Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

I don't know how many he missed and am not going to bother looking it up. I know he has issues with concussions and I know his body-type does not typically last in the NFL at the RB spot. I suggest you go back and find the article that FBG's did about Best and Spiller over the summer. RBs with their BMI's don't become every-down backs in the NFL. Aside from CJ, it doesn't happen.

this is exactly my point. people just assume things without fact checking. the answer is 0 or 1 ( i dont know if he actually missed 1 game soph year with somthing). he actually had 1 concussion, but you can lable it as concussion "problems" if it makes you feel better. also, telling us he will get hurt because others have isnt exactly sound logic or proof of really anything at all.
You might want to check the facts yourself...
i did. i said he missed a game his sophmore year. do you have something to add besides nothing?
Just that he missed 3 games his freshman season due to a hip injury, and that was his 2nd concussion in 2 weeks. Nice "fact checking".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.
I feel like this specific thread called CJ, especially F&L as the conductor of the hype train... We took him early. We built him up. He was our call. We looked at an individual player and said he might be a good call as an exception to a prior rule.It appears as though the same call has been made on Best, and it could also be proven correct. Some of us have had Best pegged as this type of explosive playmaker since his first years at Cal (EBF and myself at the least) and this is the reason we come to this thread.The people here aren't in the business of finding widespread trends and blindly applying them. We find trends and then see why they did or didn't work, and if they will or won't work with each player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

They are not mutually exclusive approaches. In fact, the best approach is probably one that incorporates trends, but also recognizes that exceptional individuals can violate them.
More than that, exceptional individuals *MUST* violate them. Just look at the word "exceptional". Players who are EXCEPTIONal absolutely *must* be the EXCEPTION to the rule.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

No, not everyone missed out on CJ. Lots of people were high on him before he was drafted, and even more became high on him the second he entered camps.I also think it's silly that you play the "do you think you know better than scouts and GMs" card just one post after playing the "BMI predicts busts 90% of the time!" card. Do you think scouts and GMs are unaware of this BMI thing you speak of? If you use BMI over a scout or GM's judgment, isn't that just a perfect example of you thinking you know better than scouts or GMs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

They are not mutually exclusive approaches. In fact, the best approach is probably one that incorporates trends, but also recognizes that exceptional individuals can violate them.
Trends should come into play, but i think can do more harm than good in some cases.
If a trend tells you that something is going to happen 90% of the time, in most cases (90%) it is going to do more good than harm. How can having access to this information be bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit narrow minded to say "this predicts success 90% of the time, and that's good enough for me, so I'm not going to make any effort to improve upon that metric at all". Instead of accepting the fact that BMI is going to be wrong on uberstuds like CJ, why not try to figure out why BMI was wrong about CJ and use that knowledge to avoid missing out on the next big uberstud, too?

32 NFL teams have x number of scouts that watch x number of hours of x amount of film on x numbers of players. All 32 teams, with all of their resources, failed to see that CJ was an uberstud. Otherwise, he would have gone number one, and teams would have been trading up to get him.Not only were all of them wrong, but I didn't see ONE single mock draft with CJ going first. All of us got it wrong too. Not only is CJ a one a generation freak, his situation is too. If you want try to catch that lightening in a bottle, go ahead and draft Best #1. Go ahead and value him as the next uberstud. But acknowledging the fact that history suggest that Best is a future RBBC member, is not narrow-minded.
Knowing what they know now, where do you think Best would go in the 2010 NFL draft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit narrow minded to say "this predicts success 90% of the time, and that's good enough for me, so I'm not going to make any effort to improve upon that metric at all". Instead of accepting the fact that BMI is going to be wrong on uberstuds like CJ, why not try to figure out why BMI was wrong about CJ and use that knowledge to avoid missing out on the next big uberstud, too?

32 NFL teams have x number of scouts that watch x number of hours of x amount of film on x numbers of players. All 32 teams, with all of their resources, failed to see that CJ was an uberstud. Otherwise, he would have gone number one, and teams would have been trading up to get him.Not only were all of them wrong, but I didn't see ONE single mock draft with CJ going first. All of us got it wrong too. Not only is CJ a one a generation freak, his situation is too. If you want try to catch that lightening in a bottle, go ahead and draft Best #1. Go ahead and value him as the next uberstud. But acknowledging the fact that history suggest that Best is a future RBBC member, is not narrow-minded.
It's not like Best is some bum off the street. He was a first round pick. You don't get selected that high unless at least one team thinks you're an impact player. I don't think he's ideally built for 350+ touches in a season, but it's not out of the question. We don't know what kind of workload his body can handle, but we do know that he looks like an impact player who will excel whenever he's given opportunities. That's something to be excited about in dynasty leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

They are not mutually exclusive approaches. In fact, the best approach is probably one that incorporates trends, but also recognizes that exceptional individuals can violate them.
Trends should come into play, but i think can do more harm than good in some cases.
If a trend tells you that something is going to happen 90% of the time, in most cases (90%) it is going to do more good than harm. How can having access to this information be bad?
Because trends dont tell you what is going to happen 90% of the time, and people who think that are going to suffer from that information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

They are not mutually exclusive approaches. In fact, the best approach is probably one that incorporates trends, but also recognizes that exceptional individuals can violate them.
More than that, exceptional individuals *MUST* violate them. Just look at the word "exceptional". Players who are EXCEPTIONal absolutely *must* be the EXCEPTION to the rule.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

No, not everyone missed out on CJ. Lots of people were high on him before he was drafted, and even more became high on him the second he entered camps.I also think it's silly that you play the "do you think you know better than scouts and GMs" card just one post after playing the "BMI predicts busts 90% of the time!" card. Do you think scouts and GMs are unaware of this BMI thing you speak of? If you use BMI over a scout or GM's judgment, isn't that just a perfect example of you thinking you know better than scouts or GMs?
The BMI study related to FF. As I said, RB's of his size are usually set to be RBBC roles. Teams can value that enough to spend 1st rounders on them. I don't think Detroit was planning on making Best their #1 back for the next 10 years. The Titans, even, were looking for CJ to come in and offer some of the things that Lendale could not. Again, they thought they were getting a COP, RBBC guy. Just like the Cowboys did when they took Felix over Mendenhal. So again, whatever "card" you feel I am playing now, is supported and documented. CJ is a freak and NOBODY predicted how great he would be as a football player and a FF guy. If you want to ignore a trend that proven correct 90% of the time, because you have a 1% chance at getting CJ, be my guest. I just hope you don't apply that same logic to anything with real life implications. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

They are not mutually exclusive approaches. In fact, the best approach is probably one that incorporates trends, but also recognizes that exceptional individuals can violate them.
Trends should come into play, but i think can do more harm than good in some cases.
If a trend tells you that something is going to happen 90% of the time, in most cases (90%) it is going to do more good than harm. How can having access to this information be bad?
Because trends dont tell you what is going to happen 90% of the time, and people who think that are going to suffer from that information.
I guess, if access to information is going to hinder you, I could see how it could be a negative. And if a trend has proven true 90% of the time over a good sample size, 90% is a pretty damn good guess moving forward. Simple math, really. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many he missed and am not going to bother looking it up. I know he has issues with concussions and I know his body-type does not typically last in the NFL at the RB spot. I suggest you go back and find the article that FBG's did about Best and Spiller over the summer. RBs with their BMI's don't become every-down backs in the NFL. Aside from CJ, it doesn't happen.

this is exactly my point. people just assume things without fact checking. the answer is 0 or 1 ( i dont know if he actually missed 1 game soph year with somthing). he actually had 1 concussion, but you can lable it as concussion "problems" if it makes you feel better. also, telling us he will get hurt because others have isnt exactly sound logic or proof of really anything at all.
You might want to check the facts yourself...
i did. i said he missed a game his sophmore year. do you have something to add besides nothing?
Just that he missed 3 games his freshman season due to a hip injury, and that was his 2nd concussion in 2 weeks. Nice "fact checking".
yup good call. i missed the freshman year hip injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, if access to information is going to hinder you, I could see how it could be a negative. And if a trend has proven true 90% of the time over a good time period, 90% is a pretty damn good bit. Simple math, really.

What trend has happened 90% of the time, could i see the work you did on this to come to this conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, if access to information is going to hinder you, I could see how it could be a negative. And if a trend has proven true 90% of the time over a good time period, 90% is a pretty damn good bit. Simple math, really.

What trend has happened 90% of the time, could i see the work you did on this to come to this conclusion?
I may have a copy of the article on my home computer and will get it to you if I do. If you purchased the content this year, look in the archives or ask one of the staff where you can find the Best/Spiller BMI article. It was not my work. It was FBG's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG - loved your waiver wire posting last week. When will it be out this weekend and future weekends? Sunday or Monday night?

It'll always be out by Monday Night at the absolute latest. If I'm not too tired after SNF, I'll try to knock out a position or two Sunday Night. Otherwise, I'll knock everything out on Monday, schedule permitting. Absolute worst case scenario would be finishing them while watching the game Monday night. No matter what, though, all positional rankings will be updated by the end of MNF, guaranteed. That gives me all day Tuesday to listen to everyone's responses and suggestions and incorporate them throughout the day to produce a semi-final weekly ranking list for Wednesday Waivers.

Speaking of, QB rankings have been updated for the week, and the change log is available here: http://bit.ly/aB6wZ4.

That is not true at all. If Player A scores 20 points a year for 5 years, he is worth much more than a player that scores 10 points a year for 10 years. The player scoring 10 points is much easier to find, replace, and may not even be worth a start some years.

Assuming you meant the same points per year, I still disagree with you. As an owner, you should know when you are in the hunt and when you are not. If I am competing this year, Player A's 20 points over the next 5, is absolutely worth more than players B's 20 points for 5 years, starting in two years. You are more accurately able to predict and control other variables surrounding your team.

If you don't value production this year, more than 3 years from now, I don't know how you will ever win. I have never seen it work out that way. In just about every league I have been in, a contending team needs a bump over the top. This usually happens by hampering future flexability some what. Using your draft pick example, there is a reason it will cost you a 2nd rounder to swap 1sts, a year apart.

It sounds like you haven't been following the discussion very well. I've already posted that when I say "points" I'm really just using it as a short-hand metric for "value". You could replace the word "points" with "VBD", or replace the entire concept with PPG, or Points Scored in Games Where Listed As A Likely Fantasy Starter, or some graduated value system, or whatever measure of value you want. The reason I used "points" is because all of those metrics are flawed in one way or another, so rather than going off on a huge tangent about how to measure a player's true value to his owner over multiple years, I decided to use a quick and dirty proxy that everyone understands.

Second off, again, I've already addressed the issue about when the points come having value at least three times now. Yes, roster synchronicity is incredibly important, and it's better to alternate 1st and last place finishes than it is to consistently finish 4th. With that said, *ASSUMING ALL ELSE IS EQUAL*, trading a player who scores more (points/VBD/PPG/weighted points above a rolling weekly baseline/quality starts/whatever measure of value you decide to use) over a long timeline for a player who scores fewer (points/VBD/PPG/WPAaRWB/QS/whatever) over a long timeline always results in scoring fewer (points/VBD/PPG/WPAaRWB/QS/whatever) over a long timeline.

Future production is no less valuable than present production. It is less predictable, and it may or may not fit better within your team's natural production cycles, but it is not less valuable. Points are points are points are points*, regardless of when they come.

*And by points, I mean points/VBD/PPG/weighted points above a rolling weekly baseline/quality starts/whatever measure of value you decide to use

Narrow minded? It is much more narrow minded to say "CJ did it, so I will ignore the fact taht 90% of them don't." CJ is a freak and doesn't come along very often. If you want to use that math, or lack of, be my guest. Good luck.

I think it's a bit narrow minded to say "this predicts success 90% of the time, and that's good enough for me, so I'm not going to make any effort to improve upon that metric at all". Instead of accepting the fact that BMI is going to be wrong on uberstuds like CJ, why not try to figure out why BMI was wrong about CJ and use that knowledge to avoid missing out on the next big uberstud, too?

Can we put the Foster vs Stewart comparisons to bed right now? I don't care how good Stewart is going to be in the future, he's falling off the map right now in 2010. The immediate gains that Foster gives are far too much to even consider.

I mean, MAYBE if you know your 2010 season is completely over, then maybe you pull the trigger...

And I can see a scenario where you have Stewart, and you decide to hold, rather than trade him for Foster.

But I can't imagine how any owner that had Foster would give him up for Stewart straight up. Stewart's value is plummeting right now. It'll start to climb again once we hit mid-season, he gets healthy and more teams start playing for 2011. But for now, I'd stay far, far away.

That's ridiculous. What happened in the past week that would possibly have changed a single thing in the Foster/Stewart debate? Foster rushed 19 times for 69 yards. Stewart rushed 8 times for 43 yards. Foster challenged for Stewart's NFL record for most rushing yards in a back's first 3 starts, and Foster ultimately fell short. Absolutely nothing has changed for either player.

At the end of the day, I think the idea that points scored today are more valuable than points scored tomorrow is crazy, so I wouldn't trade Stewart for Foster. You disagree, so you wouldn't trade Foster for Stewart. In other words, everything is exactly the same as it was a week ago. Nothing is being put to bed.

Please allow me to disagree with you by agreeing with you.

If Player A scores 501 units of measure over the course of two years

and Player B scores 500 units of measure over the course of one year

Itis far better to have player B rostered. In year two player C replaced player B on your roster and only scored 5pts. You have to add his totals to player B's one year total for the true value of that roster spot. A roster is not static and and roster spots are our real currency in trade.

Roster management is huge in determining the people that win or lose in dynasty. Teams with dead weight sink to the botton. Teams that maximise value with every slot are more likely to be long term winners. Dont be afraid to cut marginal players that could produce more points for you over the next 3 years just because the have value. Cut em loose and don't look back. Flexible owners can reload a roster in free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please share some info on Tony Moeaki? 7th in the league in TE targets (14) despite being on an anemic KC passing team. 57% catches and 1 TD. I know nothing about the kid, except that I've heard his name floated on the Audible and on these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BMI study related to FF. As I said, RB's of his size are usually set to be RBBC roles. Teams can value that enough to spend 1st rounders on them. I don't think Detroit was planning on making Best their #1 back for the next 10 years. The Titans, even, were looking for CJ to come in and offer some of the things that Lendale could not. Again, they thought they were getting a COP, RBBC guy. Just like the Cowboys did when they took Felix over Mendenhal. So again, whatever "card" you feel I am playing now, is supported and documented. CJ is a freak and NOBODY predicted how great he would be as a football player and a FF guy. If you want to ignore a trend that proven correct 90% of the time, because you have a 1% chance at getting CJ, be my guest. I just hope you don't apply that same logic to anything with real life implications.

Again, I never advocated ignoring any trends. Quite the contrary- I find that few fantasy owners go to such great lengths to couch every bit of production within its proper historical context as I do. I'm simply saying why on earth should I just be content with the "trend" as it is? Why shouldn't I be looking for a way to improve on the trend? If I've got something that's been right 70% of the time, and by applying a minor tweak I can make it right 80% of the time, why wouldn't I go through with that tweak? And why wouldn't I be looking for other tweaks to make to further improve accuracy?Trends are great, but the idea isn't to spot a trend and then rely on it like a crutch. The idea is to be constantly questioning, constantly improving. Knowing when to defer to trends is powerful. Knowing when not to is even more powerful.Edit: It's also one thing to say "60% of RBs who have had a 200 yard game have been fantasy uberstuds" and another thing to say "There's a 60% chance that Arian Foster is an uberstud because he had a 200 yard game". Trends can be useful indicators, but that doesn't mean they should be used as predictive tools without a rather large grain of salt. And even if that trend did have predictive power, odds are good that you could improve the predictive power by controlling for the quality of the opponent and the nature and magnitude of the 200 yard game.

Please allow me to disagree with you by agreeing with you.If Player A scores 501 units of measure over the course of two years and Player B scores 500 units of measure over the course of one year Itis far better to have player B rostered. In year two player C replaced player B on your roster and only scored 5pts. You have to add his totals to player B's one year total for the true value of that roster spot. A roster is not static and and roster spots are our real currency in trade. Roster management is huge in determining the people that win or lose in dynasty. Teams with dead weight sink to the botton. Teams that maximise value with every slot are more likely to be long term winners. Dont be afraid to cut marginal players that could produce more points for you over the next 3 years just because the have value. Cut em loose and don't look back. Flexible owners can reload a roster in free agency.

It depends on what "units of measure" is. If "units of measure" is "points scored above what you would expect from a guy on the street", then it's impossible to roster Player C off the street in year 2 to make up that difference. I mean, the ideal measurement of player value takes into account a dizzying quantity of information, from league and roster sizes to starting requirements to trade history to waiver system to scoring system to the manner in which a champion is selected. Best Ball, Survivor, Head-to-Head, Double-Headers, and All-Play all have a huge impact on player values. My league allows "conditional starters", which affects the value of players that appear on the injury report with respect to those that don't. Like wise, value doesn't increase linearly with respect to scoring, even if you add in a baseline (such as with VBD), owing to the frequency of a player's starts (every point scored by QB1 is more valuable than every point scored by QB6 simply because you'll likely start QB1 16 times a season but you might only start QB6 13 times a season). We're working on a VBD-like metric that measures a player's value based on his scoring against his peers adjusted for the probability that you had him in your starting lineup in any given week. We think it addresses several of the problems with current value measurements, but hold no illusions that even that would be a flawless measure of player value.If, however, a flawless measure of player value did exist, and provided neither player's production exhibited more synergy or synchronicity with respect to the rest of my roster, then I would gladly trade someone who would produce 500 value points in exchange for someone who would produce 501 value points.With that said, I agree wholeheartedly with your point that roster spots have inherent value and proper roster management is crucial to long-term dynasty success. I think any measure of value that doesn't account for the value of the roster spots themselves is flawed, which is why I'm often such a fan of 2-for-1 trades (because they're actually 2-for-1+roster spot trades). Edited by SSOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please share some info on Tony Moeaki? 7th in the league in TE targets (14) despite being on an anemic KC passing team. 57% catches and 1 TD. I know nothing about the kid, except that I've heard his name floated on the Audible and on these boards.

5 star recruit out of HS. Solid combination of receiving/blocking skills. Doesn't have any incredible athletic qualities, but is fluid with good coordination. Durability has been a major concern. Had trouble staying healthy at Iowa and has already been dinged a couple times in the NFL. He's easily the best TE on KC's roster. He might even be the best pass catcher on their roster. I see him as a low end TE1/high end TE2 for long term dynasty purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely it's narrow-minded to have your mind made up about a player due only to other players that came before him. It's the definition of narrow-minded.

I'm not using math. I'm open minded about Best's future. You know why? Because he's not Jerious Norwood or Leon Washington or Steve Slaton. He's a new player with a different talent level, a different skill-set, a different body, and a different situation. The early returns are awfully promising.

I don't have my mind made up. Fantasy football is a numbers game. Buying low, selling high, understanding risks. I know (because it has been documented) that players his size do not make it as a workhorse RB in the NFL very often. After one amazing game (and one horrible one) I would be looking to sell high. The odds of Best being the next CJ are much lower than Best being the next Steve Slaton. Using those odds, I find an owner that doesn't take these things into account. I trade him to them.

I suppose FBG specializes in narrow-minded content. Don't know why you are here.

:goodposting:

I'm the fly-by-night type I guess, but thanks for the primer on your fantasy football approach.

Look, there are no statistical crib notes or BMI indices that are you going to take you to the top in Dynasty leagues. An ability to separate the "freaks" and "outliers" from the normals is where they separate the men from the boys among Dynasty league owners. If you've missed out on a chance to land a Chris Johnson or Jahvid Best due to your own lack of imagination or vision, then you're missing out on a tremendous advantage over the rest of the guys in your league for the next five years. You've effectively defeated the point of a Dynasty league.

If you take the science-only approach, the guy steeped in science with an artistic bent is going to beat you year-in and year-out. Your BMI index doesn't hold a candle to anticipation and instincts honed by knowledge.

Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.

Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

Wrong. You missed out on him, so you're rationalizing that everybody else must have as well. I'll save you Exhibits C through Z, and just send you to exhibits A and B on this one. Exhibit B even shows the entire Chris Johnson hype train thread with a tiresome and ultimately fruitless argument about BMI that you would surely appreciate.

I realize you're new to the thread, and it's impossible to get caught up on every long-winded discussion that has come before you. Still, you might want to turn down the know-it-all condescension factor and step outside your narrow little mindset in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BMI thing confuses me. Best is listed at 5'10, 195, putting him at about 28-ish. That's really not that below average. A lot of really strong RBs have been between 28 and 29.

I think when you deal with the really slight players, that's one thing. Best seems to have bulked up since his early days at Cal, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.

Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

Wrong. You missed out on him, so you're rationalizing that everybody else must have as well. I'll save you Exhibits C through Z, and just send you to exhibits A and B on this one. Exhibit B even shows the entire Chris Johnson hype train thread with a tiresome and ultimately fruitless argument about BMI that you would surely appreciate.

I realize you're new to the thread, and it's impossible to get caught up on every long-winded discussion that has come before you. Still, you might want to turn down the know-it-all condescension factor and step outside your narrow little mindset in here.

:lmao::shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely it's narrow-minded to have your mind made up about a player due only to other players that came before him. It's the definition of narrow-minded.

I'm not using math. I'm open minded about Best's future. You know why? Because he's not Jerious Norwood or Leon Washington or Steve Slaton. He's a new player with a different talent level, a different skill-set, a different body, and a different situation. The early returns are awfully promising.

I don't have my mind made up. Fantasy football is a numbers game. Buying low, selling high, understanding risks. I know (because it has been documented) that players his size do not make it as a workhorse RB in the NFL very often. After one amazing game (and one horrible one) I would be looking to sell high. The odds of Best being the next CJ are much lower than Best being the next Steve Slaton. Using those odds, I find an owner that doesn't take these things into account. I trade him to them.

I suppose FBG specializes in narrow-minded content. Don't know why you are here.

:shrug:

I'm the fly-by-night type I guess, but thanks for the primer on your fantasy football approach.

Look, there are no statistical crib notes or BMI indices that are you going to take you to the top in Dynasty leagues. An ability to separate the "freaks" and "outliers" from the normals is where they separate the men from the boys among Dynasty league owners. If you've missed out on a chance to land a Chris Johnson or Jahvid Best due to your own lack of imagination or vision, then you're missing out on a tremendous advantage over the rest of the guys in your league for the next five years. You've effectively defeated the point of a Dynasty league.

If you take the science-only approach, the guy steeped in science with an artistic bent is going to beat you year-in and year-out. Your BMI index doesn't hold a candle to anticipation and instincts honed by knowledge.

Anyone that drafted Chris Johnson outside of the number 1 pick got lucky. Period. Because if anyone knew he was going to be the top FF player for years, they would have given up anything to get the number 1 pick and selected CJ.

I never said I wouldn't draft Best. He does have value. I said I would trade him now, because there is a very real chance he is in a RBBC in the next year or two.

My lack of imagination or vision? Again, show me where somebody imagination or vision got them CJ2K. It didn't, luck did.

When did I say science only and what the hell does science have to do with anything? I am sorry if I offended you as a Best owner. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that history shows you will be owning a RBBC guy that Detroit has to keep on a pitch count. Get mad at history or FBGs for doing the awesome research.

And how does knowing or understanding the "science" surrounding smaller backs in the NFL hinder me any? If you want to use your "imagination" or "visions" as an indicator instead of science, be my guest. But I assure you that you do not have advantage because of that.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.

Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

Wrong. You missed out on him, so you're rationalizing that everybody else must have as well. I'll save you Exhibits C through Z, and just send you to exhibits A and B on this one. Exhibit B even shows the entire Chris Johnson hype train thread with a tiresome and ultimately fruitless argument about BMI that you would surely appreciate.

I realize you're new to the thread, and it's impossible to get caught up on every long-winded discussion that has come before you. Still, you might want to turn down the know-it-all condescension factor and step outside your narrow little mindset in here.

Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you. I am being attached for simply pointing out that those with Best's size/skill-set don't make it in the NFL as workhorses. For every CJ there are plenty more Slatons, Bushes, Charles, and so on.

I don't want fluff articles or even valid articles saying that CJ could be "good". Show me examples of CJ being drafted #1. Because if anyone knew CJ was going to be this good, he would have gone number one overall in the NFL draft, and every dynasty FF draft too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you. I am being attached for simply pointing out that those with Best's size/skill-set don't make it in the NFL as workhorses. For every CJ there are plenty more Slatons, Bushes, Charles, and so on.

I don't want fluff articles or even valid articles saying that CJ could be "good". Show me examples of CJ being drafted #1. Because if anyone knew CJ was going to be this good, he would have gone number one overall in the NFL draft, and every dynasty FF draft too.

Why would someone have to have known that CJ was going to be THIS good in order for their opinion on him to be valid? I mean, imagine someone predicted CJ would be rushing for 1800 yards. Would their opinion be invalid because they didn't predict 2,000? How about 1600? How good would someone have to think CJ was going to be in order for you to care about their opinion?

Look, at the end of the day, the name of the game isn't being exactly right about every player, it's being more right than your peers. Let's say that I've got Mike Vick rated as the 16th best dynasty QB (I do, actually). Let's say that everyone else has him ranked in the 20-30 range. Now, let's say that Michael Vick goes out and puts up 5 straight top-5 seasons. Was I right about him? No, but it doesn't matter, because I was MORE RIGHT about him than everyone else. Because I was the highest on him, I was the guy that owned him, which meant I benefited from those top-5 finishes even if I didn't predict he'd be THAT successful.

Let's say that I think Aaron Hernandez will be a top 5 dynasty TE and I draft him in the 6th round of a dynasty startup, and he then goes on to post a HoF-caliber career. According to you, I was "lucky" that he fell to the 6th. According to me, I reached on him and grabbed him way higher than anyone else, so even if I didn't predict the exact magnitude of his breakout, I get full credit for predicting his breakout.

If you show me a fantasy league where you only get credit for a player's scoring up to the level that you predicted and not a bit above, then your point that nobody anticipated that CJ would be this good might be the tiniest bit relevant. As it stands, though... it's not.

Hell, look at Adrian Peterson. Your beloved BMI data might have predicted he'd be good, but it never predicted he'd be THIS good, so obviously BMI got lucky on Adrian Peterson, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.

Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

Wrong. You missed out on him, so you're rationalizing that everybody else must have as well. I'll save you Exhibits C through Z, and just send you to exhibits A and B on this one. Exhibit B even shows the entire Chris Johnson hype train thread with a tiresome and ultimately fruitless argument about BMI that you would surely appreciate.

I realize you're new to the thread, and it's impossible to get caught up on every long-winded discussion that has come before you. Still, you might want to turn down the know-it-all condescension factor and step outside your narrow little mindset in here.

:lmao::goodposting:
:lmao: I traded for CJ the week after the NE game in my biggest money league. Have up SJax and Maclin. I wouldn't exactly say I "missed out on him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, on a much lighter note, my RB rankings are now updated. Not a lot of movement, but that's because there wasn't much that happened this weekend that really surprised me. Change log is available here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you. I am being attached for simply pointing out that those with Best's size/skill-set don't make it in the NFL as workhorses. For every CJ there are plenty more Slatons, Bushes, Charles, and so on.

I don't want fluff articles or even valid articles saying that CJ could be "good". Show me examples of CJ being drafted #1. Because if anyone knew CJ was going to be this good, he would have gone number one overall in the NFL draft, and every dynasty FF draft too.

Why would someone have to have known that CJ was going to be THIS good in order for their opinion on him to be valid? I mean, imagine someone predicted CJ would be rushing for 1800 yards. Would their opinion be invalid because they didn't predict 2,000? How about 1600? How good would someone have to think CJ was going to be in order for you to care about their opinion?

Look, at the end of the day, the name of the game isn't being exactly right about every player, it's being more right than your peers. Let's say that I've got Mike Vick rated as the 16th best dynasty QB (I do, actually). Let's say that everyone else has him ranked in the 20-30 range. Now, let's say that Michael Vick goes out and puts up 5 straight top-5 seasons. Was I right about him? No, but it doesn't matter, because I was MORE RIGHT about him than everyone else. Because I was the highest on him, I was the guy that owned him, which meant I benefited from those top-5 finishes even if I didn't predict he'd be THAT successful.

Let's say that I think Aaron Hernandez will be a top 5 dynasty TE and I draft him in the 6th round of a dynasty startup, and he then goes on to post a HoF-caliber career. According to you, I was "lucky" that he fell to the 6th. According to me, I reached on him and grabbed him way higher than anyone else, so even if I didn't predict the exact magnitude of his breakout, I get full credit for predicting his breakout.

If you show me a fantasy league where you only get credit for a player's scoring up to the level that you predicted and not a bit above, then your point that nobody anticipated that CJ would be this good might be the tiniest bit relevant. As it stands, though... it's not.

Hell, look at Adrian Peterson. Your beloved BMI data might have predicted he'd be good, but it never predicted he'd be THIS good, so obviously BMI got lucky on Adrian Peterson, right?

If history shows that CJ is the SOLE example of a back of his BMI to be a top 10 FF back in the last 10 years, then you are wrong. It is about getting this player 100 %right. Otherwise, you are ignoring a proven trend and losing out for doing so.

And your Hernandez and Vick analogies are either condescending, or you don't get the point. Aaron Hernandez is not a small RB in the NFL. Michael Vick is not a small RB in the NFL. Your AP comment is not worth a retort.

If you want to discredit my attempt to point out how lucky you would have to be to be getting a CJ with your pick of Best, you could have done a worse job, I suppose. But do you really want to argue that there is anything more that long shot that Best is the next CJ? And history shows, that if you are CJ's size, but not CJ, you are a RBBC, COP guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you.

I believe you wandered into the wrong thread today. "Football Sabermetrics 101" is in the 2003 thread.
Thanks? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.
Technical trading makes a ton of sense, but give me a technical trader that understands and reacts to the fundementals over one that just follows the technicals, every time. You are right, the technicals are in your favor, but the fundementals say you may be about to miss on the next rally. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially started thinking about BMI because I thought power might be one of the main explanations for why Maurice Drew exceeded expectations while Reggie Bush disappointed. I looked around the NFL and realized that there was an archetypal physique dominating at the RB position. The vast majority of elite pro backs are roughly 5'8"-6'0" with a weight in the 200-230 range and a BMI score around 30. There's no doubt in my mind that lower body strength, leg drive, a low center of gravity, and balance are critical factors at the RB position. Most of the all-time greats had these qualities in spades. The three 2008 rookie RBs that fit this "ideal" body type mold have all been successful in the NFL (Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall).

On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick.

I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.

Edited by EBF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We interrupt you from your regularly scheduled episode of "believing that the NFL is so simple that it can be fully described in cold numbers and rejecting any visual evidence to the contrary" to bring you this week's WR ranking updates. Change log!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially started thinking about BMI because I thought power might be one of the main explanations for why Maurice Drew exceeded expectations while Reggie Bush disappointed. I looked around the NFL and realized that there was an archetypal physique dominating at the RB position. The vast majority of elite pro backs are roughly 5'8"-6'0" with a weight in the 200-230 range and a BMI score around 30. There's no doubt in my mind that lower body strength, leg drive, a low center of gravity, and balance are critical factors at the RB position. Most of the all-time greats had these qualities in spades. The three 2008 rookie RBs that fit this "ideal" body type mold have all been successful in the NFL (Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall). On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick. I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.

How is that all I need to know about Jahvid Best when Reggie Bush did everything Best did and more in college? He was just as quick, if not quicker. There have been others like Best, and most of them are in RBBCs as the COP back.I am not saying that Best is a bust, or can't make it in the NFL. I am saying that there is a trend that suggests that he will have to be an all NFL talent to make it in the NFL. I don't know that he can be that. Playing the odds, I would "sell high" if I owned him and could get value. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially started thinking about BMI because I thought power might be one of the main explanations for why Maurice Drew exceeded expectations while Reggie Bush disappointed. I looked around the NFL and realized that there was an archetypal physique dominating at the RB position. The vast majority of elite pro backs are roughly 5'8"-6'0" with a weight in the 200-230 range and a BMI score around 30. There's no doubt in my mind that lower body strength, leg drive, a low center of gravity, and balance are critical factors at the RB position. Most of the all-time greats had these qualities in spades. The three 2008 rookie RBs that fit this "ideal" body type mold have all been successful in the NFL (Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall). On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick. I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.

How is that all I need to know about Jahvid Best when Reggie Bush did everything Best did and more in college? He was just as quick, if not quicker.
What is it about Best you dont like, i mean when you watch him play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially started thinking about BMI because I thought power might be one of the main explanations for why Maurice Drew exceeded expectations while Reggie Bush disappointed. I looked around the NFL and realized that there was an archetypal physique dominating at the RB position. The vast majority of elite pro backs are roughly 5'8"-6'0" with a weight in the 200-230 range and a BMI score around 30. There's no doubt in my mind that lower body strength, leg drive, a low center of gravity, and balance are critical factors at the RB position. Most of the all-time greats had these qualities in spades. The three 2008 rookie RBs that fit this "ideal" body type mold have all been successful in the NFL (Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall). On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick. I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.

How is that all I need to know about Jahvid Best when Reggie Bush did everything Best did and more in college? He was just as quick, if not quicker.
What is it about Best you dont like, i mean when you watch him play?
He reminds me of Reggie Bush. I like him as a player, much more than I do a FF player. I think he could be a top 10 back, talent wise. Just not sold on him being top 10 in the FF world.Injuries scare me too, which also has to do with his size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially started thinking about BMI because I thought power might be one of the main explanations for why Maurice Drew exceeded expectations while Reggie Bush disappointed. I looked around the NFL and realized that there was an archetypal physique dominating at the RB position. The vast majority of elite pro backs are roughly 5'8"-6'0" with a weight in the 200-230 range and a BMI score around 30. There's no doubt in my mind that lower body strength, leg drive, a low center of gravity, and balance are critical factors at the RB position. Most of the all-time greats had these qualities in spades. The three 2008 rookie RBs that fit this "ideal" body type mold have all been successful in the NFL (Ray Rice, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall). On the other hand, some players with bad bodies have been successful as well. An ideal body type coupled with burst/instincts/speed might be sufficient for success at RB in the NFL, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. Chris Johnson and DeSean Jackson have been standout NFL players despite their diminutive size because their exceptional speed and quickness compensate for their lack of strength and power. For me, the takeaway lesson of the 2008 RB class wasn't that body type is irrelevant, but rather that weaknesses in certain categories can be offset by strengths in other categories. A good general rule of thumb is that it's okay to be slow if you're big and strong, and it's okay to be small if you're fast and quick. I ended up acquiring Jahvid Best in 4 of my 7 PPR dynasty leagues because of the lessons that I learned from DeSean Jackson and Chris Johnson. This doesn't mean that I think body type is irrelevant. It's extremely important. All things being equal, the natural selection process at RB favors squatty backs like LaDainian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Ricky Williams, Clinton Portis, and Barry Sanders. Many of the stars of tomorrow fit this mold (Trent Richardson, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers). However, it's also clear that there's room for variety. If Jamaal Charles and Chris Johnson can carve out productive pro careers then there's hope for the likes of Noel Devine and LaMichael James. If you're so quick and explosive that no one can lay a glove on you, you don't need to be 220 pounds to play RB in the NFL. That's all you need to know about Jahvid Best.

How is that all I need to know about Jahvid Best when Reggie Bush did everything Best did and more in college? He was just as quick, if not quicker.
What is it about Best you dont like, i mean when you watch him play?
He reminds me of Reggie Bush. I like him as a player, much more than I do a FF player. I think he could be a top 10 back, talent wise. Just not sold on him being top 10 in the FF world.Injuries scare me too, which also has to do with his size.
You dont like him because he reminds you of Reggie Bush? He runs between the tackles alot better than Bush. If Bush could do that, he would be a top 10 ff back too.Also, im a firm believer that size has nothing to do with injuries. If anything, bigger, more physical backs are more likely to get hurt than small shifty backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished up my rankings update, Change Log available here. I'm sure that I've missed, overlooked, or forgotten something, so please hit me up with your thoughts so I can get everything finalized tomorrow in time for Wednesday waivers. Thanks, all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To change the subject entirely... let's talk about Demaryius Thomas. Just for fun, I was looking up where his debut ranks among all rookie receivers dating back to 1995. Here's my top 10:

Anquan Boldin- 10/217/2

Eddie Royal- 9/146/1 + 2/9 rushing

Randy Moss- 4/95/2

Demaryius Thomas- 8/97/1

Louis Murphy- 4/87/1

Marvin Harrison- 6/85/1

Deion Branch- 6/83/1

JuJuan Dawson- 6/83/1

Charles Rodgers- 4/38/2 + 1/12 rushing

Desean Jackson- 6/106/0

No major method to the sort order (I sorted based on yards + 30*TDs, but there's no real reason for that sort order, that just felt about right to me). I also might have missed some rookies who missed the start of the season and debuted later on in the year. Still, while you could quibble with the order of the guys at the bottom (and a couple of other guys who just missed the cut, like Javon Walker with 4/56/1 receiving and 1/11 rushing or Calvin with his 4/70/1 receiving), the top 4 are all pretty cut-and-dried.

Basically, just trying to provide some context. A lot of people probably saw Demaryius play and thought "wow, good game", but in reality, for a rookie making his regular season debut, it was an uncommonly good game. The fact that he did it despite missing almost all of camps and preseason to a foot injury that he's still dealing with, and the fact that he did it despite being widely viewed as a major project WR, makes his performance doubly impressive. Dez Bryant got 12 targets (and did nothing with them) and people went nuts. Mike Williams beats out Sammie Stroughter and Maurice Stovall and the buzz becomes deafening. Demaryius Thomas goes for 8/97/1 and nobody utters a peep. I think people have gotten so wrapped up in the fact that he's not Dez Bryant that they've lost sight of the fact that he's a damn fine prospect in his own right.

Edited by SSOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using past trends instead of judging a player as an indibidual is a good way to miss out on elite talent....and very narrow-minded.

Everyone missed out on CJ. Not one exec in the NFL knew how great CJ was, or he would have gone #1. Everyone felt as though the Titans reached with that pick. Not even the Titans knew he was going to be this good, because they wanted Felix Jones. The chances of you or I finding an uberstud, when NFL scouts, coaches and execs miss, are slim to none. But if you think you can, be my guest. If you think Best is the next uberstud, you should have him on every dynasty roster you have, right? Giving up anything short of AP, MJD, and CJ to get him.

Narrow-minded is ignoring the trend. If you want to value it differently than others, fine. But ignoring it is silly.

Wrong. You missed out on him, so you're rationalizing that everybody else must have as well. I'll save you Exhibits C through Z, and just send you to exhibits A and B on this one. Exhibit B even shows the entire Chris Johnson hype train thread with a tiresome and ultimately fruitless argument about BMI that you would surely appreciate.

I realize you're new to the thread, and it's impossible to get caught up on every long-winded discussion that has come before you. Still, you might want to turn down the know-it-all condescension factor and step outside your narrow little mindset in here.

:thumbup::wall:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you.

I believe you wandered into the wrong thread today. "Football Sabermetrics 101" is in the 2003 thread.
Thanks? :goodposting:
I have seen you working in this thread and overall get your argument, but ....I suspect that a relatively new guy (6 months is "NEW" on this board) does not want to hear been down that road, but many if not most of us have been down the road of arguing (and counterarguing) by science or BMI (the last science/stat size thing I remember) that certain body types are better workhorses. As soon as that the wrong body type can't be workhorses happened, the too short (Jones-Drew, Ray rice) and too small (Chris Johnson) happened. They may be exceptions that violate the rule, but especially in a changing NFL (more 3/4 WR sets, smaller LBers and RRBC) the rules of who and what are elite are probably changing as well. Not trying to move off your take, but give you some context as to why the push back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to move off your take, but give you some context as to why the push back.

IMO the push back is just as much about the way CC is delivering his views as the views themselves. This is one of the relatively few threads in the Shark Pool that can generally be counted on for quality discussion, and anyone who seems to be persistently driving it away from that is going to get pushback in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To change the subject entirely... let's talk about Demaryius Thomas. Just for fun, I was looking up where his debut ranks among all rookie receivers dating back to 1995. Here's my top 10:Anquan Boldin- 10/217/2Eddie Royal- 9/146/1 + 2/9 rushingRandy Moss- 4/95/2Demaryius Thomas- 8/97/1Louis Murphy- 4/87/1Marvin Harrison- 6/85/1Deion Branch- 6/83/1JuJuan Dawson- 6/83/1Charles Rodgers- 4/38/2 + 1/12 rushingDesean Jackson- 6/106/0No major method to the sort order (I sorted based on yards + 30*TDs, but there's no real reason for that sort order, that just felt about right to me). I also might have missed some rookies who missed the start of the season and debuted later on in the year. Still, while you could quibble with the order of the guys at the bottom (and a couple of other guys who just missed the cut, like Javon Walker with 4/56/1 receiving and 1/11 rushing or Calvin with his 4/70/1 receiving), the top 4 are all pretty cut-and-dried.Basically, just trying to provide some context. A lot of people probably saw Demaryius play and thought "wow, good game", but in reality, for a rookie making his regular season debut, it was an uncommonly good game. The fact that he did it despite missing almost all of camps and preseason to a foot injury that he's still dealing with, and the fact that he did it despite being widely viewed as a major project WR, makes his performance doubly impressive. Dez Bryant got 12 targets (and did nothing with them) and people went nuts. Mike Williams beats out Sammie Stroughter and Maurice Stovall and the buzz becomes deafening. Demaryius Thomas goes for 8/97/1 and nobody utters a peep. I think people have gotten so wrapped up in the fact that he's not Dez Bryant that they've lost sight of the fact that he's a damn fine prospect in his own right.

i thought he looked very good. huge numbers, considering he didn't really play that much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought he looked very good. huge numbers, considering he didn't really play that much

I'm not huge on him in redraft, since McDaniels is still limiting his playing time a lot, but he was dominant when he was on the field. Demaryius Thomas checked in, and Orton no longer had eyes for anyone else. Bay-Bay had 4/54/0 on one drive and 4/43/1 on another drive. I think those were the only two drives he was on the field for, although he might have played during Denver's two 3-and-outs to end the game.Here's his PBP log:3-14-DEN13 (3:19) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short right to D.Thomas to DEN 31 for 18 yards (E.Thomas).1-10-DEN31 (2:36) K.Orton pass deep right to D.Thomas to SEA 49 for 20 yards (M.Trufant).3-3-SEA27 (1:54) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short middle to D.Thomas to SEA 18 for 9 yards (L.Milloy).1-10-SEA18 (1:17) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short left to D.Thomas to SEA 9 for 9 yards (K.Jennings, R.Brock).1-10-DEN20 (2:07) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short left to D.Thomas to DEN 17 for -3 yards (A.Curry).3-5-DEN25 (:29) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass short right to D.Thomas to DEN 34 for 9 yards (C.Clemons).2-10-DEN34 (14:20) K.Orton pass short left to D.Thomas to DEN 48 for 14 yards (K.Jennings).2-8-50 (13:09) K.Orton pass incomplete deep right to D.Thomas.3-4-SEA21 (9:17) (Shotgun) K.Orton pass deep left to D.Thomas for 21 yards, TOUCHDOWN.He was targeted 4 times on 3rd down, and responded with 4/57/1 and 4 first downs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, i love stewart as well, but in dynasty leagues i would put Foster and Stewart pretty level, since this year gets a proportionate advantage to later years.

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.
Have you heard of present value vs future value in finance? A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year's time. This is one of the idea's behind interest rates. If you borrow a dollar, even if you assume a zero inflation rate, you'll be paying more than a dollar as time goes by. A great percentage of interest rates are inflation, but that's not the entirety of it. You also have opportunity cost and what some people refer to as entrepenuer (spelling?) cost. It is basic finance, even in the day's of a pure gold standard where you had not only ZERO inflation, but productivity induced DEFLATION where a dollar purchased more for you in the future than it did at the present, you had interest rates or usury. It is a basic concept of finance.

I feel the same is true in any investment, including "investments" in fantasy football. This year is worth more than the following year. For goodness sakes, you don't even know if you'll be around next year, or like you said, you don't even know if you're players will be around next year. But even if we discount everything of that nature, this year is still worth more than future years, due to the very fundamental concepts of investment analysis or value analysis.

You threw in a roughly 20% increase (120 to 100), i'm not saying it is that high. For each individual, in fact, it is different. But for sure, at whatever level, whether 20%, or .01%, there is definitely a difference.

A dollar today is not worth more. Interest is calculated purely from expected inflation as well as the reasonable profit for assuming the risk of not actually getting paid that dollar back. The present vs future value as practically no bearing on the interest rate, contrary to what you posted.

This is just pure false. Interest rates are not calculated purely from expected inflation + risk of default. That is simply not true. You should read "capital and Interest" from Bohm-Bawerk. The guy wrote it hundred or more years ago, and it is still valid today. It is the very basic and foundation of finance. At best there is an opportunity cost factored in. That is, if you let someone else borrow $1 you must be compensated for inflation + default risk, but also for the loss of the ability to use that dollar (opportunity cost). This is very basic finance. The proof of this is very easy to obtain. Just go back to the 19th century when the USA was on a true gold standard. From the founding of the country until the FED was created in 1913, the dollar actually GAINED value (no inflation, in fact there was deflation). Still, in order for the government to borrow money they still had to pay 1%-2% interest rates. That's not cost for default rates, so you are simply wrong.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in a year's time and that is a certainty. It's not a maybe but 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you heard of present value vs future value in finance? A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year's time. This is one of the idea's behind interest rates. If you borrow a dollar, even if you assume a zero inflation rate, you'll be paying more than a dollar as time goes by. A great percentage of interest rates are inflation, but that's not the entirety of it. You also have opportunity cost and what some people refer to as entrepenuer (spelling?) cost. It is basic finance, even in the day's of a pure gold standard where you had not only ZERO inflation, but productivity induced DEFLATION where a dollar purchased more for you in the future than it did at the present, you had interest rates or usury. It is a basic concept of finance.I feel the same is true in any investment, including "investments" in fantasy football. This year is worth more than the following year. For goodness sakes, you don't even know if you'll be around next year, or like you said, you don't even know if you're players will be around next year. But even if we discount everything of that nature, this year is still worth more than future years, due to the very fundamental concepts of investment analysis or value analysis.You threw in a roughly 20% increase (120 to 100), i'm not saying it is that high. For each individual, in fact, it is different. But for sure, at whatever level, whether 20%, or .01%, there is definitely a difference.

I don't know that much about macroeconomics, but how much of the extra value of a dollar is owing to the fact that the stock market is always trending upwards? IIRC, there's never been a 10-year period where the stock market was lower at the end than it was at the beginning. In dynasty, there's no real analog.The only thing, in my mind, that would devalue future seasons is that there's no guarantee that future seasons will really exist. Leagues dissolve, players quit, life changes, even the NFL itself faces work stoppages and strikes. In that sense, the current season has a higher EV than future seasons because we're 100% that the current season exists and only 99% certain, or 95% certain, or 80% certain, or however certain that future seasons will exist for us in that particular dynasty league. If someone had a strategy where they'd join a start-up dynasty league with the intention of only playing for 2 season, then absolutely it would make sense to start a scorched-earth run and trade all future assets for present assets, because that owner has no future (as an aside: personally, I think running a team into the ground simply because you don't plan on being there to deal with the aftermath is about the douchiest thing a dynasty owner can do).With that said, if you gave me assurances that the league would exist and I would remain participating in it for 20 years, then I don't know why I should value any one of those seasons more than any other of those seasons. My main concern would be how many championships I walk out of those 20 years with. I'd rather have 5 championships that came in the last 5 years than 4 championships that came in the first 4 years.

It's all good SSOG. This discussion is, quite unfortunately, 90% about simple semantics, without a ton of practical difference in actual approach. FWIW...I believe I understand, and agree, with where you're coming from...just not overly comfortable with the wording you chose to explain it with (in some posts).

Most of these disagreements do wind up centering on semantics or a surfeit of clarity (generally from both sides of the debate). You almost need a universally accepted terminology in order to reach a consensus about the mechanics behind dynasty leagues, because multiple different people might say the same words but mean different things. I think a lot of it centers around the internet being such a limited medium, too. Luckily, this seems to be one of those debates where we run around in circles chasing our tails, but eventually manage to find some common middle ground (as opposed to one of those debates where we just keep running around in circles- Brandon Marshall and Vincent Jackson, I'm looking in your general direction ;)).
"IIRC, there's never been a 10-year period where the stock market was lower at the end than it was at the beginning."Umm...that's definitely not true. In 1966 the DOW was at 1000, 15 years later it was lower than 1000 and it finally broke through the 1000 level in 1982 and started higher. In 1929 the marker peaked and didn't overtake that level until the 1940's. This isn't factoring in inflation. If you factor in inflation, from 1966 to 1982, the market lost some 75% of its value. But it doesn't matter since it has no effect on what we are talking about, present value vs future value."The only thing, in my mind, that would devalue future seasons is that there's no guarantee that future seasons will really exist. Leagues dissolve, players quit, life changes, even the NFL itself faces work stoppages and strikes."Yes, this is true as well and adds to its devaluation. But even if it didn't, a championship today would be worth more than one tomorrow."If someone had a strategy where they'd join a start-up dynasty league with the intention of only playing for 2 season, then absolutely it would make sense to start a scorched-earth run and trade all future assets for present assets, because that owner has no future (as an aside: personally, I think running a team into the ground simply because you don't plan on being there to deal with the aftermath is about the douchiest thing a dynasty owner can do)."Now you're taking it to the extreme. I never encourage a scorched earth campaign, i'm just saying that a championship this year is worth more than one next year. The degree to which it is more valuable depends a lot on your personal values. Perhaps it is 10% more valuable or perhaps it is only .01%, in which case basically there would be no difference in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, i love stewart as well, but in dynasty leagues i would put Foster and Stewart pretty level, since this year gets a proportionate advantage to later years.

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.
Have you heard of present value vs future value in finance? A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in 1 year's time. This is one of the idea's behind interest rates. If you borrow a dollar, even if you assume a zero inflation rate, you'll be paying more than a dollar as time goes by. A great percentage of interest rates are inflation, but that's not the entirety of it. You also have opportunity cost and what some people refer to as entrepenuer (spelling?) cost. It is basic finance, even in the day's of a pure gold standard where you had not only ZERO inflation, but productivity induced DEFLATION where a dollar purchased more for you in the future than it did at the present, you had interest rates or usury. It is a basic concept of finance.

I feel the same is true in any investment, including "investments" in fantasy football. This year is worth more than the following year. For goodness sakes, you don't even know if you'll be around next year, or like you said, you don't even know if you're players will be around next year. But even if we discount everything of that nature, this year is still worth more than future years, due to the very fundamental concepts of investment analysis or value analysis.

You threw in a roughly 20% increase (120 to 100), i'm not saying it is that high. For each individual, in fact, it is different. But for sure, at whatever level, whether 20%, or .01%, there is definitely a difference.

A dollar today is not worth more. Interest is calculated purely from expected inflation as well as the reasonable profit for assuming the risk of not actually getting paid that dollar back. The present vs future value as practically no bearing on the interest rate, contrary to what you posted.

This is just pure false. Interest rates are not calculated purely from expected inflation + risk of default. That is simply not true. You should read "capital and Interest" from Bohm-Bawerk. The guy wrote it hundred or more years ago, and it is still valid today. It is the very basic and foundation of finance. At best there is an opportunity cost factored in. That is, if you let someone else borrow $1 you must be compensated for inflation + default risk, but also for the loss of the ability to use that dollar (opportunity cost). This is very basic finance. The proof of this is very easy to obtain. Just go back to the 19th century when the USA was on a true gold standard. From the founding of the country until the FED was created in 1913, the dollar actually GAINED value (no inflation, in fact there was deflation). Still, in order for the government to borrow money they still had to pay 1%-2% interest rates. That's not cost for default rates, so you are simply wrong.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in a year's time and that is a certainty. It's not a maybe but 100%.

Again, this is a simple rate required because the lender is assuming the risk that they do not ever get paid back. You can call that opportunity cost if you wish, as in "the opportunity to get the dollar for free immediately" because if you default then the lender is potentially screwed...but it's absolutely not because the dollar is "worth more." It isn't. It's worth a dollar. Now, if prices of all goods drop, then the dollar is worth more relative to the market basket, but in the market of the availability of money and the cost to borrow, the dollar has no intrinsic value just because it is today.

Interest rates come from risk and expected inflation. If you want to call it the opportunity cost, feel free, but the reason interest exists is because the lender needs to be paid for the risk he is taking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only thing, in my mind, that would devalue future seasons is that there's no guarantee that future seasons will really exist. Leagues dissolve, players quit, life changes, even the NFL itself faces work stoppages and strikes."

Yes, this is true as well and adds to its devaluation. But even if it didn't, a championship today would be worth more than one tomorrow."If someone had a strategy where they'd join a start-up dynasty league with the intention of only playing for 2 season, then absolutely it would make sense to start a scorched-earth run and trade all future assets for present assets, because that owner has no future (as an aside: personally, I think running a team into the ground simply because you don't plan on being there to deal with the aftermath is about the douchiest thing a dynasty owner can do)."Now you're taking it to the extreme. I never encourage a scorched earth campaign, i'm just saying that a championship this year is worth more than one next year. The degree to which it is more valuable depends a lot on your personal values. Perhaps it is 10% more valuable or perhaps it is only .01%, in which case basically there would be no difference in action.
A championship this year is not worth more than one next year. Not in any way, shape, form, or fashion. A championship is a championship. One this year is not going to be worth more so that if I win 4 of them 10 years later then I'll be saying "Damn, I wish I had won in year 1, that championship banner is worth so much more than the 4 I have..."A championship is worth exactly the same in a vacuum. The only way I could see an argument that one is worth more is that you get an additional year of saying "Look at me and my championship." That's it. Is the Arizona Cardinals Super Bowl appearance worth more than the Colts appearance last season because it happened earlier? No. Not at all. It's absurd to try and apply a concept, which you've already incorrectly applied to lending, to a FF League Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're taking it to the extreme. I never encourage a scorched earth campaign, i'm just saying that a championship this year is worth more than one next year. The degree to which it is more valuable depends a lot on your personal values. Perhaps it is 10% more valuable or perhaps it is only .01%, in which case basically there would be no difference in action.

I won a championship in year 2 of my dynasty league. A guy named Dan won it in year 1. Are you telling me that Dan's championship is worth more than mine? Are you saying that if I could trade my championship for Dan's championship straight up, I should do so? There's a guy named Tom in my league. In one season, I went 9-4 and he went 6-7. In the next season, he went 9-4 and I went 6-7. Are you telling me that I had a better record over that two-year span than Tom did?And does this concept apply during the season, too? I mean, my dollar starts accruing interest the second I invest it, so wouldn't it then be logical to say that wins early in the season are worth more than wins late in the season? If two teams both finish with 7-6 records, should I use their record in week 1 as a tiebreaker, since that week 1 game was more valuable than any other game in the entire season?I'm just really struggling to understand the logic behind this whole "wins are worth more depending on when they come" argument, and I'd appreciate enlightenment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're taking it to the extreme. I never encourage a scorched earth campaign, i'm just saying that a championship this year is worth more than one next year. The degree to which it is more valuable depends a lot on your personal values. Perhaps it is 10% more valuable or perhaps it is only .01%, in which case basically there would be no difference in action.

I won a championship in year 2 of my dynasty league. A guy named Dan won it in year 1. Are you telling me that Dan's championship is worth more than mine? Are you saying that if I could trade my championship for Dan's championship straight up, I should do so? There's a guy named Tom in my league. In one season, I went 9-4 and he went 6-7. In the next season, he went 9-4 and I went 6-7. Are you telling me that I had a better record over that two-year span than Tom did?

And does this concept apply during the season, too? I mean, my dollar starts accruing interest the second I invest it, so wouldn't it then be logical to say that wins early in the season are worth more than wins late in the season? If two teams both finish with 7-6 records, should I use their record in week 1 as a tiebreaker, since that week 1 game was more valuable than any other game in the entire season?

I'm just really struggling to understand the logic behind this whole "wins are worth more depending on when they come" argument, and I'd appreciate enlightenment.

Well, of course you are struggling with the concept - you only play in free leagues. Those of us who play for money have no problem with logic of wins/championships coming sooner being more valueable than coming later.

You have stated that assuming a league runs 20 years you would rather have 4 championships in the last 5 years than 3 championships in the first three. Hey, if it didn't cost me anything to play I probably wouldn't care when I won my championships either. But I play for money and I prefer getting the cold hard cash this year over the possibility that I might get it at some point in the future.

As an example, in 2008 I joined a start up Dynasty league and won the Championship the first year. The league lasted one year after that and folded in 2010. I don't think any of the 10 owners who did not win a championship in that league would argue that my wins in 2008 are not worth more than theirs, since with the league disbanded they will never be able to equal my cash winnings.

Money leagues are precarious. Unless you run the league yourself, you have no guarantee it will be around next season (even then it is not guaranteed unless you can retain or find owners willing to pay the league dues). Also you may not want to continue in a league (perhaps with rule changes you don't like or with 2-3 teams becoming so dominant that the window for winning anything in the future is 3-5 years out).

If I played in free leagues, then yes I could have the luxury to wait for years for some eventual championship. But this concept of "it doesn't matter when you win" is simply not valid for me when the success of any given year is measured by whether I took in more than I payed out.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course you are struggling with the concept - you only play in free leagues. Those of us who play for money have no problem with logic of wins/championships coming sooner being more valueable than coming later.

You have stated that assuming a league runs 20 years you would rather have 4 championships in the last 5 years than 3 championships in the first three. Hey, if it didn't cost me anything to play I probably wouldn't care when I won my championships either. But I play for money and I prefer getting the cold hard cash this year over the possibility that I might get it at some point in the future.

As an example, in 2008 I joined a start up Dynasty league and won the Championship the first year. The league lasted one year after that and folded in 2010. I don't think any of the 10 owners who did not win a championship in that league would argue that my wins in 2008 are not worth more than theirs, since with the league disbanded they will never be able to equal my cash winnings.

Money leagues are precarious. Unless you run the league yourself, you have no guarantee it will be around next season (even then it is not guaranteed unless you can retain or find owners willing to pay the league dues). Also you may not want to continue in a league (perhaps with rule changes you don't like or 2-3 teams become so dominant that the window for winning anything in the future is 3-5 years out).

If I played in free leagues, then yes I could have luxury to wait for years for some eventual championship. But this concept of "it doesn't matter when you win" is simply not valid for me when the success of any given year is measured by whether I took in more than I payed out.

I don't know why you're arguing this, because I've said all of this already. If you aren't going to be in the league 3 years from now, then production 3 years from now doesn't matter. With that said, when I'm producing dynasty rankings, I'm not producing them under the assumption that most of the people using them are playing in leagues with an expiration date. When discussing dynasty strategy, I don't think the discussion should center on the fact that some leagues have an expiration date. Sure, some leagues only last 3 seasons, but I don't think those leagues really qualify as "dynasty leagues" or should influence discussion of dynasty strategy. I've specifically stipulated that if a league lasts 20 years, it doesn't matter whether you win those championships early or late.

Maybe that's a flaw in my analysis, and maybe I should be building in some expectation of failure. I'd be interested in hearing arguments from the masses on that point. However, it remains unlikely that I'm going to let the unique dynamics of money leagues influence my rankings. And the "likely-to-fail" aspect isn't the only unique dynamic of a money league. For instance, earlier I was saying it's better to have a single 1st place finish mixed in among a bunch of lean years than it is to be consistently good-but-not-great, but if you're playing in a money league and your goal is profits instead of championships, then the latter team might provide a better RoI.

When I rank players, or discuss theory, or propose strategies, I do it under the assumption that we're talking about a "true" dynasty- one with a life expectancy of at least 10 more seasons, one where the goal is winning championships instead of money. Obviously unique circumstances can change that dynamic, but in my mind, that's a deviation from the true dynasty dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know it all? I am sorry "science" scares you.

I believe you wandered into the wrong thread today. "Football Sabermetrics 101" is in the 2003 thread.
Thanks? :thumbup:
I have seen you working in this thread and overall get your argument, but ....I suspect that a relatively new guy (6 months is "NEW" on this board) does not want to hear been down that road, but many if not most of us have been down the road of arguing (and counterarguing) by science or BMI (the last science/stat size thing I remember) that certain body types are better workhorses. As soon as that the wrong body type can't be workhorses happened, the too short (Jones-Drew, Ray rice) and too small (Chris Johnson) happened. They may be exceptions that violate the rule, but especially in a changing NFL (more 3/4 WR sets, smaller LBers and RRBC) the rules of who and what are elite are probably changing as well. Not trying to move off your take, but give you some context as to why the push back.
I am okay with the push back. I understand most of the arguments that I am being presented with. I just don't understand why this is so crazy to people:"I am not a Best fan. Most smaller backs can't make it as workhorses in the NFL. There are studies to show this."If I felt Best a special player, I woud take him. Period. And as I said, I would draft Best and he does have value. But I would much rather a player like Mendenhal, who my eyes, and history tell me can better handle 25 carries a game. As far as the "changing NFL" you are 100% correct. It is impossible to determine how relevant info from even 5-10 years is, the way the NFL is trending. But I do think the BMI info has a place in the mental library of the fantasy football owner. Especially when Best-like backs are being forced into RBBCs every year. Edited by Concept Coop

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.