Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

Re PPR: I agree with everyone so far who has mentioned tweaking roster requirements. In my opinion, tweaking roster requirements in order to regulate positional scarcity is far and away the best method of addressing positional imbalances. QBs not worth enough? Fine, make a QB/RB flex. Problem solved.

Likewise, a guy who had 4/120/2 with 4 first downs had a better day than a guy who had 18/120/2 with 4 first downs.

I don't think that's true. A guy with 18 catches ran about 10 more minutes of the clock than the guy with 4. Controlling the ball, except when you're Miami playing Indy, is usually pretty significant.
First off, I think ToP is one of those junk stats that doesn't really mean anything of value (much like catches). Yes, the best teams tend to have good ToP (just like the best WRs tend to have lots of catches), but ToP doesn't count for anything. You don't get points for ToP. If you take 5 minutes to move 50 yards, it doesn't make you any more likely to score points than if you took 2 minutes to move 50 yards. In the end, it gets down to scoring points. Getting yards increases your chances of scoring points. Getting first downs increases your chances of scoring points. Snapping the ball with 2 seconds left on the play clock instead of with 12 seconds left on the play clock doesn't do the teensiest little bit to help you score points. At the end of the day, the team with the most carries generally wins, too... so would an RB who had 40 carries for 100 yards be better than an RB that had 20 carries for 100 yards? Of course not, it's ridiculous to even suggest it. ToP correlates with wins just like carries correlate with wins, but it gets the causal relationship backwards in both instances. Teams that milk the ToP don't tend to win, teams that win tend to milk the ToP. And, in this case, ToP is only valuable if you're leading. If both teams were trailing, how much value would that 18 catch WR have?Besides, would the 18 catch guy really help control the ball? What do we know about his day? We know that he was given the ball 18 times on offense, and we know that he failed to produce a new set of downs on 14 of those 18 attempts. In reality, unless he had a 100% catch rate, he really wound up burning even more offensive plays. The average team runs about 60 offensive plays a game, and this one WR has probably accounted for 40% of those plays with only 4 first downs to show for it. Assuming the quality of their supporting casts are comparable, the 18 catch WR would lead to a lot more punts than the 4 catch WR.

He's never finished lower than 11th in the last 3 seasons either. Only Moss and Fitz have accomplished that. There is value in consistency, you can't just say "give me one of the 9 WRs who are going to put up better numbers", you have to actually pick that person and, in dynasty, take the bad years as well. He's also produced with multiple QBs (a very young Cutler and Orton), multiple systems and coaches, etc.He certainly has his flaws, but there are plenty of reasons to like him as well.

Absolutely true. As I said, I've got him at WR10 in my dynasty rankings. I'm engaged in trade talks for him. I like him plenty. Kremenull said, though, that few WRs can match Marshall's production. That's not the slightest bit true. Based on the last 3 years, 15 WRs will score 90+% as much as Marshall scores. Now, we don't know which 15 WRs those will be, which is why Marshall has more value than a lot of the guys who might score on par with him... but the point is that Marshall does not have elite production to date. He has elite consistency, sure, but his production has been very run-of-the-mill, low-end-WR1 material.

* These number don't illustrate the point well since they're ludicrous, but the idea is buried down there somewhere.

The numbers were meant to be extreme. As I said, I think the negative value of a catch is very, very, very minor. You need some extreme differences in catch totals to really illustrate the point, otherwise the negative value is so small as to be imperceptible. For instance, what's the difference between a 6/120/1 game and a 7/120/1 game? Pretty much nothing. The difference between a 4/120/1 game and an 18/120/1 game, on the other hand, is much more readily apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start 1 RB / 3 WR / 1 flex or 1 RB / 4 WR / 1 flex

positional disparity solved without inflating receiving stats.

10 yards is 10 yards... a 10 yard catch is not better than a 10 yard rush.

A player that gets 1600 yards from scrimmage SHOULD be more valuable than one who gets 1200 yards from scrimmage but had 50 more receptions than the 1600 yard player.

1600 yards > 1200 yards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People out there still play non-PPR, amazing........U know, the model-T was a great automobile, and dinosaurs roamed the earth at one point as well. This is 2010 folks, non-PPR is outdated......Let's see, let's go over my draft strategy this year for my non-PPR league. 1st Rd - RB, 2nd Rd - RB, 3rd Rd, how bout a Wide Re....ahhh, forget it, let me get another RB.

The NFL is geared to be a passing league, sells tickets and scores points. It will never to return to a RB-dominated league. Non-PPR is 80ish like mullets and heavy-metal.

Just my sidebar diatribe moment.......Back to the discussion, V-Jax is waaaaaaaayyyyyy overrated!

Isn't doing a draft instead of an auction dinosaur-ish too?
In many respects, yes......But when you allow for trading draft picks, the difference in draft slot value is minimized......but more importanly, it is the PPR format that truly evens the playing field in serpentine style draft as WRs hold as much, and some view it as even more, value than RBs depending upon the number of PPR awarded, likewise to some degree with TEs (1.5 PPR leagues). A serpentine draft in non-PPR is heavily skewed in favor of the first few draft picks....

But yeah, auction is certainly a "ground-zero everyone has equal opportunity" draft format......Just not as easily integrated into the fantasy fabric/culture as PPR has and continues to be.

It only makes since to do PPR when looking at the landscape of the league. There just aren't many tote-the-rock RBs around like only a few short years ago...Shaun Alex, LT, Marshall, Priest (and subsequently LJ), Rudi, Edge, Emmitt, Barry, Terrell Davis, Dillon, Ahman Green, Eddie George, etc. etc.....Man, look at that era, it was golden for non-PPR style leagues. Now, that's all kaput. Time for an out-and-out 100% cross-over, non-PPR is dead! If you're not playing PPR, you're not playing....

This would seem to argue against doing PPR. With fewer "tote-the-rock" RB's then the value of RB's is diminished in comparison to WR's. Since that is the whole point of PPR to begin with-to reduce the value disparity between RB's and WR's-then why would it be necessary to play PPR?
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People out there still play non-PPR, amazing........U know, the model-T was a great automobile, and dinosaurs roamed the earth at one point as well. This is 2010 folks, non-PPR is outdated......Let's see, let's go over my draft strategy this year for my non-PPR league. 1st Rd - RB, 2nd Rd - RB, 3rd Rd, how bout a Wide Re....ahhh, forget it, let me get another RB.

The NFL is geared to be a passing league, sells tickets and scores points. It will never to return to a RB-dominated league. Non-PPR is 80ish like mullets and heavy-metal.

Just my sidebar diatribe moment.......Back to the discussion, V-Jax is waaaaaaaayyyyyy overrated!

Isn't doing a draft instead of an auction dinosaur-ish too?
In many respects, yes......But when you allow for trading draft picks, the difference in draft slot value is minimized......but more importanly, it is the PPR format that truly evens the playing field in serpentine style draft as WRs hold as much, and some view it as even more, value than RBs depending upon the number of PPR awarded, likewise to some degree with TEs (1.5 PPR leagues). A serpentine draft in non-PPR is heavily skewed in favor of the first few draft picks....

But yeah, auction is certainly a "ground-zero everyone has equal opportunity" draft format......Just not as easily integrated into the fantasy fabric/culture as PPR has and continues to be.

It only makes since to do PPR when looking at the landscape of the league. There just aren't many tote-the-rock RBs around like only a few short years ago...Shaun Alex, LT, Marshall, Priest (and subsequently LJ), Rudi, Edge, Emmitt, Barry, Terrell Davis, Dillon, Ahman Green, Eddie George, etc. etc.....Man, look at that era, it was golden for non-PPR style leagues. Now, that's all kaput. Time for an out-and-out 100% cross-over, non-PPR is dead! If you're not playing PPR, you're not playing....

This would seem to argue against doing PPR. With fewer "tote-the-rock" RB's then the value of RB's is diminished in comparison to WR's. Since that is the whole point of PPR to begin with-to reduce the value disparity between RB's and WR's-then why would it be necessary to play PPR?
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.
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.

Edited by gheemony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never argue politics, religion or fantasy football scoring systems.

I absolutely LOVE 2 quarterback systems, and had no idea why other people didn't. I remember starting a post about it, and getting blasted. I was very surprised, but I quickly realized that people treat "their" formats as sacred.

I currently play in a non-ppr, 2 QB league. I think it's a GREAT league. It's definetely slanted towards running backs. But in real life, a running back that gets 1000 yards should be more valuable than a receiver that gets 800 yards...right?

My 2nd league is a one QB, PPR league. I enjoy it as well, although it was a big change to get used to PPR. I think it totally flips things, and makes receivers stronger than running backs.

My 3rd league is one I'm starting this year and it incorporates return yardage! That's a big change, and I actually like it. In reality, return yardage is more important than number of receptions.

Basically, find a good league and adjust your strategy to fit the rules of the league. It's all fun, and there is something to be said for both types of formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow did this thread get derailed in a hurry. Take the ppr vs non-ppr debate that gets rehashed every 3 months to its own thread already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?
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. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to switch gears here and address the V-Jax ranking. Personally, back in '08 I was amongst those at the forefront in predicting his breakout, and I drafted him well ahead of his dynasty ADP in a couple of my startups that year. And yes, I have been rewarded and I am grateful for him delivering on that investment.But there is no way that I see him as a Top 5 dynasty WR, and this is based on production. He has yet to put up the kinds of numbers to warrant being drafted ahead of a number of guys that trail him in F&L's updated ranks, nor do I see him making a marked improvement in his production on the horizon. He is what he is - a talented (but not elite) playmaker and not a dynamo PPR-guy. Guys like DeSean and Harvin are what I consider elite playmaker types, Randy Moss and Calvin are another mold who fit the description as well. V-Jax, I just haven't seen the yardage nor TD numbers to indicate he can do it. Hey, maybe it's the utilization by his team, but whatever it is, he simply hasn't produced top-flight numbers to be ahead of guys who I see consistently out-produce him....like Roddy White, just to throw one name out there. If I hadn't gotten him at the price I did a few years back, there is no way I'd trade for him at his current asking price........I definitely view him as a SELL HIGH!I'd especially look to upgrade him to true stud producers at the WR or RB spot, this guy is not an elite fantasy player as a #4 ranking would suggest.......Frankly, I have at least 3, maybe 4 WRs who have yet to play a single down in the NFL projected to be a better investment than him.......yeah, things may change radically over the next couple of seasons, don't get caught holding the bag

This is why the "value score" was created for rankings. V-Jax and Roddy have the exact same value score, so V-Jax isn't really ahead of Roddy White. In PPR leagues, Roddy is clearly better. In standard leagues, I'd go with V-Jax's talent edge and potential for double-digit TDs annually for the next five years. When players are as close as they are in that tier, you're really just talking personal preference and differences in scoring systems.
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! Edited by kremenull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another day in the life of a Brandon Marshall owner. From PFT:

Brandon Marshall's surgery was to other hip

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 19, 2010 6:08 PM ET

It's always something with Brandon Marshall.

Just after we published a story revealing that Brandon Marshall underwent hip surgery, Jeff Darlington of the Miami Herald revealed a rather surprising and significant development.

Marshall didn't have a clean-up surgery on the hip he had surgically repaired last year, as previously reported. He had his other hip worked on. Dolphins coach Tony Sparano had called it a "routine procedure" to "clean things up."

This surgery is being called minor, but hip surgeries on different hips in consecutive years is a concern. Put it this way: there's no chance Marshall would have done this procedure before the trade. It would have hurt his earning power.

So let's review:

1. The Dolphins didn't know Marshall needed hip surgery when they signed him to a massive deal.

2. On the day the news came out, multiple Dolphins reporters and the Denver Post were given information that Marshall just had a follow up, "routine" procedure done on the same hip that he had surgery on last year.

3. That information turned out to be false. It was a whole new surgery. At minimum, the Dolphins can't be too pleased with these developments.

Even Albert Haynesworth had a longer honeymoon period than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another day in the life of a Brandon Marshall owner. From PFT:

Brandon Marshall's surgery was to other hip

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 19, 2010 6:08 PM ET

It's always something with Brandon Marshall.

Just after we published a story revealing that Brandon Marshall underwent hip surgery, Jeff Darlington of the Miami Herald revealed a rather surprising and significant development.

Marshall didn't have a clean-up surgery on the hip he had surgically repaired last year, as previously reported. He had his other hip worked on. Dolphins coach Tony Sparano had called it a "routine procedure" to "clean things up."

This surgery is being called minor, but hip surgeries on different hips in consecutive years is a concern. Put it this way: there's no chance Marshall would have done this procedure before the trade. It would have hurt his earning power.

So let's review:

1. The Dolphins didn't know Marshall needed hip surgery when they signed him to a massive deal.

2. On the day the news came out, multiple Dolphins reporters and the Denver Post were given information that Marshall just had a follow up, "routine" procedure done on the same hip that he had surgery on last year.

3. That information turned out to be false. It was a whole new surgery. At minimum, the Dolphins can't be too pleased with these developments.

Even Albert Haynesworth had a longer honeymoon period than this.

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?
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. :popcorn:
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. Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another day in the life of a Brandon Marshall owner. From PFT:

Brandon Marshall's surgery was to other hip

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 19, 2010 6:08 PM ET

It's always something with Brandon Marshall.

Just after we published a story revealing that Brandon Marshall underwent hip surgery, Jeff Darlington of the Miami Herald revealed a rather surprising and significant development.

Marshall didn't have a clean-up surgery on the hip he had surgically repaired last year, as previously reported. He had his other hip worked on. Dolphins coach Tony Sparano had called it a "routine procedure" to "clean things up."

This surgery is being called minor, but hip surgeries on different hips in consecutive years is a concern. Put it this way: there's no chance Marshall would have done this procedure before the trade. It would have hurt his earning power.

So let's review:

1. The Dolphins didn't know Marshall needed hip surgery when they signed him to a massive deal.

2. On the day the news came out, multiple Dolphins reporters and the Denver Post were given information that Marshall just had a follow up, "routine" procedure done on the same hip that he had surgery on last year.

3. That information turned out to be false. It was a whole new surgery. At minimum, the Dolphins can't be too pleased with these developments.

Even Albert Haynesworth had a longer honeymoon period than this.

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.....

Parcells could not have messed up. He's an NFL general manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dolphins did put Marshall through a physical, and the hip passed.

The Dolphins did not know Marshall would need the procedure before he signed, and he passed the team's physical despite the issue.

``It's something that came up,'' Sparano said. ``We needed to get it cleaned up, and we did. We don't play a game today. We play a game down the road somewhere.''

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 3rd league is one I'm starting this year and it incorporates return yardage! That's a big change, and I actually like it. In reality, return yardage is more important than number of receptions.

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.

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"

Roddy

Austin

Marshall

DeSean

Colston...although maybe not for long, on cusp of this tier and the next

I 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!

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.

Vincent Jackson vs. Brandon Marshall is an interesting comparison. Both have some potential character questions, but Marshall's loom substantially larger. Both have some uncertainty in the future (VJax will be an UFA after the season, while Marshall just switched teams), but Vincent has the best potential long-term situation (shagging balls from Rivers). As far as production... I know you're coming from a PPR perspective, where Marshall has 78 more catches over the last two years, but look at things as they look to us non-PPRers. Over the past two seasons, Brandon Marshall has 16 TDs while Vincent Jackson has... 16 TDs. Brandon Marshall has 2385 yards while Vincent Jackson has... 2265. Marshall has a whopping 8.6 fantasy point advantage over Jackson over the last two seasons. That's it. But you know how he accumulated that 8.6 advantage? By accumulating 127 more targets ( :boxing: ). 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not getting, or agreeing with the "catches are meaningless" philosophy.

WR A gets open deep sometimes. He catches 4 passes for 85 yards and 4 first downs on a bad team...who never scores.

WR B works the middle, and catches 9 passes and 3 firsts...also for 85 yards.

I vehemently disagree that WR A is more valuable, even if his catches resulted in 4 first to B's 3.

The WR in question is ONE PLAYER on a TEAM. I'll take the guy giving me 9 positive plays (averaging over 6 ypp) over the one giving me 4 every day and twice on Sunday. On the first team, that means the guys team-mates have to contribute the other positive plays. How many sacks did WR A help his QB avoid compared to B? How many easy 3rd and 1's did A set up compared to B? You see...I just made a halfway decent argument that first down receptions might just be a (slightly) over-rated stat, (at least at the value SSOG and some others have given it.)

And don't give me "the yards are the same" the impact is the same BS, "TOP is meaningless". TOP is often over-rated, but far from meaningless. A 12 play, 8 minute drive ending in a TD is more meaningful then a 3 play 2 minute drive ending in one. It freshens your own defense while wearing out the opponents....and is often the differance between a good team, and a great team. CASE IN POINT: PHILADELPHIA the last few years under McNabb.

A strong case can be made for the outliers, the guys who make a living on bubble screens (Bush, etc.), being over-rated in PPR, but there are 4 players who's contributions are made more consistant with reality with PPR for every one of those bubble screen p#$@%#^s.

I'm no PPR snob...I like variety and will play/have played in both types. I dislike non-PPR leagues with the 2/2/1 or 1/2/2 RB/WR/flex setup because they seem to ridiculously stress the RB's, but I love the 2/3 types.

Edited by renesauz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't know if you can use Marshall's high number of targets against him. While you can argue that a high number of targets causes great production, it's probably more accurate to argue that a great receiver causes a high number of targets. Teams feed the ball to guys like Marshall, Fitzgerald, Andre, and Ochocinco because those guys are elite playmakers.

And if you're going to talk about targets, you should also consider the "quality" of targets in addition to the quantity. In this case I think a guy like Vincent Jackson (catching passes from Philip Rivers with Antonio Gates drawing some coverage away) trumps Brandon Marshall (catching passes from Kyle Orton as the sole focus of opposing passing defenses).

Marshall's character is a legitimate question mark, but his talent is beyond reproach at this point. His track record speaks for itself. He's one of the game's elite receivers and one of a small handful of players who can realistically be expected to yield a top 10 finish every season when he's healthy and in the lineup. To me, that has a ton of value and I would be inclined to take him very high despite the risk of off-field distractions. One of the overlooked points in the Marshall discussion is that Antonio Bryant, Pacman Jones, Santonio Holmes, Matt Jones, Chris Henry (until his death), and Reggie Williams are STILL on NFL rosters despite a litany of off-field issues. You would have to be a pretty monumental f-up to be banished from the league. Just like in real life, people are always willing to suffer an employee's undesirable character traits if the employee in question happens to be really good at his job. Brandon Marshall is really good at his job.

Anyways, this is just a really tired debate. You either think Marshall is a ticking time bomb or you don't. Personally, I'd be much more worried about his potential lingering hip issues than his immaturity, but if someone crosses him off their board because he's a headcase then I'm okay with that.

Edited by EBF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me among the PPR haters of life.

Adjusting roster requirements helps -- my main league starts 2 QBs, 2 Rbs,4 WRs, and 2 TEs. See what that does to drop-offs in VBD. Some don't like this for the "doesnt resemble NFL" reason (mostly for QBs) and the "who keeps track of those crappy WRs anyway"? (Latter doesn't come up in dynasty).

What I *HATE* is how an effort to equate players across positions (PPR) perturbs the rank order within position. There is just no reason or need for it for all the reasons complainers cite above.

I am also one of the few who also dislikes flex positions. Sorry.

The remaining part of the fix is very simple but no one likes it: give different points for the same accomplishments across positions. The rank order remains intact within a position.

For example, give WRs .125/yard and 7.5/TD. Their value increases RELATIVE to other positions, but within WRs the ranking is the same. Exactly. Give TEs .15/yard and 9 pts/TD.

Or whatever you need to -- in essence it is what many of us have done with DEF/ST to make them relevant by counting both yard allowed and points allowed. In IDP, how do we determine what INTs are worth relative to Tackes or Sacks? Is this just a way to adjust position value?

Could do same with QBs: Make passing = .075/yard, TDs=6, and INTs=-1.5. Rank is same as .05/yard, TDs=4, and INT=-1.

Why is this form of differential scoring hated? Doesn't resemble NFL. Well, I have news for you: (a) our game scores already do not, and (b) PPR and pt/1st down does not either.

Is far, far superior to PPR in every respect. (Okay, maybe over-stating that for effect). But PPR is now a habit we cannot break that has unintended effects that no one really likes.

Fine with equating positions to emphasize WRs, hate awarding points that make mediocre players coveted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not getting, or agreeing with the "catches are meaningless" philosophy.WR A gets open deep sometimes. He catches 4 passes for 85 yards and 4 first downs on a bad team...who never scores.WR B works the middle, and catches 9 passes and 3 firsts...also for 85 yards. I vehemently disagree that WR A is more valuable, even if his catches resulted in 4 first to B's 3. The WR in question is ONE PLAYER on a TEAM. I'll take the guy giving me 9 positive plays (averaging over 6 ypp) over the one giving me 4 every day and twice on Sunday. On the first team, that means the guys team-mates have to contribute the other positive plays. How many sacks did WR A help his QB avoid compared to B? How many easy 3rd and 1's did A set up compared to B?

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.

You see...I just made a halfway decent argument that first down receptions might just be a (slightly) over-rated stat, (at least at the value SSOG and some others have given it.)

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.

And don't give me "the yards are the same" the impact is the same BS, "TOP is meaningless". TOP is often over-rated, but far from meaningless. A 12 play, 8 minute drive ending in a TD is more meaningful then a 3 play 2 minute drive ending in one. It freshens your own defense while wearing out the opponents....and is often the differance between a good team, and a great team. CASE IN POINT: PHILADELPHIA the last few years under McNabb.

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.

Also, I don't know if you can use Marshall's high number of targets against him. While you can argue that a high number of targets causes great production, it's probably more accurate to argue that a great receiver causes a high number of targets. Teams feed the ball to guys like Marshall, Fitzgerald, Andre, and Ochocinco because those guys are elite playmakers.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Wayne supporters: on November 1st, I caused a serious stir by suggesting that perhaps someone other than Reggie Wayne should be WR4 in Dynasty. The Wayne supporters were really up in arms. Today, though, it seems like everyone and their mother has Wayne at WR8 or lower. What gives? Are we just not hearing from the Wayne supporters anymore? Was everyone too high on Wayne in November? Is everyone too low on Wayne today? Or were they right to be high on him in November and right again to be high on him today? Evaluating processes, is there any "bad process" at work here? Anything we can learn from in the future?

Personally, I think that Wayne was overrated during the season (for most of the reasons I elaborated on at the time- he is who we thought he was, his blistering pace was an example of playing over his head, other players were performing comparably at ages several years younger), but it's feeling like he might be the tiniest bit underrated today as everyone mentally turns the page on their "age calender". Although it looks like there's a lot more competition in tier 2 than there was several months ago (Austin, Rice, Crabs, Desean). What's the general consensus on him? Where does everyone have him ranked today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can tell you is that TRADE VALUE wise Waynes' is very low now....I contacted almost every team in my league last week in regards to him & got a LOT (6 or so) of flat out "not interested". This was without an offer being made by me. I received a LOT of - TOO many mouths to feed there now, look at his age AND look at the LAST 8 or 9 games last year (& the AFC Champ - granted Revis, & the Super Bowl) and they weren't trying to "lowball" me because they just said "pass".

I think he is either a HOLD for a contending team or you need to sell him NOW if you are trying to rebuild.....

He went roughly WR12 in our PPR Auction Two Weeks ago.

Edited by Fighting Noles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Wayne supporters: on November 1st, I caused a serious stir by suggesting that perhaps someone other than Reggie Wayne should be WR4 in Dynasty.

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

Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
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.

Are we just not hearing from the Wayne supporters anymore? Was everyone too high on Wayne in November? Is everyone too low on Wayne today? Or were they right to be high on him in November and right again to be high on him today? Evaluating processes, is there any "bad process" at work here? Anything we can learn from in the future?

...

Although it looks like there's a lot more competition in tier 2 than there was several months ago (Austin, Rice, Crabs, Desean). What's the general consensus on him? Where does everyone have him ranked today?

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.

Interesting, I had the opportunity to trade for him or White this summer and I chose White.

Also interesting, he set a career high for 1st downs last year. Career year in FD leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He went roughly WR12 in our PPR Auction Two Weeks ago.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one of the Wayne supporters, and still am. Maybe his trade value is down a little, but I would still take him as the 4th WR. He and Manning are a better bet in my book than anyone in else in tier 2. I was not a supporter of putting V. Jackson at #4, and am still not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not getting, or agreeing with the "catches are meaningless" philosophy.

WR A gets open deep sometimes. He catches 4 passes for 85 yards and 4 first downs on a bad team...who never scores.

WR B works the middle, and catches 9 passes and 3 firsts...also for 85 yards.

I vehemently disagree that WR A is more valuable, even if his catches resulted in 4 first to B's 3.

The WR in question is ONE PLAYER on a TEAM. I'll take the guy giving me 9 positive plays (averaging over 6 ypp) over the one giving me 4 every day and twice on Sunday. On the first team, that means the guys team-mates have to contribute the other positive plays. How many sacks did WR A help his QB avoid compared to B? How many easy 3rd and 1's did A set up compared to B?

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.

You see...I just made a halfway decent argument that first down receptions might just be a (slightly) over-rated stat, (at least at the value SSOG and some others have given it.)

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.

And don't give me "the yards are the same" the impact is the same BS, "TOP is meaningless". TOP is often over-rated, but far from meaningless. A 12 play, 8 minute drive ending in a TD is more meaningful then a 3 play 2 minute drive ending in one. It freshens your own defense while wearing out the opponents....and is often the differance between a good team, and a great team. CASE IN POINT: PHILADELPHIA the last few years under McNabb.

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.

Also, I don't know if you can use Marshall's high number of targets against him. While you can argue that a high number of targets causes great production, it's probably more accurate to argue that a great receiver causes a high number of targets. Teams feed the ball to guys like Marshall, Fitzgerald, Andre, and Ochocinco because those guys are elite playmakers.

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?
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's all perspective. Your argument is sound, but it ignores, rather then defeats, the counter-argument. I'm not trying to argue with those that prefer traditional leagues. IN fact, I'd rather argue that no fantasy scoring system is perfect, including PPR, trad, and pt. per 1st. No matter what system you choose, some players will rise or fall unreasonably due to the system alone.

I think a bigger problem for fantasy leagues is making sure that the lineup requirements make sense for the system.

Edited by renesauz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Wayne supporters: on November 1st, I caused a serious stir by suggesting that perhaps someone other than Reggie Wayne should be WR4 in Dynasty. The Wayne supporters were really up in arms. Today, though, it seems like everyone and their mother has Wayne at WR8 or lower. What gives? Are we just not hearing from the Wayne supporters anymore? Was everyone too high on Wayne in November? Is everyone too low on Wayne today? Or were they right to be high on him in November and right again to be high on him today? Evaluating processes, is there any "bad process" at work here? Anything we can learn from in the future?Personally, I think that Wayne was overrated during the season (for most of the reasons I elaborated on at the time- he is who we thought he was, his blistering pace was an example of playing over his head, other players were performing comparably at ages several years younger), but it's feeling like he might be the tiniest bit underrated today as everyone mentally turns the page on their "age calender". Although it looks like there's a lot more competition in tier 2 than there was several months ago (Austin, Rice, Crabs, Desean). What's the general consensus on him? Where does everyone have him ranked today?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have the perfect solution to the scoring issue. Instead of PPR: PPFD (Point Per First Down). Gets rid of rewarding meaningless catches and helps power RBs that actually have a big impact in the game by getting first downs.

Only problem is that it isn't an easy stat to find. Yet. I think this is the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall NFL teams being awarded a point for completing a pass.If you want to keep up with the NFL, why not award a point for a first down reception instead of just a reception?

They don't get points for sacks or interceptions or yards or any of that stuff either, so I guess I don't get this.To me, the whole point of implementing PPR is to balance out the value of all positions.
Why do the positions have to be balanced? Also, why receptions when first-downs are far more important?When do we start awarding points for blocking?
Just saw this :shrug: Glad it's out there. That's a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne will turn 32 this year. His trade value is low right now. If you own him, you pretty much have to hold unless you want to give him away. That is the main reason I would avoid him in a startup unless he slid to that point where it is impossible to pass him up. It's just my personal philosophy that I don't like drafting players that early that have no trade value. I want to keep my options open and that closes them and at too high of a price. I respect those who disagree with this. It's not necessarily a Reggie Wayne thing; it's more of me avoiding spending an early pick on a player that, if the need arises, is practically untradable without giving him away.

Also, in watching Wayne play last year, it looked like he lost a step in the latter part of the season. I'm not sure if he was hurt, but he looked a bit slower to me. I have him ranked 15th in dynasty for all of the above reasons. I have had some negative opinions of that ranking and that's fair since it is much lower than most have him. I will add that I usually favor younger talent in my rankings and that I firmly believe I have to rank them as I see it and not worry about the groupthink thing. Of course, compelling reasons can always cause me to change my opinion on any player. But in this case, I am too nervous about how he looked at the end of last season as well as his low trade value to rank him any higher. He is getting close to the age where WRs start to fall off. I will add that had he looked the same at the end of the year as he did at the beginning, I would probably have him a few spots higher, but I can't ignore what I saw. The toughest thing to do is determine when the fall off occurs. My gut says it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be this year, but I see it coming. Time will prove whether I am wrong, but that tier of WRs is pretty deep and I prefer an option that will be around longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne will turn 32 this year. His trade value is low right now. If you own him, you pretty much have to hold unless you want to give him away. That is the main reason I would avoid him in a startup unless he slid to that point where it is impossible to pass him up. It's just my personal philosophy that I don't like drafting players that early that have no trade value. I want to keep my options open and that closes them and at too high of a price. I respect those who disagree with this. It's not necessarily a Reggie Wayne thing; it's more of me avoiding spending an early pick on a player that, if the need arises, is practically untradable without giving him away.

Also, in watching Wayne play last year, it looked like he lost a step in the latter part of the season. I'm not sure if he was hurt, but he looked a bit slower to me. I have him ranked 15th in dynasty for all of the above reasons. I have had some negative opinions of that ranking and that's fair since it is much lower than most have him. I will add that I usually favor younger talent in my rankings and that I firmly believe I have to rank them as I see it and not worry about the groupthink thing. Of course, compelling reasons can always cause me to change my opinion on any player. But in this case, I am too nervous about how he looked at the end of last season as well as his low trade value to rank him any higher. He is getting close to the age where WRs start to fall off. I will add that had he looked the same at the end of the year as he did at the beginning, I would probably have him a few spots higher, but I can't ignore what I saw. The toughest thing to do is determine when the fall off occurs. My gut says it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be this year, but I see it coming. Time will prove whether I am wrong, but that tier of WRs is pretty deep and I prefer an option that will be around longer.

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.

There's no question, though, that there's a negative "vibe" about his value this offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne will turn 32 this year. His trade value is low right now. If you own him, you pretty much have to hold unless you want to give him away. That is the main reason I would avoid him in a startup unless he slid to that point where it is impossible to pass him up. It's just my personal philosophy that I don't like drafting players that early that have no trade value. I want to keep my options open and that closes them and at too high of a price. I respect those who disagree with this. It's not necessarily a Reggie Wayne thing; it's more of me avoiding spending an early pick on a player that, if the need arises, is practically untradable without giving him away.

Also, in watching Wayne play last year, it looked like he lost a step in the latter part of the season. I'm not sure if he was hurt, but he looked a bit slower to me. I have him ranked 15th in dynasty for all of the above reasons. I have had some negative opinions of that ranking and that's fair since it is much lower than most have him. I will add that I usually favor younger talent in my rankings and that I firmly believe I have to rank them as I see it and not worry about the groupthink thing. Of course, compelling reasons can always cause me to change my opinion on any player. But in this case, I am too nervous about how he looked at the end of last season as well as his low trade value to rank him any higher. He is getting close to the age where WRs start to fall off. I will add that had he looked the same at the end of the year as he did at the beginning, I would probably have him a few spots higher, but I can't ignore what I saw. The toughest thing to do is determine when the fall off occurs. My gut says it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be this year, but I see it coming. Time will prove whether I am wrong, but that tier of WRs is pretty deep and I prefer an option that will be around longer.

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.

There's no question, though, that there's a negative "vibe" about his value this offseason.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Chris Johnson news brought to you by fullback Ahmard Hall:

Fullback Ahmard Hall, who said he talks with Johnson almost every other day, doesn't expect his backfield mate to be a training camp holdout. In fact, he's convinced Johnson will show up, and not just because he would be subject to fines of $15,000 per day once camp begins.

"He is too much of a professional," Hall said. "He doesn't want to cause any problems. He is just basically doing what he is being advised to do to get his money. I don't think it is going to be a big issue or anything like that. He is going to come in and do his job.

"And when C.J. does come in here and play, he is going to perform and he is going to prove again that he deserves the money. The 30 percent rule, it makes it hard. But it is a sticky situation. C.J. has done nothing wrong, and the people upstairs don't have any animosity toward him. Just because they're not paying him doesn't mean they don't want to give him the money, the rules just make it tough.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne will turn 32 this year. His trade value is low right now. If you own him, you pretty much have to hold unless you want to give him away. That is the main reason I would avoid him in a startup unless he slid to that point where it is impossible to pass him up. It's just my personal philosophy that I don't like drafting players that early that have no trade value. I want to keep my options open and that closes them and at too high of a price. I respect those who disagree with this. It's not necessarily a Reggie Wayne thing; it's more of me avoiding spending an early pick on a player that, if the need arises, is practically untradable without giving him away.

Also, in watching Wayne play last year, it looked like he lost a step in the latter part of the season. I'm not sure if he was hurt, but he looked a bit slower to me. I have him ranked 15th in dynasty for all of the above reasons. I have had some negative opinions of that ranking and that's fair since it is much lower than most have him. I will add that I usually favor younger talent in my rankings and that I firmly believe I have to rank them as I see it and not worry about the groupthink thing. Of course, compelling reasons can always cause me to change my opinion on any player. But in this case, I am too nervous about how he looked at the end of last season as well as his low trade value to rank him any higher. He is getting close to the age where WRs start to fall off. I will add that had he looked the same at the end of the year as he did at the beginning, I would probably have him a few spots higher, but I can't ignore what I saw. The toughest thing to do is determine when the fall off occurs. My gut says it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be this year, but I see it coming. Time will prove whether I am wrong, but that tier of WRs is pretty deep and I prefer an option that will be around longer.

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.

There's no question, though, that there's a negative "vibe" about his value this offseason.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former player and current National Football Post contributor Matt Bowen on Brandon Marshall:

Time for concern in Miami with Marshall?

Reports of hip surgery for WR raise some questions. * Matt Bowen

Miami WR Brandon Marshall is out until training camp after hip surgery, and the question we should all have about Tony Sparano’s team, and the offense under QB Chad Henne, is whether there’s concern — real concern for the team’s new investment.

I’m not going to go crazy about a player having a scope, a clean-up or a minor procedure when we talk about the upcoming 2010 season. Those things happen throughout the league, and we read multiple reports about them weekly in the offseason.

Down the road? That’s a different story after we learned that Marshall had his right hip worked on a couple of weeks back after having a previous procedure on his left hip just last offseason. The long-term effects for skill players in this league who consistently go under the knife is upsetting. Just like a car engine, the more you take out — which is essentially what a scope is — the more chances it has to break down.

A tough thing to think about after the Dolphins made the deal with Denver to bring Bryant to south Florida — along with a $50-million contract. A physical vertical threat who not only can change the way the Dolphins game plan on Sundays but also change the way opposing defenses now attack an offense with a big, young arm in Henne.

However, that is a conversation for another day. After Marshall enjoys his brief spring vacation on the stationary bike, in the training-room pool and on the sidelines during OTAs wearing a baseball hat and shorts, the Dolphins will come back to work in late July ready for the season — and I expect Marshall to be the same dynamic player who can align outside the numbers, win against press coverage and produce big numbers.

A top-five WR in this league — and hip surgery isn’t going to change my mind on that.

Questions will arise about his absence for the rest of spring practices. Does it hurt the development of the offense? Can Marshall build a relationship with Henne from the sidelines? Will he be rusty come August?

No one knows, but after discussing minicamps and OTAs — along with the multiple numbers of no-shows at these sessions throughout the league — I think we’re rushing to judgment if we go that route.

August is when teams are built in the NFL — when the players are in pads. Sure, he could be behind, and he could take an entire week to get up to speed with the way the Dolphins practice under Sparano. But the layoff isn’t going to take away his talent or his ability to separate from a defensive back and go up and get the football.

That’s what Miami paid top dollar for, and that’s why I see them as a team that has enough talent to win the AFC East.

The 2010 season shouldn’t be a concern to his club. After that? Your guess is as a good as mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne will turn 32 this year. His trade value is low right now. If you own him, you pretty much have to hold unless you want to give him away. That is the main reason I would avoid him in a startup unless he slid to that point where it is impossible to pass him up. It's just my personal philosophy that I don't like drafting players that early that have no trade value. I want to keep my options open and that closes them and at too high of a price. I respect those who disagree with this. It's not necessarily a Reggie Wayne thing; it's more of me avoiding spending an early pick on a player that, if the need arises, is practically untradable without giving him away.

Also, in watching Wayne play last year, it looked like he lost a step in the latter part of the season. I'm not sure if he was hurt, but he looked a bit slower to me. I have him ranked 15th in dynasty for all of the above reasons. I have had some negative opinions of that ranking and that's fair since it is much lower than most have him. I will add that I usually favor younger talent in my rankings and that I firmly believe I have to rank them as I see it and not worry about the groupthink thing. Of course, compelling reasons can always cause me to change my opinion on any player. But in this case, I am too nervous about how he looked at the end of last season as well as his low trade value to rank him any higher. He is getting close to the age where WRs start to fall off. I will add that had he looked the same at the end of the year as he did at the beginning, I would probably have him a few spots higher, but I can't ignore what I saw. The toughest thing to do is determine when the fall off occurs. My gut says it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be this year, but I see it coming. Time will prove whether I am wrong, but that tier of WRs is pretty deep and I prefer an option that will be around longer.

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.

There's no question, though, that there's a negative "vibe" about his value this offseason.

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.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dolphins did put Marshall through a physical, and the hip passed.

The Dolphins did not know Marshall would need the procedure before he signed, and he passed the team's physical despite the issue.

``It's something that came up,'' Sparano said. ``We needed to get it cleaned up, and we did. We don't play a game today. We play a game down the road somewhere.''

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.
You have been doing this for years. We get it. You think he is a headcase. You also missed the boat. No biggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been doing this for years. We get it. You think he is a headcase. You also missed the boat. No biggie.

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? Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been doing this for years. We get it. You think he is a headcase. You also missed the boat. No biggie.

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. Edited by mcintyre1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

In the interest of equal coverage, here's another angle from PFT:

Brandon Marshall situation raises two big questions

Posted by Mike Florio on May 20, 2010 11:57 AM ET

In a segment earlier today on ESPN Radio's The Herd with Colin Cowherd, the host and yours truly discussed the latest news regarding Dolphins receiver Brandon Marshall.

The big-name wideout won't be available until training camp after undergoing surgery on the hip other than the one on which he has had surgery.

Here are two points to keep in mind.

First, the Dolphins apparently didn't know about the hip condition when trading for Marshall and then paying him big money. Though it's unclear whether they should have known, this is the team that rejected quarterback Drew Brees due to his shoulder injury, but nevertheless sent a second-round pick to Minnesota for quarterback Daunte Culpepper despite a wrecked knee.

Second, to the extent Marshall's performance is affected, keep in mind that the Dolphins can pull the plug on the contract after only one year, if they so choose. Though they will have given up two second-round picks and $9.5 million, the Dolphins would be able to declare victory and retreat if Marshall ends up being a chronic pain in the place situated between both hips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the Wayne supporters: on November 1st, I caused a serious stir by suggesting that perhaps someone other than Reggie Wayne should be WR4 in Dynasty. The Wayne supporters were really up in arms. Today, though, it seems like everyone and their mother has Wayne at WR8 or lower. What gives? Are we just not hearing from the Wayne supporters anymore? Was everyone too high on Wayne in November? Is everyone too low on Wayne today? Or were they right to be high on him in November and right again to be high on him today? Evaluating processes, is there any "bad process" at work here? Anything we can learn from in the future?Personally, I think that Wayne was overrated during the season (for most of the reasons I elaborated on at the time- he is who we thought he was, his blistering pace was an example of playing over his head, other players were performing comparably at ages several years younger), but it's feeling like he might be the tiniest bit underrated today as everyone mentally turns the page on their "age calender". Although it looks like there's a lot more competition in tier 2 than there was several months ago (Austin, Rice, Crabs, Desean). What's the general consensus on him? Where does everyone have him ranked today?

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.

All I can tell you is that TRADE VALUE wise Waynes' is very low now....I contacted almost every team in my league last week in regards to him & got a LOT (6 or so) of flat out "not interested". This was without an offer being made by me. I received a LOT of - TOO many mouths to feed there now, look at his age AND look at the LAST 8 or 9 games last year (& the AFC Champ - granted Revis, & the Super Bowl) and they weren't trying to "lowball" me because they just said "pass".I think he is either a HOLD for a contending team or you need to sell him NOW if you are trying to rebuild.....He went roughly WR12 in our PPR Auction Two Weeks ago.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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 their is for a contender in an established league.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dolphins did put Marshall through a physical, and the hip passed.

The Dolphins did not know Marshall would need the procedure before he signed, and he passed the team's physical despite the issue.

``It's something that came up,'' Sparano said. ``We needed to get it cleaned up, and we did. We don't play a game today. We play a game down the road somewhere.''

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.
You have been doing this for years. We get it. You think he is a headcase. You also missed the boat. No biggie.
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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 their is for a contender in an established league.
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.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dolphins did put Marshall through a physical, and the hip passed.

The Dolphins did not know Marshall would need the procedure before he signed, and he passed the team's physical despite the issue.

``It's something that came up,'' Sparano said. ``We needed to get it cleaned up, and we did. We don't play a game today. We play a game down the road somewhere.''

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.
You have been doing this for years. We get it. You think he is a headcase. You also missed the boat. No biggie.
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?
:wub:

Ungrateful bastages!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wayne will turn 32 this year. His trade value is low right now. If you own him, you pretty much have to hold unless you want to give him away. That is the main reason I would avoid him in a startup unless he slid to that point where it is impossible to pass him up. It's just my personal philosophy that I don't like drafting players that early that have no trade value. I want to keep my options open and that closes them and at too high of a price. I respect those who disagree with this. It's not necessarily a Reggie Wayne thing; it's more of me avoiding spending an early pick on a player that, if the need arises, is practically untradable without giving him away.

Also, in watching Wayne play last year, it looked like he lost a step in the latter part of the season. I'm not sure if he was hurt, but he looked a bit slower to me. I have him ranked 15th in dynasty for all of the above reasons. I have had some negative opinions of that ranking and that's fair since it is much lower than most have him. I will add that I usually favor younger talent in my rankings and that I firmly believe I have to rank them as I see it and not worry about the groupthink thing. Of course, compelling reasons can always cause me to change my opinion on any player. But in this case, I am too nervous about how he looked at the end of last season as well as his low trade value to rank him any higher. He is getting close to the age where WRs start to fall off. I will add that had he looked the same at the end of the year as he did at the beginning, I would probably have him a few spots higher, but I can't ignore what I saw. The toughest thing to do is determine when the fall off occurs. My gut says it will be sooner rather than later. It may not be this year, but I see it coming. Time will prove whether I am wrong, but that tier of WRs is pretty deep and I prefer an option that will be around longer.

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.

There's no question, though, that there's a negative "vibe" about his value this offseason.

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.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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 :lmao: applied to fantasy football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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 their is for a contender in an established league.

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.

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.

:goodposting: 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.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.