Which is worse: this or the constant questioning of SSOG over VJAX v. Marshall? We have some great minds here who explain their opinions in depth. Once they've explained it twice, thrice, or more, can we move on to some of the other compelling topics?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Dynasty Rankings (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
jdoggydogg
Footballguy
Y'all can feel free to contribute something new to the discussion whenever you'd like.
Of course you're looking for the exception. Are there some all time backs not on the list? Of course, but they are the exception. Just like the "normal" backs who are on the list. Out of the thousands or more backs who have played in regular season games, out of the "normal ones" there are only a handful on the list. And out of the truly elite, there aren't that many that are not on the list. That's my point. Instead of looking at the exceptions, let's look at the generalities. If you run for 200+ yards, then it is a pretty damn good signal that you're a damn good back!
Also, just off the top of my head, the most dominant that Dallas offensive line was, was in 1992-1993, years that are not included in the list. I wonder if emmit would be on the list were we to go back to when he came onto the scene. Regarding your "rankings inertia" it is more focused, while my "disinclination to change efficiency" (an attempt to be cheeky by the way) is more in regards to life in general. For instance anti-drug legislation would fit the bill. The only reason a majority of people believe it's the "right thing" is because it has been law for so long. Just like prohibition of alchohol in the earlier part of the 20th century. After a while, things build a false sense of being right just because they have been so for a period of time and it's hard to change. But yeah, we are basically talking about the same thing.
SSOG
Moderator
Like I said, I understand the point you're trying to make. I don't know that I agree with it. All of the exceptional backs on that list had a lot more indicators going for them than one 200 yard game. Was it the 200 yard game that was the dominant indicator that they were exceptional, or something else? What sort of lurking variables are at play, here?If you take out the guys with multiple 200 yard games and just look at the guys with a single 200 yard game, you have the following names: Mike Anderson, Jamaal Charles, Warrick Dunn, Charlie Garner, Eddie George, Ahman Green, Jerome Harrison, Priest Holmes, Fred Jackson, Chris Johnson, Leshon Johnson, Rudi Johnson, Thomas Jones, Nap Kaufman, Curtis Martin, Duce Staley, Jon Stewart, Fred Taylor, Derrick Ward. Personally, I only see one truly honest-to-goodness exceptional back on that list (Priest Holmes), with one more poised to join him (Chris Johnson), and another name or two who were very good (but not quite exceptional). That list is dominated by decent-but-not-spectacular backs, which to me suggests that rushing for 200 yards, while nice, isn't the be-all, end-all indicator, here. If you do it multiple times, then you're in some pretty elite company, but doing it once isn't this overwhelmingly powerful indicator.What's funny to me is that we're comparing Foster to another back with a 200 yard game on his resume. Everyone thinks that Stewart is more talented, so how does a single 200 yard game put Foster on Stewart's level when Stewart has one of those of his own?
SSOG
Moderator
I forgot to address this the first time around, but putting more weight on the current season than on future seasons is a losing strategy in the long run. If you trade 120 points next year for 100 points this year, all that means is that you're going to score 20 fewer points over the next 2 years. I understand a thought process that says that this season is more PREDICTABLE than future years and acts accordingly... but I strongly disagree with any thought process that says that this season is more VALUABLE than future years. I think that thought process is a good way to run your team into the ground. It's like NFL teams that trade future 1sts for current 2nds. I bet if you plotted a team's willingness to trade future picks for current picks at a discount vs. that team's winning percentage, you'd find a noticeable inverse correlation between how much a team overvalues this season and how many games that team wins in the long run.
DoubleG
Footballguy
Put another way, "Are you not concerned with DeSean after 1 week?" Ummm...not really. First off, it was 1 week. Secondly, it was against a very good Packer's defense. Thirdly, as has already been stated, Jackson was targeted 11 times. Given last years catch % and YPR average that normally would have yielded him 5.8 catches for 108 yards (i.e. week 1 was a flukey bad day).In general, I am not going to adjust dynasty rankings on a guy on a one-game result - not even close. Which is the same reason I am not about to run out and pick up Mercedes Lewis or Bo Scaife.
corpcow
Footballguy
Look, I'm not going to belabor the point any more. I "latched on" to the contract because that was the point I was trying to make, independent of any evaluation or specific players: that contracts should not really be more than a slight bump one way or another. A big contract does not make a player great, just as a small contract does not preclude a player from being great/high in rankings. I wasn't attacking your actual ranking of Marshall or VJ - it was a rhetorical reaction to the impression I've gotten in this thread that you guys have been generally, IMO, down on Marshall and very high on VJ. If we agree that contract is not a good, or at least reliable, benchmark, then the discussion is really moot. Moving on....
corpcow
Footballguy
I'm not suggesting that you overreact based on one week's stats, I'm suggesting that other variables have changed which, to me, give some concern that these stats may not be so fluky after all. Yes, I know Jackson had two big games with Kolb last year after a very slow week 1, and I know he could very well explode this week and my concern will look overblown. As an owner in one league, I hope that's the case. DeSean is a guy who has always been very dependent on big plays for his production, which is to be expected since he's an elite play maker in this league. His YPC may be high, but most of those are bolstered on the record-setting number of 50+ yard plays. He's not - and never been - a "focal point" of the offense like Larry or Marshall or whatever... that's simply not his game.
He's also a guy who, when you see those plays, makes it almost look like broken coverage because no one is near him. McNabb is one o the best I've ever seen at keeping a play alive in the pocket, and always looking down field. We're looking at either Kolb or Vick for the foreseeable future (2-3 years barring a major breakdown) - and Kolb doesn't seem to have that poise and pocket presence yet while Vick looks to get vertical when the play breaks down (as he always has).
So no, we shouldn't throw him in the trash heap, but you can't completely dismiss the impact that McNabb and Westbrook had either. As concerned as everyone was with Larry and the ARI QB situation, he's at least going to be heavily targeted and a focal point of that offense. DeSean is very dependent on the big play, and unlike CJ3, he is also dependent on someone getting him the ball in a position to make that play.
Lets not forget that Desean has only played two seasons. He is a 23 year old guy who is still learning the NFL game. Also, after his bad week 1 that everyone is overreacting to, he leads the team in targets.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'm not overreacting to Week 1.
I argued he was no better than a WR2 who fluked into an insane number of TDs last year and wasn't likely to repeat it. Willing to be wrong, but standing by it for now.
I argued he was no better than a WR2 who fluked into an insane number of TDs last year and wasn't likely to repeat it. Willing to be wrong, but standing by it for now.
good thinking. I can see both sides, but yes I would be worried if I owned him. McNabb is an above average QB and without without him I would be worried about this year.
squistion
Footballguy
No, it isn't, but I have a different Dynasty philosophy than you do. I play in money leagues. If I played in free leagues like you do, then any year (even 2015) would be worth the same as the current year since I would never be out a penny no matter how long I played in the league. Dynasty 101 to me is the old adage that the only year you can win is the one you currently are competing in. I put 50% of value in the current year and 30% in year two. If I am investing $50 a year in a league I don't want to wait 3-5 years for my investment to pay off, I want to see a return in the next two years. If I don't get it by then, I will go in another direction. So far it has worked for me.Again, from your standpoint and long term Dynasty goals, one year is worth just as much as another. I respect that, but some of us who value more highly this year and the subsequent year have found that not to be a losing strategy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Take away half of his long TD's. Those are still very good numbers for a 2nd year WR. I understand why poeple think he wont score that many long TD's again, i just dont get why people think his reception totals have peaked in his 2nd year. How many WR's are even capable of doing what Jackson did last year with 60 receptions? Now just imagine what he could do with 70, 80 or more?
First and foremost, the bolded portion of your quote is entirely incorrect. In this particular instance, you would presumably be trading to acquire the additional points you would gain by having Arian Foster over Jonathan Stewart this season -vs- the points you would presumably lose by having Arian Foster over Jonathan Stewart next season. You are not simply trading 120 points next year for 100 points this year, you are trading the difference in points between the 2 players. In this exact situation, I think it is entirely reasonable to believe Foster may score as much or more than Stewart over the next 2 seasons (whether I actually believe that is irrelevant and I'm actually unsure whether I do...the point is it is an entirely valid and realistic belief). This situation is a perfect exmaple of why this season IS more valuable than future years.The specific reason that this seasons production means so much more to most intelligent dynasty owners is because, as you said, you have a MUCH higher likelihood to predict what will happen during the current season. Could Arian Foster prove to be a complete fluke and flame out before week 6? That is certainly a possible outcome. Could DeAngelo Williams tear his ACL next week and give Stewart the unquestioned starting job for the rest of the year? Another very possible outcome. However, the LIKELY outcome for both players is that Foster remains the bellcow for Houston through the rest of this season (at least) and produces at RB1 levels and Stewart remains the unquestioned 2nd fiddle in the Carolina backfield and produces at Flex level production (at best). That means in this season, the one you have the best chance of predicting, we have a pretty good idea that Foster will massively outproduce Stewart.
Looking towards even next year (let alone 2 or 3 years down the road), we truly have NO idea what will happen with either of these 2 players (this is just one example and it may be extreme, but there are PLENTY of players with murky situations even looking 1 year ahead). Foster could play himself out of a job, Houston could draft or acquire a more talented RB, he could sustain an injury, or he could play so well he entrenches himself as the unquestioned and elite bellcow. Stewart's situation ranges even further, as Carolina could opt to franchise DeAngelo, essentially making Stewart worthless from a fantasy standpoint for another entire season, they could sign DeAngelo to a mult-year deal which would significantly hurt his value many years into the future, or they could release him (which brings up a whole seperate set of worries about Stewart's ability to handle the feature back role, but let's just assume he handles it and plays elite if he gets it, because I think that is the likely outcome). Based on this, you easily see how confusing and difficult to predict even 1 season ahead is.
I am sure you will counter that what seperates good dynasty owners from average/bad ones is the ability to make intelligent guesses about the future and base sound decisions off of that. I wouldn't disagree, but I also believe you are making my point for me- the value of the present is the simple fact that you don't need to make guesses (or at least not nearly to the same degree). You know what is happening and are able to predict with confidence. Any guesses about future years must be done with a certain lack of confidence by nature (and anyone saying they truly predict the future of NFL players with great confidence, except in the most extreme cases, is lying). Being able to predict confidently and feel strongly you will be correct absolutely carries a MASSIVE value advantage over being forced to make predictions that you can't be sure about and can't feel overly strong about. This is exactly what makes the current season more valuable than future seasons. Do you want to make all your decisions based solely on the here and now, with no concept of the future? Absolutely not. Are there situations where it's a no brainer to take the long-term approach (Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald this season, etc...)? Without a doubt, however these players are few and far between. In most cases, does this seasons production have more value than the potential future production? I believe that yes, it does.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
What if you had a smart owner who treated the current season as more important than future years and kept running up first- and second-place finishes by taking advantage of the fact that everyone else was playing for next year? An owner can treat the current year as more important, but he could be trading draft picks to acquire undervalued talented young players instead of trading overrated future picks for overrated current picks. At the end of the day, we're playing this game to win not to build. They're certainly not mutually exclusive. The best ones accomplish both.
corpcow
Footballguy
The overall strength of your team has to factor in as well. If you're a young, rebuilding team then a guy that gets you 120 pts this year but has a shaky future (due to age, situation, etc) is worth less than someone who might contribute in your championship window (e.g., an uber-talented rookie, a guy on IR, whatever). On the flip side, if you are a legitimate contender, then yes - the present value is worth more.The beauty of dynasty is that trades can happen. Rebuilding teams can trade guys with high present value for something that, unpredictability aside, could be worth more in the future.There's one particular owner in one of my leagues that specifically targets guys on IR. (It's a contract league, so even with the roster spot, they still eat up cap space). He's added guys a number of guys over the years including Brady, McNabb and a lot of great IDPs at a severe discount.
Is this year more important than EVERY year after this one?
I do not think that means what you think it means... - Inigo Montoya
I know thats a fun saying around here for those trying to look smart. Unfortunately it doesnt quite apply here.
squistion
Footballguy
From my standpoint, it is as important as all future years combined. As I mentioned, 50% of value for me is the current year. And it has worked for me. I play in multiple leagues and have turned a modest profit every year since 2005. The people who are always looking 3-5 years in the future in my leagues have not done as well. It has been my Dynasty strategy and I have found it to be successful.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think SSOG, or anyone, was trying to say you should always be looking/playing for 3-5 years in the future. Rather, it was simply stated that he doesn't believe this year holds any more value than future years.
Im not totally disagreeing with you, i just think it goes alot deeper than just saying this year is as important as every other year combined. When making trades, you have to figure how much a particualr trade benefits you for the current season, and how much it will hurt your future seasons. In other words, is it smart to make a trade for a player(s) that only increases your chances of winning this season by 3-5% if it is going to cost you a player(s) that will decrease each future year by 10-15 %? This is obviously a tough thing to figure out, but those who can do it the best are the guys who will consistently field a winning team.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Well, that is his opinion and I respectfully disgree.
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, when making trades the years beyond this one are part of the equation. In one league I acquired Vincent Jackson in trade 2 months ago with the liklihood (at that time) being that he will not play a down this season, so I am not just looking solely at this year. Again all years beyond this one combined count for 50% of value to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you trade Ryan Mathews for Michael Turner?
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
It would depend on the team, But in answer to your question, no, I would not trade Mathews for Turner, although I should qualify that by saying I didn't have Mathews ranked that much lower than Turner in a redraft leagues. 50% of Mathews in 2011 and beyond would probably be worth more to me than 50% that Turner would bring in 2010 (less Mathews 2010 value).
Last edited by a moderator:
No matter what a teams makeup is trading mathews for turner is an awful trade and losing dynasty move.Mathews could outperform turner this season and longterrm is easily more valuable.
corpcow
Footballguy
Sure, his receptions may go up, but you can't just extrapolate those numbers out at 18.5 YPC. Big plays are by definition relatively rare and (like TDs for RBs) tend to be much more volatile year to year. Moreover, a big play by a WR hurts his ability to repeat more than a big play by a RB. (E.g., if they jump out to a lead due to those big plays... that means that they might try to run out the clock, so a RB like CJ3 will continue to have opportunities while a WR like Desean may not). It's worth digging into the numbers a little more. Desean had 10 receptions over 40 yards, which accounted for nearly half of his yardage output (55.1 YPC) and 6 of his 9 receiving TDs. On the rest of his receptions, he averaged 11.6 YPC and scored only 3 TDs. If you include his three 30+ receptions, that means 13 of his receptions account for 654 of his yards, and the YPC on the other 50 catches falls to 10.3 YPC. In other words, 8% of his targets (or 15% of his catches) accounted for over 50% of his yardage and 66% of his TDs. That's great if he can keep up the pace of big plays (1 per 11.8 targets) - and yes, with 80 catches on the same pace, he's STUDLY. On the flip side, it means his overall numbers are much more tied to a handful of plays, which as I said before can be much more volatile. If just ONE of those 13 receptions don't happen, he just lost 5-7% of his overall value. And, as an owner, I do hope he can keep that pace up - but given that it was a record setting pace, it sure seems like there's more room to go down than up with it.
Let me ask you this. Lets say you have to choose between Jackson and Marshall for your starting WR this week. Lets also assume that you know that each player is going to catch 5 passes. Which one would you start?
SSOG
Moderator
You're talking about the short run, though. Overvaluing the present with respect to the future is a winning strategy in the short run. It will result in a better team in years 1-3. It will result in a worse team from years 4-20. I totally agree that if you're playing for money, the short term gains outweigh the long term losses, especially because you determine how long you participate in your league (i.e. if you only play 4 years in the league, then a strategy that results in more value in years 1-3 is a winning strategy over the life of your participation in the league).In the long run, though, discounting future production is not a winning strategy. This is a mathematical fact.
His 125 receptions through 2 seasons is the 22nd highest total by a WR since 1960. His 2079 yards rank 14th. He's 19th and 10th in receptions and receiving yards through age 23. Anyone saying "he's not the focal point of the offense like ___________ is" is missing the point that, at age 23, __________ wasn't the focal point of the offense, either (unless, of course, you're talking about Larry Fitzgerald or Randy Moss).
You're not understanding. You just spent 4 paragraphs summing up something I already said in two sentences. Yes, this season is more PREDICTABLE than next season. No, this season is not more VALUABLE than next season.If I had a crystal ball and I knew that one player was going to score 100 points this season and 300 points next season, while another player was going to score 200 points this season and 100 points next season, I would prefer the first guy every single time, even though the "next year is only worth half as much as this year" crowd would say they're worth exactly the same. The truth is they are NOT worth exactly the same. Having the first guy in my lineup will result in MORE WINS. Having the first guy in my lineup will give me a greater chance of winning a championship in the next two years. It's a simple mathematical fact. More points means more wins. Someone who scores more points in the next two years means more wins in the next two years. There's no arguing against that.The problem is that I don't have a crystal ball, and the further into the future I look, the shakier my projections and predictions become. As a result, I might favor someone with immediate production over someone with delayed production because of the CERTAINTY of the immediate production vs. the UNCERTAINTY of the delayed production, but I'm not preferring the "short term" guy because immediate production is somehow worth more than future production.This concept is best illustrated with draft picks, because all draft picks carry a pretty similar degree of uncertainty, regardless of when you execute them. Would you trade the #1 next year for the #5 this year? Would you trade the #10 next year for the #15 this year? Would you trade a 2013 first rounder for a 2011 second rounder? I wouldn't make any of those deals, because this year's production is NOT any more valuable than next year's production. In many cases, it's more predictable, but with draft picks it's going to be equally unpredictable in all instances. Provided I still plan on being in the league 5+ years from now, I will gladly trade current assets for more valuable future assets.
Look, it's a mathematical fact that trading future production for current production results in fewer wins. I'm not talking about specific instances like trading a 2nd rounder for Hines Ward or anything, I'm talking about abstracts. If player A scores 3,000 points over his career, but only 300 over the next 2 seasons, and Player B scores 2,000 points over his career, but 600 over the next 2 seasons, then trading Player A for Player B will result in fewer wins over the life of your dynasty league. 1st round picks this year are NOT more valuable than 1st round picks next year, except when they also come with additional CERTAINTY (for instance, you might not like the #3 draft pick... until you know that Jahvid Best is going to be available). It's not the present PRODUCTION that carries additional value, it's the increased CERTAINTY that carries additional value. In terms of raw production, though, this year is simply not more valuable than future seasons.
Absolutely. Fantasy football is more than just accumulating value. The goal isn't to finish 3rd every single season. It's better to finish 1st half the time and 9th half the time than it is to finish 3rd every time. As a result, in addition to raw player values, you want your roster to achieve a certain harmonic ebb and flow. If possible, you'd want all of your players to peak at the same time, even if it meant that they all trough at the same time, too. A roster with everyone peaking beats a roster with half of its players peaking. So, in that sense, it can make sense in certain situations to trade 120 points tomorrow for 100 points today.I'm speaking in a generic, law-of-large-numbers, all-else-being-equal sort of way, though. All else being equal, trading 120 points tomorrow for 100 points today is a losing strategy in the long run.
JRoss
Footballguy
I know I'm not adding anything to the thread, but I wanted to say that I appreciate the discussion/debate on this particular dynasty issue.
Non-ppr, i lean towards Jackson, although they are close enough on a week to week basis where other factors will come into play.
corpcow
Footballguy
Sigh. Why do I bother? And why do you guys always bring every discussion back to Marshall?
No one is debating that DeSean is a guy who can do a lot with relatively few touches, only that he's going to be more inconsistent (and his year to year totals will have more volatility) because he's dependent on a very small portion of those touches to go for big plays. Moreover, an external variable (such as a change at QB) can have a much bigger impact on his numbers simply by making those big plays ever-so-slightly less frequent. Is that really that hard to understand?For what it's worth, in games where DeSean doesn't have a big game, his YPC is usually lower than Marshall's YPC, which I know has been debated ad nauseum here.
Last edited by a moderator:
DoubleG
Footballguy
There is a second reason to value this season over all others (perhaps combined - although I honestly never thought of it in specific percentages). And the reason is huge:Information
That is the further you go out in terms of time, the more difficult it is to try to ascertain what's going to happen. A perfect example of this is the before and after affect of the NFL draft on a players value. What was ADP's value before he got drafted? While it was high, in many people's opinion, it jumped even more when it became known he was running behind the vaunted Vikings O-line. No one knew he would fall that far in the draft. No one new the Vikings would take him. How about the value of Chester Taylor just before that same draft? He was the starting RB behind one of the best offensive lines in football who has just finished up a 1200 yard rushing season at age 26 - at the time he was a mid-range RB1. Then ADP was drafted and Taylor became a change of pace guy/backup. The point being that if you look out past this season, there is 1 season worth of drafts, trades, cuts, injuries, aging, growth, etc. you have to account for. If you try to peer out two years, that's 2 drafts, etc. The variables become exponential.
"Experts" have trouble predicting performances for this season - and they get to do so with the benefit of knowing what players are on what teams and what condition they are all in. Heck, we all struggle to make good decision week to week, when we know who will be playing and who they will be playing against.
The possible things that change a players value, either positively or negatively between year N and Year N+1 are simply huge in number. Year N+2 is probably more than twice as difficult to account for. Year N+3? Near impossible.
Now, I am not saying totally disregard the future - but I wouldn't trade away a shot at a title this season just because it might yield me a player who I would be hoping can do what? Give me a shot at the title in 2 years? This goes back to the Ricky Williams discussion from last year. For every ADP or Fitz, there is a Slaton, Caddy or Javon Walker (guys who looked to be studs only to flame-out due to injury or some other cause). Again, I'm not saying only play for this year, but there's areason that saying about "birds in the hand" exsists. If you have a legit chance to get your hands on the trophy, don't sell it for a chance to get 2, 3 years from now.
This is an obvious example of the point im trying to make. Sure, anyone would make a trade that only hurts them 2-3 % this year if it helps them 20% the next year, and 30% the year after that, and so on. Where it gets tricky is what percent of your future are you willing to sacrifice to increase your percentage on winning this year? It goes alot deeper than just saying i value this season 50% and next season 30%.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
This is a good post. Part of what you're warning against is benefits to DeSean's game that McNabb's special skillset provided. That's legitimate. But you also have to consider how McNabb affected the "bad" numbers too. He isn't very good at short precise routes. If Kolb is the Kolb from W2 & W3 of 2009, he is very good at that. A 10 yard slant pattern I would want Kolb throwing not McNabb. Kolb will set the receiver up for more YAC by hitting him in stride. Those are the types of passes the OG WCO was based on, getting Rice and Taylor the ball in stride with room to run. If Kolb's timing is better than McNabb, maybe that 11.6 number is low. DeSean had 397 YAC last year at 6.3 per catch. I don't know how you'd figure this out, but that 654 yards is inflating those numbers a whole lot. I would bet the 11.6 YPC of his shorter completions has to be very little YAC, which has a lot to do with timing between him and McNabb. He is an elite player as far as elusiveness so YAC should be high even if he's running slants and quick outs all day, if the QB can deliver the ball at the right time.
squistion
Footballguy
Baloney. You got some stats from leagues that have operating for years to back that up, showing that people who play with a longer term strategy in Dynasty leagues actually do better than those of us who have a shorter term view? It is a mathematical fact in theory only. In practice I have not seen it work out. Very few here (including myself) can predict the future with any accuracy. It is hard enough to predict the coming season, but I can get a better handle on that than how some player will perform in 3-5 years. Look, all I am saying in that a shorter term strategy is one way to win consistently in Dynasty leagues and I have proven it in my own leagues. Perhaps looking at a team in years 4-20 (like you do) is the way to go and I will crash and burn in the next three. But the bottom line is that it has not been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a not a winning strategy.
Last edited by a moderator:
geoff8695
Footballguy
Good luck with that!
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
In a vacuum, yes. However one would still be able to make "now" moves the following season to make up for any resulting shortfall from your previous year's "sell out the future" move.
He didnt say playing for the future is the way to go. He said discoutning the future is not a winning strategy. I can show you all four of my leagues where i drafted more for the future than now. I still tried to field a competitive team for the current season, but i wasnt going to negatively affect every year after that to do so.
Because of uncertainty, I only value players based on the next 3 season (exceptions for real outliers). I weigh the three seasons 50% - 33% - 17%.
But once the season starts, the value of the current season can increase or decrease on my perceived ability to win a championship. Last year I sacrificed a bunch of young talent for a shot of the championship, and fortunately, it worked. It hampers my team this season, but I wouldn't trade that banner in for a better this situation this year (and going forward) by undoing those trades. This year, I may place less value as the season moves along if my chances of winning drop. This true of everybody - when you're out of contention, you start dealing for talent for the following season.
This doesn't mean that I don't make some deals that hurt me this season. For example, I could really use Chris Cooley on my roster this season, but someone offered me a 2011 first rounder. The value disparity (using my formula) was so great, that it was a no brainer to trade him. Now I am busying trying to fill that hole, but feel good that I have more value than I did before that trade.
But once the season starts, the value of the current season can increase or decrease on my perceived ability to win a championship. Last year I sacrificed a bunch of young talent for a shot of the championship, and fortunately, it worked. It hampers my team this season, but I wouldn't trade that banner in for a better this situation this year (and going forward) by undoing those trades. This year, I may place less value as the season moves along if my chances of winning drop. This true of everybody - when you're out of contention, you start dealing for talent for the following season.
This doesn't mean that I don't make some deals that hurt me this season. For example, I could really use Chris Cooley on my roster this season, but someone offered me a 2011 first rounder. The value disparity (using my formula) was so great, that it was a no brainer to trade him. Now I am busying trying to fill that hole, but feel good that I have more value than I did before that trade.
squistion
Footballguy
Well, if it is not a winning strategy, then it would seem that playing for the future as the way to go was what he was saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
geoff8695
Footballguy
With your ability to predict within 3-5% on odds of winning and within 10-15% of player production going forward. Sounds nice in theory though...With what?
EBF
Footballguy
Nor has it been factually proven that putting a greater value on the short term is a winning strategy. When it comes to the "win now" and "win later" approaches, I have seen both of them succeed and fail. Teams that use the short view run the risk of leaving themselves a bare cupboard if their acquisitions don't pan out. Owners who implement this strategy tend to be the kind who will trade next year's draft picks as soon as they have the ability to do so. For that reason they're able to immediately fill some gaps, but in the long run it can still be disastrous because owners who use this approach are quick to trade tomorrow's quarter for today's nickel.On the other hand, there are some owners who pull it off because they're active traders, they have a good sense for immediate value, and they're able to take advantage of owners who overvalue youth and potential. Every league probably has 1-2 guys who constantly fall in love with "the next big thing" and find themselves in perpetual rebuilding mode. These guys make natural trading partners for "win now" folks because they will be quick to sell veterans in exchange for picks/prospects. That doesn't mean you can't win with the long view. I have done it in some leagues and I've seen others succeed with the "slow and steady" approach. I've had some of my own teams go from worst to first in a single season because the young assets that I had the patience to sit on blossomed and became impact players. If I had sold them in a panic to compete immediately, I wouldn't have reaped nearly as large of a reward. I think patience is a huge asset and I've found that some owners really struggle with this aspect of dynasty leagues. My attitude is that winning now and winning later are not mutually exclusive philosophies. My best dynasty teams have a stacked core of young stars who can be expected to produce great numbers for the next 3-4 years if they stay healthy. That is always the goal that I set out to achieve when I join a new dynasty league. Having said that, I believe that if you consistently make good decisions about player values and roster moves, you'll eventually accumulate a lot of value regardless of whether your natural tendency tends towards the long or short view. It is possible to profit outrageously from a win now transaction. It's also possible to profit outrageously from a win later transaction.
I don't think you are understanding...The very fact that the production this year is more certain BY NATURE MAKES IT MORE VALUABLE! You can not and will not ever possess the crystal ball you are speaking about, so it is completely useless and trivial to this discussion. All you are ever able to possess are your eyes (for the eyeball test), measurements, knowledge of situation, knowledge of competition, knowledge of coaching staff, etc... All of these tools may give you what you THINK is a good guess at a player's future production, but it is a very inexact guess at best. This season, all of those same tools are able to give you a decent ballpark on a players general production range.You are acting as if this is a simple mathematical equation such as: 300 (this years points) + 100 (next years points) = 400 points. That is a completely flawed equation and not at all close to reality. Because we will FOREVER lack the crystal ball you mentioned, the actual equation would go something like this: 300 x A (with A being the certainty that this years points are correct) + 100 x B (with B being the certainty that next years points are correct). If you concede that this year is easier to predict, then you by default must concede that A is by nature larger than B. This will result in this years points generally being more valuable than next years with similiar players. In common sense terms, this seasons points are more valuable BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE GETTING THEM! Are the points themselves more valuable? No. Is the value of points tied specifically to the specific number of points themselves, especially when theoretical future points are involved? No, and this is the part you are missing. The value is derived from how many points there are AND the certainty that those points will actually be realized.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you rank players before you do a draft? Ever hit it dead on? Will you still do it in the future?With your ability to predict within 3-5% on odds of winning and within 10-15% of player production going forward. Sounds nice in theory though...With what?
In regards to the whole value now -vs- value in the future debate, let me throw a sanity check in...
As F&L said, the BEST way to go about things is to play for the now, while still keeping an eye on the future- there is no reason they need to be mutually exclusive. The best owners are the ones who are able to RELOAD and never get stuck REBUILDING. This is only done if you consistantly keep a strong roster from year to year, but make smart, educated pickups/trades that will also help you down the road. Being on top of things and nabbing the Ryan Grant's, Miles Austin's, Arian Foster's, etc... off the waiver wire or trading for the Rashard Mendenhall's, Ray Rice's, etc... when their values were low will make it much easier to absorb the loss of potential future production when trading Jonathan Stewart for Arian Foster (or any other similar example) in order to increase this years production. This is the true win/win scenario and something everyone should be striving for- the ability to keep an eye on the future while also having the ability to give up future gains for present production.
As F&L said, the BEST way to go about things is to play for the now, while still keeping an eye on the future- there is no reason they need to be mutually exclusive. The best owners are the ones who are able to RELOAD and never get stuck REBUILDING. This is only done if you consistantly keep a strong roster from year to year, but make smart, educated pickups/trades that will also help you down the road. Being on top of things and nabbing the Ryan Grant's, Miles Austin's, Arian Foster's, etc... off the waiver wire or trading for the Rashard Mendenhall's, Ray Rice's, etc... when their values were low will make it much easier to absorb the loss of potential future production when trading Jonathan Stewart for Arian Foster (or any other similar example) in order to increase this years production. This is the true win/win scenario and something everyone should be striving for- the ability to keep an eye on the future while also having the ability to give up future gains for present production.
