While I agree it should hurt both sides to hit accept on a trade, that doesn't mean it can't hurt you just a little less than it would have had you paid the full price you were willing to pay. Ridiculous offers to start discussions have no place, but I'm not sure I see the problem with starting discussions with reasonable offers that aren't quite your top offer.

Nope. I know what's fair. I send out what's fair in the initial offer. If the other guy isn't interested, I'll flip the rosters around in my head and try a different owner . . . or just wait a week or two to see what changes. I've never thought after a trade, "I wonder if I could have sent him something less than what I know is fair and maybe he would have accepted it." It's just not how I operate. I guess it's a mindset. I'm a lot more interested in getting something done than I am in playing games or second-guessing myself.

Herm23 said:
Anyway, probably enough on the trade subject and I'll stop unless someone else has something of value not already brought up to add.

Agreed.

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

Herm23 said:
As it pertains to people sending low initial first offers as a "feeler", do you ever regret laying out the full value of what you are willing to offer up front, not knowing if you might have been able to acquire the players for a little cheaper? While I agree it should hurt both sides to hit accept on a trade, that doesn't mean it can't hurt you just a little less than it would have had you paid the full price you were willing to pay. Ridiculous offers to start discussions have no place, but I'm not sure I see the problem with starting discussions with reasonable offers that aren't quite your top offer.

Anyway, probably enough on the trade subject and I'll stop unless someone else has something of value not already brought up to add.

Personally, over the years I've gone away from even sending offers. Player valuations vary so dramatically from one guy to the next that I just don't see the value in saying "hey, I think this is fair according to my rankings, and I hope yours are close enough to mine that you'll agree". At this point, I always open up conversations saying "These are the guys you have that I'm interested in, is there anyone on my roster that interests you?". Once they've listed some names on my roster, we can start trying to find a common ground.

Fear & Loathing said:
SSOG said:

Fear & Loathing said:

Snacks Slaton to injured reserve. Ouch.

Lost season for Slaton. Perhaps no RB has lost as much future value this season. The Texans will draft an early-round RB in 2010, and Slaton becomes a passing-down role playing asset -- which is what his ideal role has been all along.

Click to expand...

It sure is a dramatic fall from grace for an RB who is so much more talented than Terrell Davis.

Click to expand...

Fall from grace.

I see someone is making use of the newfound search feature. :jawdrop:

Fear & Loathing · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
I see someone is making use of the newfound search feature.

How sad is it that I had to search for a reminder of the search feature?

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

And now for something completely different...

Dynasty Theory Discussion Topic: Rankings Intertia

It seems that most of the recent arguments I've been involved in have all, at their very root, been a disagreement about rankings inertia. In this thread, there's the Miles Austin and Robert Meachem discussions. Outside of this thread, I've gotten into debates about Mike Sims-Walker (apparently I have him too low) and Vincent Jackson (apparently I have him too high). Earlier in the season, it was all about Steven Jackson, Antonio Gates, Jason Witten, Smith North, Smiff, etc. When I'm busy trying to objectively evaluate my processes, it suddenly hits me- the majority of disagreements I have been involved in over player value so far this year has come about as a result of my rankings being far more inert than average.

For those who don't understand what I'm talking about, I mean inertia as in an object's resistance to motion. Players in my rankings tend to be much more inert, meaning it takes a lot more force to move then up or down my board, and any unit of force produces less net change in my rankings than most. I'm a lot slower to bury players after a cold stretch, and I'm also much slower to geek out about players after a hot stretch.

Now, inertia is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. If nobody's rankings had any inertia, then everyone could simply print out a list of points scored last week and use those as dynasty rankings. On the other hand, if everyone's rankings were nothing BUT inertia, then LaDainian Tomlinson would still be at #1 on their dynasty rankings. Everyone needs some flexibility, and everyone needs some inertia. The key then becomes finding the right balance. The balance that works for me tends towards the inert end of the spectrum. I'm sure others have had great success way off on the flexible side of the spectrum.

It occurs to me now that there would be great value in looking at the past and trying to assign an "inertia score" to my leaguemates. It would aid greatly in determining who I should be looking to sell unproven guys on a hot streak to, and who would be a good destination for me to unload my underproducing vets (although, since I'm at the inert end of the spectrum, I suspect that I'm really the go-to destination for underperforming vets).

I understand all of the arguments towards more flexible rankings- the guys with the flexible rankings are the guys who "overpay" for Miles Austin or Sidney Rice and wind up stealing them for a song. They're the guys who wind up being the first rats off the sinking ships like Steve Slaton and Matt Forte, leaving others to drown. The success stories for flexible rankings wind up being really dramatic as the years go by.

With that said, the reason why I tend towards more inertial rankings is because, while the success stories are more dramatic, it seems to me that overly flexible rankings also result in more frequent failures. For every time a guy trades quality value for Miles Austin, there's another 2-3 times when he trades quality value for Frisman Jackson or Mohammad Massoquai. For every time a guy unloads Matt Forte before the bottom falls out, there's another time when he unloads Randy Moss for a fraction of his value. These are the owners that treat their team like a stock market, always looking to buy low and sell high. Lots of people make it work for them, but it's not my cup of tea.

Personally, I think that a perfect set of rankings shouldn't change at all except to reflect age or injury. Obviously, nobody's perfect- nobody knew before the season that Miles Austin would be a top 20 WR, for instance. Still, movement in the rankings this week only means that I was wrong last week, and I'm trying to correct my mistakes. Which is good- it's important to admit that you were wrong rather than stubbornly clinging to Bad Process/Bad Outcome thinking that it's secretly Good Process/Bad Outcome. But, still, the result is that I'm not going to really shake up my rankings unless I'm CONVINCED that I was wrong, which results in more of a "wait and see" attitude towards new developments. It's definitely served me well in the past.

Any other thoughts on rankings inertia? Where do you all feel you fall on the spectrum? Are their any weaknesses or advantages of either approach that I'm not adequately grasping? Does anyone else go back and evaluate themselves over any time period to check their processes, or is that just me?

EBF · Dec 9, 2009

Slapped together some current dynasty RB rankings in preparation for a startup draft that doesn't look it's going to happen.

Adrian Peterson

Chris Johnson

Maurice Jones-Drew

Ray Rice

Rashard Mendenhall

Jonathan Stewart

DeAngelo Williams

Steven Jackson

Frank Gore

Michael Turner

Knowshon Moreno

Marshawn Lynch

Cedric Benson

LeSean McCoy

Pierre Thomas

Ronnie Brown

Marion Barber

Felix Jones

Shonn Greene

Donald Brown

Beanie Wells

Brandon Jacobs

Joseph Addai

Matt Forte

Kevin Smith

Ryan Grant

Tashard Choice

Steve Slaton

Carnell Williams

Thomas Jones

LaDainian Tomlinson

Clinton Portis

Brian Westbrook

Leon Washington

Ahmad Bradshaw

Laurence Maroney

Reggie Bush

Jamaal Charles

Bernard Scott

Tim Hightower

Darren Sproles

Ricky Williams

Ryan Moats

Darren McFadden

Jerome Harrison

Chester Taylor

Michael Bush

Some differences with the F&L list:

Turner, Gore, DeAngelo, and Jackson - All very good backs, but I see Mendenhall/Rice/Stewart as similar talents with less tread off the tires. The risk is that the young guys aren't as proven. I have enough faith in them to ignore that risk.

Marshawn Lynch - Being downgraded too severely on the basis of one nightmare season. 23 years old with two good seasons under his belt. He's not special, but he's not bad either. Long term, I don't see a huge difference between him and Moreno. Similar pedigree. Similar strengths. Similar weaknesses. Lynch is more power. Moreno is more finesse. I wouldn't want either as my RB1. I'd be fine with either as my RB2.

Beanie Wells - Wasn't a big fan of him at Ohio State and haven't been blown away by what I've seen from him so far in the NFL. Tall and fast. Not very shifty. He has breakout potential, but so do Felix Jones, Donald Brown, and Shonn Greene. I don't see him as being clearly above those guys.

Matt Forte and Ryan Grant - I rate them alongside Joseph Addai and Kevin Smith. Journeyman talents capitalizing on short term opportunity. Very expendable.

Tashard Choice - Not the greatest talent in the world. I rank him somewhat high because he seems like one of the better potential starters among the current NFL backups. If he goes somewhere like Green Bay or Seattle, he's a top 15 back.

SSOG · Dec 9, 2009

Also, on a non-dynasty related side note, I have found that I am *CONSISTENTLY* inert in all aspects of fantasy football. This doesn't just mean long-term player rankings, it also means WEEKLY player rankings. I'm the kind of guy who's always dropping that "always start your studs" line. For instance, I own Vincent Jackson, and even though I have other quality WRs I could replace him in my lineup with (I have three other WRs who are currently in the top 20 in PPG), there's no question in my mind that I'm starting him. My weekly starting lineup is Fitzgerald, Jackson, and _________. Every week, without fail. And, barring injury, I anticipate that it will remain that way for the next 4 years.

I wonder if that correlation (inert long-term rankings / inert weekly rankings) is an indicator of a trend, or if it's just coincidence. For those who would describe their long-term rankings as inert, are you also a strong subscriber to the "always start your studs" theory? If you have flexible long-term rankings, do you find you're also more likely to bench your studs for a favorable matchup?

Dinsy Ejotuz · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Personally, I think that a perfect set of rankings shouldn't change at all except to reflect age or injury.

Great post, and I agree with this 100%; my rankings are damn stubborn. I haven't been doing this long enough not to get a sick feeling when it looks like I'm wrong about a guy, but now that I have a stable evaluation process I feel good about I'm forcing myself to follow my ratings and buy low when I have the chance. Mendenhall, Felix, VJax, Charles and Garcon were my biggest targets going into this year, so it's worked out ok for the time being.But even if my rankings turn out to be not very good in the long run, it's better to be right 25% of the time and get great value than to be right 50% of the time and get what you (over)paid for by outbidding your leagumates. You'll never get good value chasing the crowd.The downside is that I virtually never land a player I don't like in hopes of flipping him later, so I don't usually end up with much of a chance to sell high on a guy I think is overvalued. Unless I snagged the next shiny thing off the WW (cheaply) they don't end up on my roster in the first place.

DoubleG · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Also, on a non-dynasty related side note, I have found that I am *CONSISTENTLY* inert in all aspects of fantasy football. This doesn't just mean long-term player rankings, it also means WEEKLY player rankings. I'm the kind of guy who's always dropping that "always start your studs" line. For instance, I own Vincent Jackson, and even though I have other quality WRs I could replace him in my lineup with (I have three other WRs who are currently in the top 20 in PPG), there's no question in my mind that I'm starting him. My weekly starting lineup is Fitzgerald, Jackson, and _________. Every week, without fail. And, barring injury, I anticipate that it will remain that way for the next 4 years.I wonder if that correlation (inert long-term rankings / inert weekly rankings) is an indicator of a trend, or if it's just coincidence. For those who would describe their long-term rankings as inert, are you also a strong subscriber to the "always start your studs" theory? If you have flexible long-term rankings, do you find you're also more likely to bench your studs for a favorable matchup?

Interesting points regarding ratings inertia. I beleive, after reading your ideas on the concept that I fall heavily into the "inert" side, versus the fluctuation (dare I say "reactionary"?) side. This is obvious in the recent discussion regarding Garcon and Anthony Gonzalez.In general, I do indeed find I am more likely to roll with my studs vs. swap them out. This past week was a perfect example (as this week may again be). I own Benson, Moreno, Mendenhall (amoung others). As soon as it became apparent that Benson (I know he barely qualifies as a stud, btw) was going to start, I inserted him in the lineup, even though I thought Moreno would get more touches against a matchup I considered to be easier than Benson's. Even this week, with Moreno facing Indy and Benson up against Minny's D - I still have Benson in the lineup (at least for now). So for me, the correlation is there.

EBF · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Any other thoughts on rankings inertia? Where do you all feel you fall on the spectrum? Are their any weaknesses or advantages of either approach that I'm not adequately grasping? Does anyone else go back and evaluate themselves over any time period to check their processes, or is that just me?

How do you spot a real player from a fraud? I think you have to handle it on a case by case basis. You have to be able to differentiate between the impressive rookie performance of DeSean Jackson and the impressive rookie performance of Keary Colbert. Sometimes it's easy. Did anyone really think Randy Moss was a fluke after his rookie year? He was a high pick and his freakish talent was so blatantly obvious that even a blind man could've seen it. Guys like Edgerrin James, Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson were no-brainer locks because they had the pedigree of a superstar and they looked special on the field. Other times it's not so simple. Look at Koren Robinson. He was a high pick. He put up staggering statistics in his second season and looked good doing it. At that point everyone thought he had arrived as an elite NFL WR. Obviously it didn't work out that way. This has happened several times in recent years with guys like Rod Gardner, Ashley Lelie, Braylon Edwards, and Roy Williams. People used early picks on them and got burned. Sometimes players who seemingly have all the ingredients of a breakout star are actually fool's gold. I'd like to say there's an easy way to spot this. There isn't. You need to look beyond the numbers and figure out whether or not the player is truly the real deal. This is where I think it helps to have a little bit of an eye for talent. You also need to watch out for warning signs. I had Julius Jones on my team when he broke out as a rookie. He made some sick runs in front of large TV audiences and instantly became a consensus top 10 dynasty RB. I held him throughout the offseason. When he started to struggle the next year, I decided to move him. I traded him for Hines Ward, a boring and reliable veteran. In this case I came out ahead not because I knew Julius was a fraud before he started to struggle, but because I reacted to the warning signs of his mediocrity before everyone else caught on. Joseph Addai and Matt Forte owners could've done the same if they had taken a closer look at the stats. Both players were struggling long before their values plummeted. If you had traded them for a proven player like Fank Gore or Steven Jackson, you'd be sitting pretty.There is no surefire way to know exactly when to sell and buy with a particular player. My basic philosophy is:1. Try to get a good idea of the player's value BEFORE he ever sets foot on an NFL field. Watch him play, either in full games or in highlights. Pay attention to where he's picked. Was he a high pick? Does the team that picked him usually do a good job of identifying quality players? You want to develop a strong sense for a player's skills. That way he won't swing like a pendulum in your rankings every time he breaks a good run or makes a bad play. A year ago everyone was giving me #### because I had Mendenhall ranked as the top rookie RB. I didn't drastically downgrade him in my rankings despite his quiet rookie year because I felt I had a good read on his abilities. Sure enough, he ended up rewarding my faith. If you think you know who a player is, you can't let a small simple size of inconclusive results dramatically alter your opinion. However...2. You need to be flexible when clear and decisive evidence contradicts your previously established opinion. I didn't draft Chris Johnson in any of my dynasty leagues last year. I thought he was too thin to be a full-time RB. I wasn't convinced by his college career (he played WR much of the time, struggled with injuries, and only broke out as a RB in his senior season). I had zero faith in Tennessee's ability to identify quality talent in the early rounds of the draft (see: Andre Woolfolk, Chris Henry, LenDale White, Vince Young, Travis LaBoy, Pac-Man Jones, etc). I liked his video game speed and his ridiculous combine numbers, but in the end there were too many volatile factors for me to have a good feeling about him. That started to change once he burst onto the scene. I was still reluctant to anoint him as a great dynasty back, but he definitely moved up my rankings. I didn't tout him as "the most overrated player in FF" like I did with Matt Forte because his success was more convincing. His numbers were more impressive, he was more impressive to the naked eye, and he had a much more promising background (first round pick, elite combine performance). In general, I think it's wise to err on the side of caution. You don't necessarily suffer for the success of players you don't acquire as long as all of the players you do acquire end up being good. For example, missing out on Chris Johnson in your rookie draft wouldn't have killed you if you got someone like Mendenhall or Rice instead. However, incorrectly identifying Darren McFadden as a superstar and using the number one pick on him would've cost you dearly. What I generally do when I'm preparing for a rookie draft or a startup draft is compile a very short list of players that I have absolute faith in. These are the only players that I will draft. If I'm uncertain about a player, I won't take him. He might be promising and he might eventually become a star on someone else's roster, but that doesn't matter to me. I'm only taking players that I KNOW will be good. I don't care what happens to other guys. If everyone I draft becomes a solid player, my team will be good regardless of whatever superstars I missed out on.

BeTheMatch · Dec 9, 2009

EBF said:
1. Try to get a good idea of the player's value BEFORE he ever sets foot on an NFL field. Watch him play, either in full games or in highlights.

Great post, EBF. I quoted this part about highlights, because it's the one thing I slightly disagree with. I've actually grown really leery of watching highlights of college players, whether it's YouTube or whatever.The reason I say that is I think it's actually much more telling and informative to watch a prospect's bad plays than a highlight reel. Of course, no one puts out a clunker reel for these guys.But there are all kinds of guys that can flash big-play potential and look really good in an edited highlight reel that only showcases their best plays. Think about Braylon Edwards, for example. If you never watched a full game, you'd never see all his drops.I don't get to watch as much college football as I want during the regular season, but I make it a point to watch an entire bowl game if there is any legit NFL prospect in it. I know it's just one game, but I feel watching an entire game gives me a much more accurate read on a player.And it's the same thing with the NFL. I have Sunday Ticket and usually just flip from game to game or sit on the Red Zone channel on Sundays to see all the scoring plays. But I also spend some time doing my homework on different guys throughout the year. You have to watch a whole game or several games to really judge a guy.Fantasy football has a lot of luck involved, no doubt about it. But I've been the "luckiest" with guys that I've done the most research on. Guys like DeSean Jackson and Frank Gore that I trusted what I saw with my own eyeballs from them after watching enough of their games that I didn't allow some of the so-called expert naysayers to convince me otherwise.Obviously I've had my share of misses, too, but the more you can actually watch these guys, the more informed my opinion is. I knew early on Mike Sims-Walker could play. I've been rewarded with my patience this year.Other guys in that mold that I'm holding onto like grim death are James Jones and Chaz Schilens. I've seen enough of them to know they have very good talent. If I miss, I miss. But it won't be because I gave up on them.

Football Jones · Dec 9, 2009

It's all about player evaluation & situation evaluation. Drafting, trading, waivers...everything requires player evaluation & situation evaluation. Your eyes are your best friend when it comes to player eval & realizing we play FF is your best friend when it comes to evaluating situation.

The best FF players do those two things well. There's obviously much more to this great hobby depending on the league & format, but those are the two kingpins, IMO.

gianmarco · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Any other thoughts on rankings inertia? Where do you all feel you fall on the spectrum? Are their any weaknesses or advantages of either approach that I'm not adequately grasping? Does anyone else go back and evaluate themselves over any time period to check their processes, or is that just me?

Here's my thoughts about this:I don't think the flaw is either having too much inertia or not having enough. I think the flaw arises when you apply the same level of inertia across the board. It's learning WHEN to stay patient and for which players. There are certain players that I will stick with no matter how bad of a stretch of games or even a poor season they have. These are the elite guys that are oozing with talent. Andre Johnson. Steven Jackson. Randy Moss. Guys with unquestionable talent. Unfortunately, some people give up on them when they shouldn't. This is where people like yourself who are less likely to move their rankings around will do well and more fickle owners will look at S. Jackson's end year ranking and decide he's not a top 3-4 RB in the league.At the same time, there are guys that you need to cut bait with sooner rather than later. Roy Williams is a classic example of this to me. Roy and AJ had similar underperforming spells but for different reasons. But AJ's talent level >>> Roy's. He never offered the upside that AJ did. Guys that don't have that elite level talent, I personally carry a shorter leash on. What I'm trying to say is that I vary how quickly I move players up and down. Adrian Peterson is on a few of my teams. He could have finished this year RB25 and he'd remain at the very top of my board without wavering one bit. At the same time, Eddie Royal is someone that I'd have moved already if I owned him. I'll end up being wrong about some, but I find the errors in being wrong with this method are far less than either being too inert or too fickle if applied the same across the board. I would hate to be the owner that stuck by Roy Williams for the last 5 years. Likewise, I'd be completely bummed if I had unloaded S. Jackson after his last couple years. I personally trade much more than your average owner and my rosters see a lot of turnover. But, the key pieces (AP, S. Jackson, DeAngelo, Moss, Fitz)...those guys aren't involved in those moves unless they're coming to my team. I'm doing the "stock market" trading for the smaller pieces trying to add value to invest in the bigger pieces. I find it easier to build value on my teams this way, multiple trades gaining a little value each time. I try not to make marginal trades and lose value on marginal players. But, I don't mind overpaying for those top guys. A classic example of how I do this with player like Austin happened earlier this year with S. Smith. This is how I looked at his situation and how I turn these trades into profit. S. Smith was obviously on people's radars to start the season so wasn't a complete unknown but was mostly viewed as a WR3/4 type. He blew up in week 1. People took notice. Then, he did it again in week 2. People took more notice and his value went up somewhat, but not a lot. Week 3 he does it again. Now everyone is wondering what's going on with this guy and his value has now gone up a good bit more. However, it wasn't maxed out. This is a perfect buy time to me. Here's why and how I looked at it. One more solid week, and his value skyrockets. 4 weeks of high-level production, especially in a row, is enough to turn doubters around. But, even if he stumbles the next couple of weeks, the value doesn't drop much. It's only going to take 1, MAYBE 2 more games to get a significant increase. If you buy after week 1 or week 2 and then he has a bad week, the value that he gained is lost. There's doubt. The value after 4-5 weeks in a row is essentially "maxed out" unless it's by a guy viewed with elite talent. In other words, it was a safe buy with a good chance of appreciation. I didn't care about Steve Smith because I didn't view him as having elite AJ/Fitz/Moss type talent. But, I cared to buy him to gain value in a few weeks. What I'm saying is that I will not often buy a guy after just 1 or 2 weeks. I will "overpay" for a rising player, though, if I feel the value isn't maxed out and has a good shot to get there with minimal further production and minimal chance of decreasing shortly afterward. In the end, I make lots of smaller, insignificant trades so my overall roster sees lots of turnovers. But, the goal of doing that is to acquire centerpieces to build the team around. That's my ultimate goal....acquire studs. Because to me, studs = championships.

Sabertooth · Dec 9, 2009

Here is some food for thought regarding Garcon. In ESPN magazine this preseason, Anthony Gonzalez was asked what he tells fantasy owners when they say they drafted him, he stated "Trade me for Pierre Garcon, you'll be a lot happier." I don't have the exact quote, but it was really close to that.

He's got a lot more access to insider information than even the best reporter, and that was his opinion. Garcon appears to be the real deal, and he was spot on with that comment. He couldn't have predicted his own injury, but the writing appeared to be on the wall regardless.

ConstruxBoy · Dec 9, 2009

SSOG said:
Also, on a non-dynasty related side note, I have found that I am *CONSISTENTLY* inert in all aspects of fantasy football. This doesn't just mean long-term player rankings, it also means WEEKLY player rankings. I'm the kind of guy who's always dropping that "always start your studs" line. For instance, I own Vincent Jackson, and even though I have other quality WRs I could replace him in my lineup with (I have three other WRs who are currently in the top 20 in PPG), there's no question in my mind that I'm starting him. My weekly starting lineup is Fitzgerald, Jackson, and _________. Every week, without fail. And, barring injury, I anticipate that it will remain that way for the next 4 years.I wonder if that correlation (inert long-term rankings / inert weekly rankings) is an indicator of a trend, or if it's just coincidence. For those who would describe their long-term rankings as inert, are you also a strong subscriber to the "always start your studs" theory? If you have flexible long-term rankings, do you find you're also more likely to bench your studs for a favorable matchup?

I'm probably a 75% always start your studs guy and that does correlate to my longer term rankings. What I have found works for me on a weekly ranking basis is splitting the season into 3 parts, weeks 1-4, 5-10, 11-16. I treat each part a little different in terms of which of the multiple factors I consider for start/bench decisions are used. One factor I use is Tier, which is a ranking of their talent in tiers from A-D. In the first part of the season, weeks 1-4, I lean on the tier ranks a lot. Early in the NFL season, it's hard to know how projections from pre-season and defensive rankings and matchup data will work out. I'd rather trust my studs. In the middle part, weeks 5-10, I pay more attention to who is performing better that year and what the matchup data shows. I think that period in the season is much easier to read and you can be more sure of who the good and bad teams are, that good teams beat bad teams and that matchup data holds true most often. Near the end of this period, I re-assess my Tiers based on how the players have looked so far that year and how I think they'll perform in the future. Then in the final part of the season, I think matchup data falls apart. Injuries pile up. Some teams are fighting for the playoffs, others have given up. The Raiders beat the Steelers. The Redskins take the Saints to overtime. This is the time to go back to the Always start your studs theory. Most of the studs are studs because they performed well down the stretch and in pressure situations in the past. And when you have no idea what motivations a team has, I'd rather start my studs then hope that the matchups work out just the way they were projected.

D'OHtis · Dec 9, 2009

Very interested to see how Arian Foster fares this weekend if infact he does take over Slaton's role in this offense.

Not much in the way of him having a big role going forward. Probably get him at a bargain basement price.

gianmarco · Dec 9, 2009

ConstruxBoy said:
SSOG said:

Also, on a non-dynasty related side note, I have found that I am *CONSISTENTLY* inert in all aspects of fantasy football. This doesn't just mean long-term player rankings, it also means WEEKLY player rankings. I'm the kind of guy who's always dropping that "always start your studs" line. For instance, I own Vincent Jackson, and even though I have other quality WRs I could replace him in my lineup with (I have three other WRs who are currently in the top 20 in PPG), there's no question in my mind that I'm starting him. My weekly starting lineup is Fitzgerald, Jackson, and _________. Every week, without fail. And, barring injury, I anticipate that it will remain that way for the next 4 years.I wonder if that correlation (inert long-term rankings / inert weekly rankings) is an indicator of a trend, or if it's just coincidence. For those who would describe their long-term rankings as inert, are you also a strong subscriber to the "always start your studs" theory? If you have flexible long-term rankings, do you find you're also more likely to bench your studs for a favorable matchup?

Click to expand...

I'm probably a 75% always start your studs guy and that does correlate to my longer term rankings. What I have found works for me on a weekly ranking basis is splitting the season into 3 parts, weeks 1-4, 5-10, 11-16. I treat each part a little different in terms of which of the multiple factors I consider for start/bench decisions are used. One factor I use is Tier, which is a ranking of their talent in tiers from A-D. In the first part of the season, weeks 1-4, I lean on the tier ranks a lot. Early in the NFL season, it's hard to know how projections from pre-season and defensive rankings and matchup data will work out. I'd rather trust my studs. In the middle part, weeks 5-10, I pay more attention to who is performing better that year and what the matchup data shows. I think that period in the season is much easier to read and you can be more sure of who the good and bad teams are, that good teams beat bad teams and that matchup data holds true most often. Near the end of this period, I re-assess my Tiers based on how the players have looked so far that year and how I think they'll perform in the future. Then in the final part of the season, I think matchup data falls apart. Injuries pile up. Some teams are fighting for the playoffs, others have given up. The Raiders beat the Steelers. The Redskins take the Saints to overtime. This is the time to go back to the Always start your studs theory. Most of the studs are studs because they performed well down the stretch and in pressure situations in the past. And when you have no idea what motivations a team has, I'd rather start my studs then hope that the matchups work out just the way they were projected.

I do the exact same thing. My starting rosters don't change for at least 3-4 weeks in the season.At the same time, my trading maxes out ~4 week mark because here is where I try to capitalize on early trends and overreactions.

Dynasty Rankings (10 Viewers)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Moderator

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Kate&#39;s Daddy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Kate's Daddy