Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
He said at age 30 after he played 8 years that he wanted to play 8 more years. That would take him through the 2013 season.He will probably play until his arm falls off, but that should at least give you a lower bound.
The same could apply to - no joking here - Randy Moss. He turns 33 on February 13th.In the 3 years he's been with the Pats, here are his stats:2007 - 98 receptions, 1493 yards, 23 TDs2008 - 69 receptions, 1008 yards, 11 TDs (the year Brady was out)2009 - 83 receptions, 1264 yards, 13 TDs
Well, last year was his eighth season, and he would've been 32 after last season.My bad. The stats I was looking at only went back to 2001, and I thought that was his first year.
This is all I found in Rotoworld's database, from back in August:
I've heard Brady say this past offseason that he plans on playing another 10 years. I'd expect Manning to have a similar attitude, and he'll likely play until he's 40.
Speaking of Moss, what's his trade value like this offseason? If you had him, what would you need in return in order to move him?
Yeah, I was thinking five more years, at least, for Manning.
Pretty much apples to oranges here from my view. WRs outlive RBs by several years, but QBs can outlive WRs by at least as much. Based on how he looks to me, the 33-35 age range I estimate for WR declines (with notable expections) and some lingering attitude questions ... I'll guess no more than 1 more very good year for Randy, and then a noticeable drop off. No risk yet for redraft, but if I owned him in dynasty, would get WR1 value for Moss as soon as I could and walk away happy.
Moss is the most talented WR in the history of the NFL. He is still going to be tall. He can lose a step and still be fast. I don't think you can assign a blanket age range to him. I think his stats last year 70/1000/10 are a lower bound for 3 or 4 more years, assuming he stays with Brady.
I agree for the same reasons that he has 3-4 more years of elite to very good production.
Just to clarify, my issues with top 3 picks aren't so much with the picks themselves as it is with what they often cost -- especially between the NFL Draft and the dynasty draft, when they're at peak value. This is obviously league-dependent -- most in my leagues value those top 3 picks VERY highly at that time of year. I'd have to ask around, but I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all the guys with top 3 picks in 2010 would flatly decline guys like Stewart, Gore, or SJax straight up for a top 3 pick if offered to them right now. Again, league-dependent, but I know it's all not an uncommon valuation of those picks -- I see those kinds of offers frequently being brought up in this and other threads. That's why I avoid buying those picks at this time of year (if you can pry them away at all). Even if I feel confident that I'll be getting the next ADP or CJ if I trade for the 1.01 right now, the price is too high. If I feel absolutely dead certain that I'm getting that special talent, I'll do it. But most of the time, I'm not DEAD CERTAIN. Most of the time, I do a little thought experiment: would I give up Stewart, or Gore, or SJax as any of them are right now for a talent analogous to the average players of past top 3 consensus picks? Going through your list, that'd be Moreno, Wells, McFadden, Stewart, Mendenhall, ADP, Calvin, Lynch, Ronnie, Caddy. At best, I'd argue that the average value there is going to be a push against Stewart/Gore/SJax -- with more risk/reward. If you play in a league that values them more reasonably, then they're obviously worth moving up/buying.--Above I generally tried to keep comments RB-focused, since it makes the argument more widely applicable across scoring systems, etc. Apples to apples, and all that. But here's another less common league-dependent quirk that can make top 3 picks overvalued. My main league is very old, and thus has super wonky scoring that massively favors QBs. This means top QBs are more valuable, which means that usually at least one goes in the top 3 picks and usually a second or third will go by the end of the first round. Due to depth of rosters and their value, it seems nearly impossible to get a top QB via trade -- you pretty much have to draft them yourself, or pay massively. And rookie QBs are MUCH more volatile values than RBs. So I especially shy away from buying a top 3 pick in that league, especially since the higher value in QBs pushes those RB/WR prospects down the chart. That shift in positional valuation, plus Mendenhall's horrid preseason performance and what looked like a bad situation behind FWP, led so many people to pass on him that year that I got him with pick #9 or #10. Obviously this particularly league's system REALLY distorts values and changes things quite a bit. But I thought it was worth pointing out, because even in the more-common 6 pts/pass TD scoring system, value should distort enough to again make those picks a little dicier.-- In re: Moss and Manning, I'd be looking to move Moss this offseason. I think he's still got some seasons in him, but I think this is the last year that you can be confident that you'll get good value back in a trade. My philosophy is always to move guys before their value falls off a cliff, rather than trying to ride them out. That meant divesting myself of guys like Steve Smith (Carolina-style) and Westbrook in the offseason this past year. But that's just me. If you feel like you've got young WRs studs waiting in the wings, or that you've got enough value elsewhere to procure a new #1 WR a couple years from now without getting much back for Moss later on, I think you can confidently hang on to him and still get some good seasons out of him.Manning's still a few years away from that trade-value cliff, so I wouldn't be looking to trade him at all.
Hopefully, I can duplicate your success here with this blueprint as I have done a similar thing heading into this next season in one of my leagues. I traded Brees and S.Smith (CAR) for two 1sts (became 1.01 and 1.05). So now I have 1.01, 1.05, and 1.06 to hopefully parlay into a trio of promising rookies or a rook or two and an emerging young stud......Sometimes, if your team is kind of stuck in neutral with limited potential moving forward vs. the rest of the league, it is time to reload/rebuild. Again, having a plan in mind is a necessity. Would have loved to get two of the top 3 rookie picks, but the way the conso bowl worked out, I at least got the #1 and 3 out of the top 6 in a pretty intriguing draft.
i'm not sure you should, but if you really want 2 of the top 3 rookies, it sounds like you have the ammunition to do it. i'm guessing the 1.05 and 1.06 could be traded for the 1.02 or 1.03 if you feel strongly enough about the guys at the top.
Well, another misunderstood quote that I will take part of the blame here for the misunderstanding. So I'll clarify where I was heading with this discussion.By adding players such as Charles, Austin, or Sid Rice early enough (during the period of their "small sample size" production), you would be adding a difference-maker for your team down the stretch to combine WITH your existing core players such as the Petersons, CJ2Ks, Ray Rice, Fitz, etc., whoever you already have. Because if an owner would make a determination that these types of players could reasonably be headed for star status and production, then one could have acquired them (earlier, before more samples came in) for the likes of (fading and/or overvalued name-players) Housh, Santana Moss, Lee Evans, Pierre T, D.Mason, Braylon, Kevin Smith, or even if you decided after a few more samples, one could have considered giving up Ocho5, Benson, or Boldin depending upon when you determined that they could thrive and weren't a fluke. I certainly would have rather had Charles or Austin down the stretch for this season, and going forward, over any of these guys I listed as possible trade candidates for them. The point being is that often waiting to acquire guys because you aren't yet sold due to their limited sample size can cost you in the end since they could have added hefty late-season production (e.g., ala Austin, Charles) to your already very nice roster instead of boosting another team's already nice roster. When talent jumps off the screen at you like these two guys in particular showed, you have to determine rather quickly if they are stud material or a mirage. In both cases, these guys flashed real talent that should have been fairly obvious. I hope this clarifies things.
Who says you can't win while doing a major overhaul?Last year, I won the fantasy superbowl with this core:SchaubWestbrook, LynchFitzgerald, Moss, EvansOwen DanielsIt was a good enough core to win me the title, but I didn't have any delusions about being the best team in the league, I had some serious depth concerns at WR (my top depth was Reggie Williams and Marty Booker), and Westbrook/Moss were starting to get a little bit old. As a result, rather than resting on my laurels, I decided to make a focused effort to get younger and better. My resulting team (in my sig) barely resembles the team I ended last season with- the only regular starter in common is Fitzgerald. Despite that, not only is my team younger and better, but I actually managed to move up in both the first and second round of this year's draft, to boot.The key, in my mind, is having focus. Set your goals for your team, and make them as specific as possible. Don't say "I want to get better", make a goal like "I want to shave two years off the average age of my RBs and WRs" or "I want my WR corps to go from 3-deep to 5-deep". I mention those two in particular because those were two of my goals during the offseason. I think one of the big differences between a good owner and a great owner (not in an effort to call myself a great owner) is one of focus. Good owners will have good player valuation skills, but they won't build their team with any kind of focus or without any clearly defined goals.
Is that the game we're going to play? If so, what makes McCoy different from McFadden 2008?
I have to believe this is perhaps one of the worst times to try to acquire Charles. The time to acquire him was before this breakout, e.g., when I saw him traded along with a 2nd rounder for Torry Holt. Or, the time to acquire him will be when he is "proven" - even though the price will be much higher, at least the uncertainty will be off the table.Much like SLaton and Forte last year, I jsut feel like his price is going to reflect all the upside but not factor in any of the risk... the owner is going to think he has the next young stud and demand a price accordingly. That means you're paying a high price AND taking all of the risk that he bottoms out. If I had him, I'd probably sell if the price was right, or hold.... but I don't think this is a good time to buy. Then again, it depends on what the price is. Offseason trading hasn't opened in most of my leagues, so I haven't seen him moved yet... but these are my assumptions based on the trends I've seen in the past.kremenull said:
Great post.
Not necessarily. If Charles is currently going for RB5 value, then stay far, far away. If Charles is going for an RB12-like price, then it might still be a good time to buy. There are still a lot of concerns about Charles- his size, the potential for a committee, etc. If his owner secretly harbors those concerns and you don't, then buy.I'm planning on offering Moreno to the Charles owner to see what shakes out. If he takes it, then great. If he doesn't, then oh well. Sure, it might be buying Charles at his upside... but it just as easily might be selling Moreno at his, too.
I think he means if your team has an older nucleus you play to win now, not necessarily building around an old nucleus.Which players do you guys think can drastically change their perceived value over the next few weeks in the playoffs? We saw Fitz make that mega leap into stardom last year (although most knew it would happen eventually) and Darren Sproles had a nice playoff to boost his value as well. Who makes a leap and who's value rolls off a cliff?Fear & Loathing said:If you're attempting to build around an old nucleus, you're not building. It's time for a new tack.
Enough with the size comments, it's a non issue. Regarding a committee, the Chiefs have much more pressing needs than to draft/trade another back. They'll be a second back, but the lion's share should be Charles going forward. I'm sure that all Charles owners have seen him on film and there is no concern. Spread formations + speed back + can catch + pass protect = yahtzee.
The answer is.... the Raiders. Joking aside, though, McFadden did seem like a promising acquisition last offseason. He was pimped so hard on the Audible, and I did draft him in one redraft league looking for Reggie Bush of old style RB. Although if perception serves me right, he was probably a bit more valued last offseason than McCoy is now.But this is all somewhat besides the point. I stated that I'm no more sure than the next guy about McCoy. Is going to break out or remain a bit player? The point was that he put together a decent rookie season while sharing with 2 other veterans, caught 40 passes, and plays for a HC that likes to showcase a pass-catching RB. PPR potential that not many other backs have. In any case, McCoy's owner in my dynasty league is all up on him, so it looks as tho he won't be traded for cheaply. In that case, it's not worth investing a lot. But if someone who shares the outlook of yourself or F&L was his owner, someone who was ready to cut ties and move on, he would be a nice speculative trade.So if you aren't high on McCoy, what other similar RBs might be more valuable in your eyes? Forsett? His stats are pretty similar to McCoy for the year, but he's 3 years older. McFadden?SSOG said:
BINGO!.....Clearly visible as the sun is bright!Welcome Charlie Weis into the fold, K.C. (Charles, Bowe, in particular) is now fantasy gold.......
Exactly. It's a risk but if you genuinely believe in their talent, then you make every attempt to trade for them *before* they produce.I am targeting Laurent Robinson & Jacoby Jones in dynasty leagues right now. Both may not pan out, but I really think they have great talent.
i thought this was relevant following the jonathan stewart conversation, in case anyone's looking to gauge his price. i just completed the following deal with an owner who is generally pretty astute:i gave hakeem nicks, reggie bush and ben roethlisbergerfor jonathan stewart, zach miller and matt moore
I take it the guy was in desperate need of a QB/WR?
not really
he had mcnabb, and not much behind him, and he had marshall, boldin and MSW at WR. it's a PPR league, which adds some value to the bush/nicks side of the deal.
yeah, I'm not sure my sarcasm came across; he's right, it's just that I thought this was obvious to anyone. Still doesn't justify paying the ceiling. I might think a stock is worth $100, but if I can get it for $50, I buy it at $50 and not $100.finito said:Exactly. It's a risk but if you genuinely believe in their talent, then you make every attempt to trade for them *before* they produce.I am targeting Laurent Robinson & Jacoby Jones in dynasty leagues right now. Both may not pan out, but I really think they have great talent.FUBAR said:Got it, acquire good players before anyone else know they're good.kremenull said:
1. Stewart2. Jackson...3. Moreno..4. Forte
slight edge, but not a 'won it easily' in my opinon. who is the guy's other QB that he traded away roethlisberger? i'm not sold on matt moore. i think there's a good chance you just saw the 5 best games of his career.You got a great deal. I think you won it easily.gorf said:not reallyfinito said:
It's not a non-issue. It's not a dealbreaker, but saying it's not an issue at all is just burying your head in the sand. There have been backs that have had fantasy value at a comparable height/weight combination (Warrick Dunn is the patron saint of gangly RBs), but their rarity alone shows that size is an issue. It's something that has to be accounted for.Tackling Dummies said:
Good list, although I'd move Forte a bit closer to Moreno.
i also have brady, so roethlisberger wasn't really my QB1 anyway.
To add to this to help gauge Stewart's value (12 team contract league, 25 players $250 cap) and to point out the use of draft picks to help deals I made the following move with a relatively stingy owner:I gave Jennings ($12/4y) + 1.4I got DWill (RFA) + JStew ($16/4y) + 2.84 weeks ago it was actually a R1 swap of picks as he needed CAR RB for the playoffs but as Stewart went off the last 4 weeks, he hedged and I had no problem moving from a R1 pick to a 2nd as additional compensation to move the deal along.gorf said:
That's sort of what I'm getting at... I see the same sort of views forming about Charles (particularly from CHarles owners) that I saw about Forte and Slaton last year... that they thought he will be the next coming. So, like Forte or Slaton last year, I think you're going to see him valued closer to his upside that his downside, which makes him a bad candidate to buy. Maybe it's just me, but I'm very reluctant to buy anything when the price is on a sleep slant up, because the price is as high as other guys and yet there's still all the uncertainty on the table. If I'm paying that much much, I'd rather pay a little more and get a "proven" guy, or pay a little less for a guy who has a lower floor. In fact, unless it's someone I feel VERY strongly about (as I did with CJ last year and guys like Sid Rice this year), I am usually the one selling in these situations. Personally, I'm just one of those kinds of people who tries to find value BEFORE they break out, and then sell high when I don't think it's sustainable. In a case like Charles, I think his value is going to be especially inflated because of how he ended the season... 258 yards + CJ's 2k year are fresh in everyone's mind, and with no other football to distract them, they will fantasize about that and his price will reflect those fantasies
That said, I'm not sure what the actual price difference is between RB5 and RB12. As for a trade like Moreno for Charles straight up - I never understood why someone would think about a trade like that. If you offer me one person of relatively similar makeup (young, upside, etc) at the same position as a swap - and unless you own the other RB in the RBBC or something - you simply have to question the values there. Even if I think your guy is better, I should realize that you clearly value my player more and thus I'll hold out until I get a better price.
You could try to hold out for a better price. I'd reply with "guess I'm going into next season with Moreno, then" and shut down discussions. I generally don't lowball, so my first offer is generally my biggest offer. I'd be happy to change pieces around (i.e. give you a package of players I value identically to Moreno instead of Moreno himself), or I might throw in a late pick or something to "grease the wheels" or allow you to save face in the transaction log or whatever, but I think it's important to make it known from the beginning that you aren't wishy-washy, you don't lock in on players (which is why I was opposed to the Ricky-for-Greene swap, since it was a CLEAR case of overwhelming tunnel vision for a single player). If someone holds out for a better price and you acquiesce, all you're doing is saying that people can milk you whenever they feel like it.It should be clear that I'm making the offer because I like Charles more than Moreno and not for any ancillary concerns. If the other guy likes Moreno better than Charles, then the deal gets done. If he doesn't, it doesn't. No real sweat either way.As for a trade like Moreno for Charles straight up - I never understood why someone would think about a trade like that. If you offer me one person of relatively similar makeup (young, upside, etc) at the same position as a swap - and unless you own the other RB in the RBBC or something - you simply have to question the values there. Even if I think your guy is better, I should realize that you clearly value my player more and thus I'll hold out until I get a better price.
You could try to hold out for a better price. I'd reply with "guess I'm going into next season with Moreno, then" and shut down discussions. I generally don't lowball, so my first offer is generally my biggest offer. I'd be happy to change pieces around (i.e. give you a package of players I value identically to Moreno instead of Moreno himself), or I might throw in a late pick or something to "grease the wheels" or allow you to save face in the transaction log or whatever, but I think it's important to make it known from the beginning that you aren't wishy-washy, you don't lock in on players (which is why I was opposed to the Ricky-for-Greene swap, since it was a CLEAR case of overwhelming tunnel vision for a single player). If someone holds out for a better price and you acquiesce, all you're doing is saying that people can milk you whenever they feel like it.It should be clear that I'm making the offer because I like Charles more than Moreno and not for any ancillary concerns. If the other guy likes Moreno better than Charles, then the deal gets done. If he doesn't, it doesn't. No real sweat either way.As for a trade like Moreno for Charles straight up - I never understood why someone would think about a trade like that. If you offer me one person of relatively similar makeup (young, upside, etc) at the same position as a swap - and unless you own the other RB in the RBBC or something - you simply have to question the values there. Even if I think your guy is better, I should realize that you clearly value my player more and thus I'll hold out until I get a better price.
While I'm usually reluctant to do "young RB" for "young RB" or "old QB" for "old QB", etc. trades, there's no reason not to if you feel you're getting the better player.
SSOG - I agree with your philosopy here and am sometimes mystified by the responses to trade offers I have made for players at the same position of similar age and value. In fact one owner last year told me he doesn't make trades for players at the same position (?). I sometimes think there is some irrational fear that I know more than they do. Not always the case, as before the 2009 season started I offered Steve Smith of the Giants straight up for Mark Bradley in a PPR league, which was rejected fairly quickly. In retrospect I am not sure what I thinking at the time.You could try to hold out for a better price. I'd reply with "guess I'm going into next season with Moreno, then" and shut down discussions. I generally don't lowball, so my first offer is generally my biggest offer. I'd be happy to change pieces around (i.e. give you a package of players I value identically to Moreno instead of Moreno himself), or I might throw in a late pick or something to "grease the wheels" or allow you to save face in the transaction log or whatever, but I think it's important to make it known from the beginning that you aren't wishy-washy, you don't lock in on players (which is why I was opposed to the Ricky-for-Greene swap, since it was a CLEAR case of overwhelming tunnel vision for a single player). If someone holds out for a better price and you acquiesce, all you're doing is saying that people can milk you whenever they feel like it.It should be clear that I'm making the offer because I like Charles more than Moreno and not for any ancillary concerns. If the other guy likes Moreno better than Charles, then the deal gets done. If he doesn't, it doesn't. No real sweat either way.As for a trade like Moreno for Charles straight up - I never understood why someone would think about a trade like that. If you offer me one person of relatively similar makeup (young, upside, etc) at the same position as a swap - and unless you own the other RB in the RBBC or something - you simply have to question the values there. Even if I think your guy is better, I should realize that you clearly value my player more and thus I'll hold out until I get a better price.
Oh, sure... I'm not saying you shouldn't take the deal if you like the guy being offered better. I just mean it's not something you can "sell"... it's tough to tell me I'm getting the better end of the deal when there's no position/age/salary/etc situation involved. If you're offering me a young WR for a young WR and both are generally in the same range, you can't turn around and tell me I should accept because I'm getting the better player.E.g., in one league I had an owner offer me Cotchery for Holmes no less than 5 times. I told him upfront that I liked Holmes better, and yet he kept trying to do essentially the same deal but telling me that Cotchery was better/was going to be better with Sanchez/etc etc... clearly if you really believed that, you wouldn't be offering me the dealYou could try to hold out for a better price. I'd reply with "guess I'm going into next season with Moreno, then" and shut down discussions. I generally don't lowball, so my first offer is generally my biggest offer. I'd be happy to change pieces around (i.e. give you a package of players I value identically to Moreno instead of Moreno himself), or I might throw in a late pick or something to "grease the wheels" or allow you to save face in the transaction log or whatever, but I think it's important to make it known from the beginning that you aren't wishy-washy, you don't lock in on players (which is why I was opposed to the Ricky-for-Greene swap, since it was a CLEAR case of overwhelming tunnel vision for a single player). If someone holds out for a better price and you acquiesce, all you're doing is saying that people can milk you whenever they feel like it.It should be clear that I'm making the offer because I like Charles more than Moreno and not for any ancillary concerns. If the other guy likes Moreno better than Charles, then the deal gets done. If he doesn't, it doesn't. No real sweat either way.As for a trade like Moreno for Charles straight up - I never understood why someone would think about a trade like that. If you offer me one person of relatively similar makeup (young, upside, etc) at the same position as a swap - and unless you own the other RB in the RBBC or something - you simply have to question the values there. Even if I think your guy is better, I should realize that you clearly value my player more and thus I'll hold out until I get a better price.
Of course.. I've seen offers like this that make sense when there's a salary cap involved. E.g., you may regard Moreno higher, but Charles has a cheaper contract, so you'll take Charles for Moreno (I'm using this as an example, I understand that you/others/etc have Charles as the higher rank right now).
I don't, but others do. Depends on the owners of course but I for one absolutely hate when the offering party tries to sell a deal to me. I don't need him to explain why his player is better or to tell me I'm getting younger, I either know this or disagree. I can see an email explaining why the deal was offered if I reject it, but I'm that guy who rejects a trade because he's getting sold to, even if sometimes I may have taken it if it was just offered. Go ahead and offer me Greg Jennings for Brandon Marshall, just don't try to sell me on it.Oh, sure... I'm not saying you shouldn't take the deal if you like the guy being offered better. I just mean it's not something you can "sell"... it's tough to tell me I'm getting the better end of the deal when there's no position/age/salary/etc situation involved. If you're offering me a young WR for a young WR and both are generally in the same range, you can't turn around and tell me I should accept because I'm getting the better player.E.g., in one league I had an owner offer me Cotchery for Holmes no less than 5 times. I told him upfront that I liked Holmes better, and yet he kept trying to do essentially the same deal but telling me that Cotchery was better/was going to be better with Sanchez/etc etc... clearly if you really believed that, you wouldn't be offering me the dealYou could try to hold out for a better price. I'd reply with "guess I'm going into next season with Moreno, then" and shut down discussions. I generally don't lowball, so my first offer is generally my biggest offer. I'd be happy to change pieces around (i.e. give you a package of players I value identically to Moreno instead of Moreno himself), or I might throw in a late pick or something to "grease the wheels" or allow you to save face in the transaction log or whatever, but I think it's important to make it known from the beginning that you aren't wishy-washy, you don't lock in on players (which is why I was opposed to the Ricky-for-Greene swap, since it was a CLEAR case of overwhelming tunnel vision for a single player). If someone holds out for a better price and you acquiesce, all you're doing is saying that people can milk you whenever they feel like it.It should be clear that I'm making the offer because I like Charles more than Moreno and not for any ancillary concerns. If the other guy likes Moreno better than Charles, then the deal gets done. If he doesn't, it doesn't. No real sweat either way.As for a trade like Moreno for Charles straight up - I never understood why someone would think about a trade like that. If you offer me one person of relatively similar makeup (young, upside, etc) at the same position as a swap - and unless you own the other RB in the RBBC or something - you simply have to question the values there. Even if I think your guy is better, I should realize that you clearly value my player more and thus I'll hold out until I get a better price.
Of course.. I've seen offers like this that make sense when there's a salary cap involved. E.g., you may regard Moreno higher, but Charles has a cheaper contract, so you'll take Charles for Moreno (I'm using this as an example, I understand that you/others/etc have Charles as the higher rank right now).
Time to move Greene up a bit more? Trusted with more carries today in their most important game. Has responded every time he has been given most of the carries. Plenty of talent and a lot of opportunity.
For the record, I've never doubted Felix's ability to pile up gaudy yardage or ypc stats. I've doubted his ability to pile up gaudy carry stats. And I still do doubt it.
he had mcnabb, and not much behind him, and he had marshall, boldin and MSW at WR. it's a PPR league, which adds some value to the bush/nicks side of the deal.
