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.
No, you still have a minimum starting requirement for the position, plus RBs also get points for their receptions, thus enhancing the nominal value of all-around, versatile RBs like a Ray Rice, Charles, Hightower, Reg Bush, etc. But bottom line is that the NFL is a pass-happy league, PPR friendly with the proliferation of 3-, 4-, and 5- WR sets and non-PPR is becoming defunct due to RBBC.
If PPR is in place to bring WRs' value more in line with RBs' value, wouldn't more NFL RBBC bring the value of RBs down, thus eliminating the need to prop up WR value?
The REAL bottom line is that the NFL is a league where the team with the most points scored wins and that isn't about to change to most catches, rushes, yards, time of possession, first down, etc. So you could argue that a TD/FG-only league is the only pure form of fantasy football. Fine, so be it. But to make the game (yes, game) more fun and less susceptible to luck, most leagues count yards, which do have a correlation to the scoring. Check out The Hidden Game of Football and the work at FootballOutsiders. They explain how yards (depending on down and distance) contribute to a team's win probability. But I don't think you'll find any mention of catch, by itself, adding anything to a team's win probability.
Initially, PPR was viewed as a way to prop up WR value in comparison to RB value. It is not that way today in practice, i.e. reality. There is simply more available talent at the WR position these days and the position has become more of the focal point of the league, along with the QB position, of course, with all the rule changes and pass attempts vs run attempts. Simply go back in history of the NFL and you will see that over time the run vs. pass ratio has steadily shifted away from favoring the run to favoring the pass. The curve is not flat and will show an uptick leaning towards a greater pct of passing plays vs. running plays. I can state this with confidence without even looking at the actual numbers (trend), just by recalling how things were in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and now today, 2010. Exponential growth league-wide in pass attempts. Unless you have a horrible QB as your starter, when NFL teams look to achieve that so-called "balance" on offense, what they really mean is somewhere around a 58% to 42% ratio, pass-to-run. Nobody is even looking to go close to 50-50 anymore, which would be the strict definition of "balance" on offense. When I watch NFL games, more often than not I find myself much more interested in how the passing games are producing as opposed to the running games. Why? Because in most games, I'm more likely to not have a RB of significance in a given game as opposed to a WR of significance. Whether I'm playing non-PPR or PPR, that would be the case due to the aforementioned shortage of "tote-the-rock" RBs. The (NFL) LEAGUE man!.....Let the LEAGUE dictate things, your fantasy experience will be much more enjoyable. The current LEAGUE points to PPR. Once I discovered PPR a few years back, non-PPR was simply boring......Anyway, I'm done with my campaign.
OK! Thanks for the explanation. I can get with that, but in comparing the two guys you just mentioned (V-Jax vs. Roddy), I can slice it a multitude of ways and still Roddy comes out on top. Better talent V-Jax? I don't think so. Roddy is just as athletic, MUCH faster, and has already produced a double-digit TD season with multiple 80+ and 1200+ seasons on his resume. What about V-Jax' resume of these thresholds (rec, yds, TDs)?......Crickets.......I'd say there is a tier differential here, but that's just me, I guess. Below the overwhelming Consensus Big 3......."Guys who've done it and still project to do it Tier"RoddyAustinMarshallDeSeanColston...although maybe not for long, on cusp of this tier and the nextI think that V-Jax belongs in a tier with the next level guys, some guys who have done it already but may not quite achieve high-level much longer (e.g., Steve Smith (CAR), Boldin, Wayne) along with guys on the rise who have very high level ceilings (e.g., Bryant, Harvin, Nicks). V-Jax and Sid Rice are about similar to me, whether you prefer one over the other due to personal feelings on abilities or not is anyone's prerogative, but they seem pretty similar to me on many levels (aside from weight), and maybe even down to their projected production. Let me add that I do like the non-consensus approach, but the V-Jax love is a bit overboard as his overall talent simply isn't mind-blowing, IMO. Very good, just not enough to separate himself from a number of guys around the league just as talented who are actually producing better. And I still own the guy and can say all this. It's all good though!
We're not going to agree on his talent level and upside, so we're stuck here.As a general rule on these rankings, I try to look forward instead of looking back.
Wait a second......I pay a pretty handsome price for a guy in a trade and sign him to a long-term deal WITHOUT giving him a thorough medical evaluation. This my friend, is entirely on the Dolphins organization for letting this slip through the cracks. They were so eager to make a splash after all of the Jets' big moves that they didn't do proper diligence on this. No way this is on Marshall. If the team didn't flag a problem after working him out AND in a thorough medical exam, shame on them. Did they even work him out or run him through a thorough physical? It's pretty evident to me that Parcells and the gang screwed the pooch here.....
As has been mentioned several times, everything you're saying here points to a natural shift in value towards WRs without any scoring change at all, which makes PPR (and the mucking up of things it does without even going across positions) unnecessary.Also, for me, I still enjoy RB heavy leagues just for the simple fact that it's more fun to watch and root for running backs, as they touch the ball a lot more often. If I have Adrian Peterson on my team I get to see him be involved in ~30 plays by watching a Vikings game. If I have even one of the top WRs I'll be lucky to see them 10 times, and even then it's just as the ball gets to them as they're off screen for the majority of the play.Initially, PPR was viewed as a way to prop up WR value in comparison to RB value. It is not that way today in practice, i.e. reality. There is simply more available talent at the WR position these days and the position has become more of the focal point of the league, along with the QB position, of course, with all the rule changes and pass attempts vs run attempts. Simply go back in history of the NFL and you will see that over time the run vs. pass ratio has steadily shifted away from favoring the run to favoring the pass. The curve is not flat and will show an uptick leaning towards a greater pct of passing plays vs. running plays. I can state this with confidence without even looking at the actual numbers (trend), just by recalling how things were in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and now today, 2010. Exponential growth league-wide in pass attempts. Unless you have a horrible QB as your starter, when NFL teams look to achieve that so-called "balance" on offense, what they really mean is somewhere around a 58% to 42% ratio, pass-to-run. Nobody is even looking to go close to 50-50 anymore, which would be the strict definition of "balance" on offense. When I watch NFL games, more often than not I find myself much more interested in how the passing games are producing as opposed to the running games. Why? Because in most games, I'm more likely to not have a RB of significance in a given game as opposed to a WR of significance. Whether I'm playing non-PPR or PPR, that would be the case due to the aforementioned shortage of "tote-the-rock" RBs. The (NFL) LEAGUE man!.....Let the LEAGUE dictate things, your fantasy experience will be much more enjoyable. The current LEAGUE points to PPR. Once I discovered PPR a few years back, non-PPR was simply boring......Anyway, I'm done with my campaign.
Parcells could not have messed up. He's an NFL general manager.
For the record, I don't think this is a huge deal. But the notion that "it's always something with Marshall" certainly isn't new. It's why I don't consider him worth the headache.
I know we're wrapping up this whole tangent, but I wanted to add that I hate leagues that reward kickoff return yardage- or, at least, the ones that don't heavily modify it. If you field a kickoff in the end zone and return it 19 yards before getting tackled, you shouldn't get points for that, because you actually LOST yardage for your team (as opposed to simply taking a knee). Besides, averaging 20 yards a return is pretty much automatic for even the worst kickoff returners. Even poor returners on teams with terrible defenses become quality fantasy assets because they get such a sheer volume of return attempts.My league subtracts 2 points for every kickoff return attempt, which I think is great. It also treats kickoff return yardage as half as valuable as rushing/receiving/punt return yardage, which I think is unnecessary with the -2 point penalty already factored in. The penalty alone is plenty.
To be honest, I have no problem with ranking Roddy and Austin over VJax, and I'm actually very, very tempted to do the same thing, myself. I've long maintained that Roddy is the new Reggie Wayne (consistently high floor), and said that Austin is probably closer than anyone to making the leap into the top tier with the big boys. Meanwhile, what I love about VJax is that I see lots and lots and lots of TDs in his future, and can you imagine what will happen if he ever gets 150 targets? Scorched earth. I've got all three of them as an essential coin flip (provided you can find a 3-sided coin).Desean... okay, he was awesome this year, but I personally wouldn't buy him in the same tier as Roddy/Miles/Vincent. I'm still concerned about his reliance on big plays. Colston... not the same kind of talent as Roddy/Miles/Vincent.
). Brandon Marshall has taken 61% more targets and parleyed them into 2.6% more points. And if you look at the way the WRs are trending, you see that VJax is surging upwards. Jackson is already producing identical numbers to Marshall with just a fraction (about 3/5ths, to be precise) of the workload, VJax is trending upwards, VJax is in a better situation, VJax has less character concerns. Between VJax and Marshall, it's a no-brainer, give me VJax. Even if Marshall wasn't a tool and a fool, I'd still take VJax.
Hence the "all other things being equal". If both players play on a bad team, then at least WRA is moving the ball in chunks (which is the only way that bad offenses can move the ball, since they can't sustain success). WRB might set up easy 3rd downs, while WRA is just getting first downs in the first place rather than risking sending his poor team to 3rd down.
I don't think it's a decent argument at all. I think first downs are the most valuable thing an offense can get this side of TDs (or gratuitously large chunks of yardage). A first down means three more plays. It means three more free attempts to get the ball in the end zone or to get another first down. Failure to make a first down is a turnover.
I can buy that ToP has a very minor effect in terms of keeping a defense fresher, but at the end of the day, I strongly believe the causation is backwards. It's not that teams with a ToP advantage tend to wind up with the lead, it's that teams with the lead tend to wind up with the ToP advantage just like they tend to wind up with the carry advantage. In fact, winding up with the ToP advantage is very closely linked to getting the carry advantage.
I'm not trying to use them against Marshall, I'm just trying to demonstrate that VJax has more room to grow still. He's already matching Marshall point for point despite just 60% of the workload. What happens if that becomes 70%? 80%? And yeah, VJax's quality of target has been a lot higher... but is that not going to remain the case going forward?
Actually it was your endurring manlove for VJax getting hyyyyped to the xxxxtreme, with the flames fanned by F&L. Here's the exact quote
And I stand by that assertion. I still think Wayne will score more points in 10 and 11.I think everyone always had similar guys in tier 2 - VJax, Wayne, White, Marshall. It was just personal preference between those choices.
Wayne's value declined not just due to age and moving Austin and Desean up. The last two games we saw him in (and everyone saw him play those games) he played terrible. We remember his terrible game vs. the Jets and Revis where Garcon went off. We remember his bad game against the Saints where he dropped Indy's last chance attempts. Whether it was a knee injury, choking, or just good coverage, it is a sour taste.I don't see any reason to expect less than 90 receptions, 1200 yards, and 8 TDs the next two years. The cliff is closer but still far enough off. If I had to put a ranking on him now, I'd probably put him 6th. Still ahead of Marshall and VJax, but now behind White and Austin.
Actually that tier is so big now. 14 guys in Tier 2 in F&L's rankings. Steve Smith at WR16 is insane (and that's the good one); that's a real indication of how many solid WRs there are now. If I was doing a startup draft, if I didn't get a top 3 WR, I'd wait a round or two for a WR1. Would rather have a better QB/RB and Smith than Wayne and a lesser QB/RB.
We aren't really as far apart as my ealier post would suggest. My point was that first downs are nearly as ambiguous a measurement as the # of catches, and I thought I made at least that point fairly well. My argument was meant to show the flip side (Devil's advocate), not completely disagree. The real point is that NO MEASUREMENT is ideal. It's my opinion that PPR fixes more inadequacies then it causes, and that first downs are at best a lateral move to another imperfect measurement. Why move to another stat (particulary from an easy-to-track one to a difficult to track one) unless that new stat poses some clear advantage?I agree that TOP is more often caused by game score then the reverse, but my point remains...and was backed up to some degree by your own post! (See bolded) It WILL depend on the team. But the bad team is better at converting 3rd and 2 then 3rd and 10, isn't it? The guy making only 4 catches (on a bad team) leaves his team in a lot more 3rd and longs. Wouldn't the bad team rather have a player that consistantly sets them up in easy situations instead of occasionaly getting a big chunk of yards (only to watch his team squander that chance anyway?) It should be obvious by now that sometimes (I would argue more often then not), the guy making more catches is more valuable to his team. Obviously, this argument loses some validity in extreme cases...but I'm not attempting to address the extreme, but the NORMAL.
It might be more a case of raising other WR's values more then depressing Wayne's (although the end result is the same.) Personally, I don't see a lot of differance between WR4 and WR9 right now. IMO, you could take that whole tier and reverse it and I'd have no problem with those rankings. I think Wayne is safer then some of them, but obviously older, and with a (slightly) lower cieling then some.Where I own him, I'm not selling. If his percieved value drops much more, I'll be looking to buy.
This is a good point and one that I struggle with when doing rankings. Should the rankings be solely on startup draft value? I've asked myself this question multiple times, and the answer is: I don't think so. When I first started doing the rankings, the intention was to help owners during the season, at which point many fall into contender or rebuilder mode. I guess I figure the contenders will adjust a player like Wayne's value upward while the rebuilders adjust his value downward.
The bolded is an interesting point and would make a good poll question. I generally use a combination of startup dynasty value and trade value as the main components of my rankings. I also generally favor younger players. Just from memory, I'm guessing a majority of people I talk to would rather have rankings reflect a startup than not, but that's just an educated guess. I think I'm going to make a poll question about this if I can find some time, or you or someone else can if you wish. This is a very interesting point. But regardless of which way we rank, I also think contenders and rebuilders will adjust the players value as need be.
The bold seems interesting to me. I know that some people like to start 5-10 new dynasty leagues a year, but I still think that the majority of people in any given year are already in a dynasty league and are trying to keep up with relative trade value of players for that league. Add in the fact that even in a startup draft you should be considering trade value a bit, as you do with Wayne, and I think it's clear that most dynasty rankings should be skewed toward trade value than startup value, if they are skewed at all.
I agree with this. The majority of the guys in a startup league already have an established league or six, so they want to keep up with ongoing trade values as much as startup values. How do I say this without coming off like a doucher? I've also assumed that anyone following this thread or coming to the blog is a contender unless they're taking over for someone else's downtrodden team. If you're putting that much effort into research and running your team, chances are your team is better than the average team.
Could someone explain to me why trade value and startup value would be dramatically different? I'm struggling conceptually with why there would be a gigantic variance.ConstruxBoy said:
It has to do with where you are on the contending curve. In many established leagues, there will be three or four dominant teams, a middle group that could go either way, and then three or four doormats. In a startup draft, on the other hand, everybody is starting out on the same page. For a dominant contender, Reggie Wayne carries more value in a trade because he has a strong enough nucleus to withstand Wayne's decline phase. The trade-off, of course, is that the contender is bolstering his present starting lineup (and chances of winning a title) even if he's losing future value in the trade. A startup owner, though, will often bypass a veteran about to hit the downslope because necessity requires a more balanced approach. There's no inherent advantage for any one team in a startup as there is for a contender in an established league.
Look, guy, I didn't write the article. Nor am I the beat writer tweeting about the issue. I'm providing relevant information for a much-discussed player. What are you providing here?
hater's gon' hate, F&L.As a Brandon Marshall owner (in F&L's league no less), I could care less about the news stories. He's either going to be in my starting lineup producing big, or flaming out in a horrible, Hindenberg-esque blaze on my bench. I'm think I'm fine with that.
I don't think a whole lot has changed for Wayne. I think Garcon and Colie's progression from November on has dampened his perceived value a little, but I'm not sure it really effects his production. I think people are also looking a little too much at end of the season numbers, without remembering that Wayne essentially barely played the last 2 weeks and when he was playing, the Colts were running a very vanilla offense.I don't think its safe to say he'll be playing a similar role in week 16 and 17 again this year as I don't think the Colts will start 14-0 again. I think Wayne is a very safe bet for the 1,200-10 he did last year and has some upside from that. His age hurts his value, but I can't see any good reason why someone would rather have Sidney Rice and certainly not Michael Crabtree.Miles Austin and especially DeSean Jackson are different though. Though I'm probably higher on D-Jax than most, I've got him 4th. They both have simlar production and youth. Rice and Crabtree may have youth, but similar production has yet to come, although Rice is making up some ground if the playoffs were any indication.I've got Wayne 6th at the moment, but I can see him 5th above Austin if you aren't sold on Austin thinking he may be a one year wonder.SSOG said:
Not long ago Reggie Wayne and Pierre Thomas were traded for Jonathan Stewart and Steve Smith(NY) in my league. I don't see why people are holding the Jets game against Wayne. He had more success against Revis than any other WR who faced him last year, even more than Andre Johnson.Fighting Noles said:
So you're suggesting that older players have a lower value in a startup, because there isn't a subset of teams who are "playing for today". I can see that on the margin - but in a startup, don't you see teams take different strategies? Some go very young, others go with a mix, and a couple teams pick veterans with the hope of winning immediately? Does everyone really take the same approach? (a bit rhetorical - I doubt everyone takes the same approach)Anyway, interesting sub-topic. Thx for the thoughts F&L.
It's bizarre to see the flurry of F&L criticisms in this thread the past couple days. This is one of the best places for dynasty player discussion anywhere on earth, yet people come in here to take shots at F&L. If this stuff really bothers you so much, why visit the thread?
After reading some of this topic, I'm not sure there is a huge difference in ranking either way. Trade value is pretty close to startup value when speaking in general terms. Of course, contenders and rebuilders will have differing values, but that's more specific to their teams and I doubt any single set of rankings can reflect both. I've looked at F&L's rankings and I don't think our philosophies are all that different.I think the most important thing is understanding the philosophy of the person doing the ranking. For example, if someone knows I tend to lean towards younger players, then they can better utilize my rankings to their advantage; same with any other person who does rankings. In my opinion, that understanding is more important than anything.I will add that of all the rankings I do, dynasty is by far the toughest because of how tough it is to rank older productive players who are nearing the end compared to rookies or other young players who haven't proven anything yet.
For me it's not as much about trade value in a startup as it is the possibility that I'll have to replace a core player in the first 2-3 years. In a competitive draft you'll do well to land four or five core pieces at the RB, WR, TE positions. My hope is that my core players are still around when some of my prospect come good - and I end up with core players across my starting lineup and maybe even on the bench. Losing a core player in the first couple years makes that much harder. So I tend to avoid players with any known risks or who I think are overvalued in the first 5-6 rounds. I'm not sure how to reflect that in a ratings system though. My ratings are already much more 1/0 than anyone else I know of (if I don't like the guy for whatever reason he'll end up rated so low that there's no way I'll ever own him, so I don't bother with a 'rating') and this would just make it worse.ConstruxBoy said:
It's a weird phenomenon, similar to the Steve Slaton flack from last year. People want me to say that I value their favorite players highly even if I don't value them highly. It's
applied to fantasy football.
I agree 100%, I was trying to formulate a response but you articulated it better. To me the values are pretty equal in startup or an established league and ideally I think that rankings should encompass both.
Well, that's the gist of it. More accurately, the teams "playing for today" aren't as dominant as the teams contending in established leagues. Dominant teams can afford more risk on older players.
Teams definitely take different strategies, but drafting a team full of veterans in hopes of winning a startup league is a disastrous strategy. It's not going to be a dominant Dynasty roster.
Glad it's out there. That's a start.
Ungrateful bastages!!!!
