Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

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.

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong. Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

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.

And this is why i dont play dynasty leagues for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in 4 free dynasty leagues, and you wont find a group of people who take their FF as seriously. Its not the money that makes it serious, it the owners you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in money dynasty leagues and STILL disagree with you. If I got the knowledge that I could win this year, or wait two years and then win 3 in a row, I would take the 3 in a row. The question of "will the league be around?" is totally irrelevant because we've already stated that the league WILL be around.

In my mind, 3 years of the top prize beginning two years from now (around $1400) is worth more than just the top prize this year (around $465)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

No, presumptuous is assuming that your leagues are better or more serious just because there's money on the line. Hell, you want to talk about serious, I've got a buddy in my dynasty league who has a spreadsheet tracking total points for and against every single team over the life of the dynasty. That's serious. How many owners in your dynasty leagues will call you up to talk smack because they've outscored you by 200 points over the last 3 years?

I don't think it's at all presumptuous to say that if you're building your team under the assumption that the league won't be around 3 years from now, you are not building with a true dynasty mentality. Dynasty is all about drafting rookies and watching them develop, owning players their entire careers, building a "dynasty" that racks up championship after championship with the same core. If the league folds after 2-3 years, you didn't have a chance to do any of those things. You really just played in an extended redraft. It might have been an awesome extended redraft filled with the most serious, most intense, most knowledgeable fantasy owners that the world has ever seen... but it still wasn't a dynasty league. Dynasty means that you have to deal tomorrow with the situations that you create today. Any league that presents no consequences when someone mortgages the future to win in the present doesn't meet the most basic criteria.

It's not like I've never played in a money league in my entire life. It's not like I've had no opportunities to play in more money leagues. It's not like I'm too worried about losing the money (or did you miss me making a cash bet earlier in this thread over something as stupid as how many PPG Philip Rivers will score?). Hell, personally, I think I'm better than average and would like my chances to bank some cash in the long run in a money league. The reason I don't play in money leagues is personal rather than financial. I think free leagues with dedicated and intelligent owners are simply better. There's no risk of the league folding any time soon. There's far less risk of an owner abandoning his team the second it looks grim. People are much more reasonable and rational and don't do stupid crap to try to gain every advantage they can fit under the letter of the rules (you know, like the people who would pick up every single free agent and drop him again so that they'd go on waivers and get locked for two days so no one else could roster them). All in all, I personally find good free leagues to be a much more enjoyable environment, and since I play fantasy football because I love it and not because I view it as a source of income, I naturally gravitate towards the leagues that I think are the best environments. You feel differently, and that's fine, but painting all money leagues with one brush and all free leagues with another is bush league. And, personally, I think it's ludicrous that you're celebrating a "dynasty league" that lasted all of two seasons. Where's the dynasty in that league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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...

Has there been a discussion of this point? There's enough randomness involved in a season of fantasy football so that having the best team doesn't guarantee you the title, and consistently having a pretty good team will keep giving you chances to luck into a championship. It depends on league format, though - a consistently good-but-not-great team will take home more championships in leagues with single elimination playoffs than in leagues with no playoffs where the final standings are based on total points or all-play record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, you want to talk about serious, I've got a buddy in my dynasty league who has a spreadsheet tracking total points for and against every single team over the life of the dynasty. That's serious. How many owners in your dynasty leagues will call you up to talk smack because they've outscored you by 200 points over the last 3 years?

And I thought I was the only one who would bother to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

No, presumptuous is assuming that your leagues are better or more serious just because there's money on the line. Hell, you want to talk about serious, I've got a buddy in my dynasty league who has a spreadsheet tracking total points for and against every single team over the life of the dynasty. That's serious. How many owners in your dynasty leagues will call you up to talk smack because they've outscored you by 200 points over the last 3 years?

I don't think it's at all presumptuous to say that if you're building your team under the assumption that the league won't be around 3 years from now, you are not building with a true dynasty mentality. Dynasty is all about drafting rookies and watching them develop, owning players their entire careers, building a "dynasty" that racks up championship after championship with the same core. If the league folds after 2-3 years, you didn't have a chance to do any of those things. You really just played in an extended redraft. It might have been an awesome extended redraft filled with the most serious, most intense, most knowledgeable fantasy owners that the world has ever seen... but it still wasn't a dynasty league. Dynasty means that you have to deal tomorrow with the situations that you create today. Any league that presents no consequences when someone mortgages the future to win in the present doesn't meet the most basic criteria.

It's not like I've never played in a money league in my entire life. It's not like I've had no opportunities to play in more money leagues. It's not like I'm too worried about losing the money (or did you miss me making a cash bet earlier in this thread over something as stupid as how many PPG Philip Rivers will score?). Hell, personally, I think I'm better than average and would like my chances to bank some cash in the long run in a money league. The reason I don't play in money leagues is personal rather than financial. I think free leagues with dedicated and intelligent owners are simply better. There's no risk of the league folding any time soon. There's far less risk of an owner abandoning his team the second it looks grim. People are much more reasonable and rational and don't do stupid crap to try to gain every advantage they can fit under the letter of the rules (you know, like the people who would pick up every single free agent and drop him again so that they'd go on waivers and get locked for two days so no one else could roster them). All in all, I personally find good free leagues to be a much more enjoyable environment, and since I play fantasy football because I love it and not because I view it as a source of income, I naturally gravitate towards the leagues that I think are the best environments. You feel differently, and that's fine, but painting all money leagues with one brush and all free leagues with another is bush league. And, personally, I think it's ludicrous that you're celebrating a "dynasty league" that lasted all of two seasons. Where's the dynasty in that league?

:confused: Especially the bolded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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...

Has there been a discussion of this point? There's enough randomness involved in a season of fantasy football so that having the best team doesn't guarantee you the title, and consistently having a pretty good team will keep giving you chances to luck into a championship. It depends on league format, though - a consistently good-but-not-great team will take home more championships in leagues with single elimination playoffs than in leagues with no playoffs where the final standings are based on total points or all-play record.
I'm all about the "build a core good enough to get you to the playoffs and then hope you catch lightning in a bottle and walk away with a championship" mentality. I think more NFL teams should follow it, too. Plenty of SB champions in the NFL have been teams that, prior to the playoffs, were seen as lucky to just be in the playoffs, but they managed to get hot at the right time.I'm just talking about finishes rather than team quality, though. I'd rather have a single 1st place finish and three 10th place finishes than have four 3rd place finishes. That's not the same thing as saying I'd rather have the best team one year and the worst team three years than have the third best team four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...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...

Has there been a discussion of this point? There's enough randomness involved in a season of fantasy football so that having the best team doesn't guarantee you the title, and consistently having a pretty good team will keep giving you chances to luck into a championship. It depends on league format, though - a consistently good-but-not-great team will take home more championships in leagues with single elimination playoffs than in leagues with no playoffs where the final standings are based on total points or all-play record.
I'm all about the "build a core good enough to get you to the playoffs and then hope you catch lightning in a bottle and walk away with a championship" mentality. I think more NFL teams should follow it, too. Plenty of SB champions in the NFL have been teams that, prior to the playoffs, were seen as lucky to just be in the playoffs, but they managed to get hot at the right time.I'm just talking about finishes rather than team quality, though. I'd rather have a single 1st place finish and three 10th place finishes than have four 3rd place finishes. That's not the same thing as saying I'd rather have the best team one year and the worst team three years than have the third best team four years.
I know it is dangerous to mix sports but in baseball, the Astros were good not great for over a decade, but the Marlins won two rings and pretty much nothing else. There is no doubt which was the better organization between the two between 1990-2005, but I am guessing that the Astros would trade some good years back for winning it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in money dynasty leagues and STILL disagree with you. If I got the knowledge that I could win this year, or wait two years and then win 3 in a row, I would take the 3 in a row. The question of "will the league be around?" is totally irrelevant because we've already stated that the league WILL be around.

In my mind, 3 years of the top prize beginning two years from now (around $1400) is worth more than just the top prize this year (around $465)

No, is isn't irrelevant unless you can predict three years in the future, and unless you have psychic abilities you haven't disclosed, I don't believe you can foresee with complete accuracy what the world will be like in 2012 or 2013. I don't know anyone who can guarantee that any league will be operating in 3 years - maybe you can, but I doubt it. Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in money dynasty leagues and STILL disagree with you. If I got the knowledge that I could win this year, or wait two years and then win 3 in a row, I would take the 3 in a row. The question of "will the league be around?" is totally irrelevant because we've already stated that the league WILL be around.

In my mind, 3 years of the top prize beginning two years from now (around $1400) is worth more than just the top prize this year (around $465)

The fallacy of this is that winning year one doesn't mean that we can't win in year 2, 3, 4...

Even if we build a "win now" team in the inaugural draft, this doesn't mean the same team is static for the next 3 or so years. Trades, waivers, and drafts happen to keep a team competitive each year. You can cycle out a starter or two each year and still vie for the championship.

It's not one or the other. Win now can mean win next year as well. But there are defintiely teams that "lose now" and... and I repeat AND... lose in the future. No matter how great their team looks with the youthful names on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in 4 free dynasty leagues, and you wont find a group of people who take their FF as seriously. Its not the money that makes it serious, it the owners you have.
I am sure that is true in your case, but I was responding to SSOG's suggestion that taking a league seriously is not an essential element of being in a dynasty. By emphatically stating that it is not in the definition, he was infering that in his case, he probably does not take it as seriously. I never said that there aren't any free leagues that people don't take seriously - it was a response to his statement.

Of course, some hard core fantasy fanatics can play for years just for bragging rights. But, I bet if we did a poll asking people which they take more seriously, a free league or a money league, I am guessing the majority would say a money league. In general people do take things a bit more seriously when they are making an actual expenditure of cash, rather than if it is free.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in money dynasty leagues and STILL disagree with you. If I got the knowledge that I could win this year, or wait two years and then win 3 in a row, I would take the 3 in a row. The question of "will the league be around?" is totally irrelevant because we've already stated that the league WILL be around.

In my mind, 3 years of the top prize beginning two years from now (around $1400) is worth more than just the top prize this year (around $465)

The fallacy of this is that winning year one doesn't mean that we can't win in year 2, 3, 4...

Even if we build a "win now" team in the inaugural draft, this doesn't mean the same team is static for the next 3 or so years. Trades, waivers, and drafts happen to keep a team competitive each year. You can cycle out a starter or two each year and still vie for the championship.

It's not one or the other. Win now can mean win next year as well. But there are defintiely teams that "lose now" and... and I repeat AND... lose in the future. No matter how great their team looks with the youthful names on it.

I dont play for any one season, i play for all of them. Why cant i play to win now AND play to win in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in money dynasty leagues and STILL disagree with you. If I got the knowledge that I could win this year, or wait two years and then win 3 in a row, I would take the 3 in a row. The question of "will the league be around?" is totally irrelevant because we've already stated that the league WILL be around.

In my mind, 3 years of the top prize beginning two years from now (around $1400) is worth more than just the top prize this year (around $465)

No, is isn't irrelevant unless you can predict three years in the future, and unless you have psychic abilities you haven't disclosed, I don't believe you can forsee with complete accuracy what the world will be like in 2012 or 2013. I don't know anyone who can guarantee that any league will be operating in 3 years - maybe you can, but I doubt it.
And here I was thinking we had constructed a hypothetical that we knew EXACTLY THAT. Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought we were constructing our theory based on the assumption that we did know that. That's why it was hypothetical.

Hell, if you want to go there, we can say building the best team this year may be useless anyway and the championship isn't guaranteed anyway because I can simply pick up Charles and Harrison and ride them for 3 weeks to crush you at the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I was thinking we had constructed a hypothetical that we knew EXACTLY THAT. Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought we were constructing our theory based on the assumption that we did know that. That's why it was hypothetical.Hell, if you want to go there, we can say building the best team this year may be useless anyway and the championship isn't guaranteed anyway because I can simply pick up Charles and Harrison and ride them for 3 weeks to crush you at the end...

I hadn't accepted the hypothetical because I don't believe one can make that assumption. SSOG is like a university professor who always just deals in hypotheticals and abstract mathematical formulas. That is a fine way to view the world, but it goes against the grain for some of us who are more reality based. Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I disagree, I don't think that a league that you play for money is any less "true" than one that is free. In fact, I think I take Dynasty leagues much more seriously because I play for money than those who play for free. I am on a limited budget and if I lose it will impact my pocketbook, if you lose then the worst case scenario is that your abstract mathematical theory may be wrong.

And I disagree that any time you're building a team under the assumption that the league might not even be around 2 years from now, that you're playing in a "true" dynasty league. The whole premise of dynasty is that you own players forever- or for their entire careers, at least. Any "dynasty league" that only lasts 2 years is nothing more than a glorified redraft.

I'm sure you take your leagues incredibly seriously, but the definition of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously". If you're playing like there might not be a tomorrow, then I'd argue that's not a "true dynasty league", or at the very least, not a "true dynasty mentality."

I find in incredibly presumptious that one who plays only in free leagues would dismiss one who plays in money leagues with a shorter term outlook as not having a "true dynasty mentality." And I don't recall you being elected as the person who has the final word on what constitutes a "true" dynasty league either.

And, no, the dictionary definition (if there is one) of "dynasty" isn't "league you take seriously," but it isn't the converse either of "league that you don't take seriously." You may be happy playing in leagues that people don't take that seriously, but I wouldn't want to be in leagues like that.

I play in money dynasty leagues and STILL disagree with you. If I got the knowledge that I could win this year, or wait two years and then win 3 in a row, I would take the 3 in a row. The question of "will the league be around?" is totally irrelevant because we've already stated that the league WILL be around.

In my mind, 3 years of the top prize beginning two years from now (around $1400) is worth more than just the top prize this year (around $465)

No, is isn't irrelevant unless you can predict three years in the future, and unless you have psychic abilities you haven't disclosed, I don't believe you can foresee with complete accuracy what the world will be like in 2012 or 2013. I don't know anyone who can guarantee that any league will be operating in 3 years - maybe you can, but I doubt it.

What guaratees do you have with anything? Can you guarantee that your league will even make it through the first season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What guaratees do you have with anything? Can you guarantee that your league will even make it through the first season?

No, but if I paid thru LeagueSafe then I should get my money back. I think it is more likely than not that a league that has started this season will probably make it through the first season. Each year you go out after that in the future is harder to predict. I tend not to assume that things will be exactly as they are in three years, but if you are comfortable with that, then the more power to you.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, you guys are ruining this thread with all of this semantic mumbo-jumbo. To each his own regarding their agendas in Dynasty Leagues.

How about this. Why don't the homers for each team give a brief analysis or status update of their favorite franchise (NFL) with regards to players current value and/or outlook.

I'll start.....

TEAM: OAKLAND RAIDERS

After 2 weeks, there area few surprises worth mentioning. The first pleasant surprise is how McFadden has come out of the gate....very strong. Nowwhether it is a mirage or not, I personally have mixed feelings right now, is anyone's guess. But he will be given every opportunity to prove himself over the course of the season, and so far he has done quite well.

The next big surprise, at least to outsiders, is the emergence of QB Bruce Gradkowski. He has fared pretty well when handed the keys here in Oakland, and outplayed Campbell during the preseason. This guy looks like a decent stash for a short-term dynasty outlook as a mid-level QB2, with emergency and bye-week fill-in capability. Of more importance, the entire receiving core gets a slight bump up, with Murphy, Zach Miller, and Schilens at the front of the line for the value bumps. Murphy could actually emerge with the most value for this season as I would not be surprised by a 70/900/6 type of numbers, maybe even slightly better (10-15%).

Well. that's I for me but please, give that irrelevant stuff a rest, stick to football.....

Edited by kremenull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of more importance, the entire receiving core gets a slight bump up, with Murphy, Zach Miller, and Schilens at the front of the line for the value bumps.

With DHB getting one good week, is the opportunity still going to be there? When is he going to get back? I have been assuming his window is closing quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to SSOG for moving Vick into the high 20s last week and into the teens BEFORE it was announced that he would be the starter the rest of the way. So high does Vick move in dynasty rankings now? Seems like he should be discussed in that tier behind the top 6-8.

Let's also talk Keiland Williams. Seems like opportunity is coming, but I don't know enough to say whether he has the tale to succeed with it. Same problem with Max Hall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also talk Keiland Williams. Seems like opportunity is coming, but I don't know enough to say whether he has the tale to succeed with it. Same problem with Max Hall.

Shanny seems to love Williams and Portis looks like he's running on 40 yr old legs. Add to that a bum wrist and he looks just about done. Williams was in during OT on Sunday in the Texans game which shows the coaching staff's trust in the kid. He certainly has the talent and I see no reason why he won't get a shot at the starting job at some point in the next few weeks.When Shanny likes a RB, he always seems to get a shot. Keiland looks to be that guy here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to SSOG for moving Vick into the high 20s last week and into the teens BEFORE it was announced that he would be the starter the rest of the way. So high does Vick move in dynasty rankings now? Seems like he should be discussed in that tier behind the top 6-8.Let's also talk Keiland Williams. Seems like opportunity is coming, but I don't know enough to say whether he has the tale to succeed with it. Same problem with Max Hall.

Don't get carried away.Vick is 30 years old. He appears to have his speed back, but his days as an elite runner are likely limited. Probably 2-3 more tops.That means he'll have to make much of his FF living with his arm, which might prove difficult for a guy with mediocre passing ability. His QB rating in his last three full seasons as a starter:2006 - 75.72005 - 73.12004 - 78.1Vick has never been a good passer. He has always been a mediocre passer with elite running ability. I'm not sure that's a recipe for long term success when you're talking about a 30 year old. Vick's main value is in the short term. If his legs hold up, he could be a top 10 FF QB for another year or two. Maybe a little longer. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect much. I certainly wouldn't move him into the 8-10 range in my dynasty QB rankings. Guys like Bradford, Ryan, Sanchez, Stafford, and Freeman are much more likely to be startable 4 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to SSOG for moving Vick into the high 20s last week and into the teens BEFORE it was announced that he would be the starter the rest of the way. So high does Vick move in dynasty rankings now? Seems like he should be discussed in that tier behind the top 6-8.Let's also talk Keiland Williams. Seems like opportunity is coming, but I don't know enough to say whether he has the tale to succeed with it. Same problem with Max Hall.

Don't get carried away.Vick is 30 years old. He appears to have his speed back, but his days as an elite runner are likely limited. Probably 2-3 more tops.That means he'll have to make much of his FF living with his arm, which might prove difficult for a guy with mediocre passing ability. His QB rating in his last three full seasons as a starter:2006 - 75.72005 - 73.12004 - 78.1Vick has never been a good passer. He has always been a mediocre passer with elite running ability. I'm not sure that's a recipe for long term success when you're talking about a 30 year old. Vick's main value is in the short term. If his legs hold up, he could be a top 10 FF QB for another year or two. Maybe a little longer. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect much. I certainly wouldn't move him into the 8-10 range in my dynasty QB rankings. Guys like Bradford, Ryan, Sanchez, Stafford, and Freeman are much more likely to be startable 4 years from now.
Good points. I think everyone will value the two scenarios differently: (1) 2-3 top 10 years with big upside (was #3 in his last full year) immediately vs. (2) top 10 QB for 4+ (?) years starting 1-3 years from now. And I'd put more uncertainty on (2). Consider the cases of Ryan and Flacco. The anointing oils were out, but they have struggled a bit to be clear top 10 QBs. Doesn't mean they can't make it.I'd take (1) because I'm more certain about Vick being a top 10 QB for the next 1-3 years, and I think he may have improved as a passer. And I think I'd find a QB develop behind him in the 2011 or 2012 class. I feel better about Vick + Luck, Locker, Mallet than Bradford, Ryan, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vick would be a nice player to pair with a Bradford/Freeman/Luck.

However, I think the "what have you done for me lately" mindset might be in effect here. This past Sunday was one of the better passing games of Vick's career. Of course people are excited about him. What we have to remember is that one game could very easily be a mirage. Even in a friendly Eagles system, there's no guarantee that Vick won't struggle to consistently produce good results. He could come out next week and go 10/20 for 115 yards and 2 picks. He could be benched for Kolb at any time. It's not like he's a safe pick. He's extremely volatile right now. A good player to have. Not a good player to rely on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I was thinking we had constructed a hypothetical that we knew EXACTLY THAT. Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought we were constructing our theory based on the assumption that we did know that. That's why it was hypothetical.

Hell, if you want to go there, we can say building the best team this year may be useless anyway and the championship isn't guaranteed anyway because I can simply pick up Charles and Harrison and ride them for 3 weeks to crush you at the end...

I hadn't accepted the hypothetical because I don't believe one can make that assumption. SSOG is like a university professor who always just deals in hypotheticals and abstract mathematical formulas. That is a fine way to view the world, but it goes against the grain for some of us who are more reality based.
The better you understand the underlying principals, the better able you will be to apply them to "reality".

It's like in physics. First you learn how everything works in a reality without gravity or friction. Then you learn how gravity and friction work. Then you combine the two to create a real-world model. That frictionless, gravityless physics that you took in High School might have all been theoretical and impractical, but if NASA's rocket scientists didn't start there, they never could have put a man on the moon.

Kudos to SSOG for moving Vick into the high 20s last week and into the teens BEFORE it was announced that he would be the starter the rest of the way. So high does Vick move in dynasty rankings now? Seems like he should be discussed in that tier behind the top 6-8.

Let's also talk Keiland Williams. Seems like opportunity is coming, but I don't know enough to say whether he has the tale to succeed with it. Same problem with Max Hall.

Actually, Vick doesn't go up much from where he's at. I'll probably bump him another spot or two (maybe to QB14, ahead of Sanchez but behind Bradford), but the reason behind his QB16 ranking isn't because I don't think he'll be productive (I very much do), it's because there's a difference between expectations and expected value. Do I expect Vick to become a starter for someone and maintain strong fantasy value for the next couple of years? Yes, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. Vick has an extended audition to show some team he's worth the big bucks. He's had two good fantasy games, but ask Kevin Kolb how far back-to-back good games gets you. The challenge now is for Vick to remain consistent, demonstrate that he's all the way back against some tougher defenses, and hold off Kolb (who will not go quietly into that good night). Vick has gotten the perfect opportunity, but I figured all along that he'd get it. It came sooner than I expected, but Vick is right now only getting the shot I always anticipated he'd get. Now it remains up to him to do something with it.

Good points. I think everyone will value the two scenarios differently: (1) 2-3 top 10 years with big upside (was #3 in his last full year) immediately vs. (2) top 10 QB for 4+ (?) years starting 1-3 years from now. And I'd put more uncertainty on (2). Consider the cases of Ryan and Flacco. The anointing oils were out, but they have struggled a bit to be clear top 10 QBs. Doesn't mean they can't make it.

I'd take (1) because I'm more certain about Vick being a top 10 QB for the next 1-3 years, and I think he may have improved as a passer. And I think I'd find a QB develop behind him in the 2011 or 2012 class. I feel better about Vick + Luck, Locker, Mallet than Bradford, Ryan, etc.

Go ahead and get the anointing oils out, because I'd rather have Bradford than Vick. Bradford is the goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to SSOG for moving Vick into the high 20s last week and into the teens BEFORE it was announced that he would be the starter the rest of the way. So high does Vick move in dynasty rankings now? Seems like he should be discussed in that tier behind the top 6-8.Let's also talk Keiland Williams. Seems like opportunity is coming, but I don't know enough to say whether he has the tale to succeed with it. Same problem with Max Hall.

Don't get carried away.Vick is 30 years old. He appears to have his speed back, but his days as an elite runner are likely limited. Probably 2-3 more tops.That means he'll have to make much of his FF living with his arm, which might prove difficult for a guy with mediocre passing ability. His QB rating in his last three full seasons as a starter:2006 - 75.72005 - 73.12004 - 78.1Vick has never been a good passer. He has always been a mediocre passer with elite running ability. I'm not sure that's a recipe for long term success when you're talking about a 30 year old. Vick's main value is in the short term. If his legs hold up, he could be a top 10 FF QB for another year or two. Maybe a little longer. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect much. I certainly wouldn't move him into the 8-10 range in my dynasty QB rankings. Guys like Bradford, Ryan, Sanchez, Stafford, and Freeman are much more likely to be startable 4 years from now.
Obviously a small sample size but his current QB rating is 105.5, his YPA is 7.9, and his completion % is 63.8%I'm not saying he will keep it up, but this is the best supporting cast he's ever played with and he may have matured as an NFL passer. In the 4 NFL seasons in which he was a full time starter in Atlanta, he found himself in a very different style of offense and he really hadn't reached his prime as a passer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Vick would be a nice player to pair with a Bradford/Freeman/Luck.However, I think the "what have you done for me lately" mindset might be in effect here. This past Sunday was one of the better passing games of Vick's career. Of course people are excited about him. What we have to remember is that one game could very easily be a mirage. Even in a friendly Eagles system, there's no guarantee that Vick won't struggle to consistently produce good results. He could come out next week and go 10/20 for 115 yards and 2 picks. He could be benched for Kolb at any time. It's not like he's a safe pick. He's extremely volatile right now. A good player to have. Not a good player to rely on.

I agree with this, and wouldn't be running out and selling the farm to acquire him or anything. His situation is one of the most unstable in the NFL, and he could lose his job for good with one bad game. I just think his situation and skillset are so unique that it provides a very intriguing possibility. I'm not betting on him to become a fixture for the next 2-3 years as a top 10 QB. However, I'm looking forward to seeing how this all plays out. Could be an amazing come back story given his talents and the 2nd chance he's being given right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of more importance, the entire receiving core gets a slight bump up, with Murphy, Zach Miller, and Schilens at the front of the line for the value bumps.

With DHB getting one good week, is the opportunity still going to be there? When is he going to get back? I have been assuming his window is closing quickly.
Schilens is still their best WR. He just has to stay on the field. This season is probably a lost cause for him, but I still believe he has very good long-term potential as a mid- to high-end WR2 in fantasy. Edited by kremenull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, am I insane?

I've never been a big fan of Darren McFadden but have always recognized the chance that he could explode. The pedigree is great, top 5 pick, crazy good production in college, and top line speed/explosiveness. I got scared off by the skinny legs and potential for injury (which hasn't gone away).

BUT

When I look at SSOG ranking I can't help but think he belongs in front of some of the guys on his list. For example, SSOG has the very good point in his player commentary comparing him to Knowshon Moreno. What about the last two weeks makes you think he should still be behind Moreno? Spiller has a similar pedigree but maybe even more questions about potential injury, bad situation, and usage. Plus he is older than McFadden.

In the little that I have seen of his highlights from this year he appears to have some of the same concerns (damn he looks tall and skinny). But he is actually making appropriate cuts/decisions and picking up very good yardage.

So again, am I insane? Or is it reasonable that I am considering McFadden as a top 20 dynasty RB?

Edited to add:

In fact of the people in front of him on SSOG ranking I would be hard pressed to say I prefer any of the following to McFadden:

Shonn Greene

Knowshon Moreno

CJ Spiller

Felix Jones

And could see an argument for putting him over Pierre Thomas

I don't think there is anyone behind him who I would even consider putting in front of him.

Edited by Q-Bert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, am I insane?I've never been a big fan of Darren McFadden but have always recognized the chance that he could explode. The pedigree is great, top 5 pick, crazy good production in college, and top line speed/explosiveness. I got scared off by the skinny legs and potential for injury (which hasn't gone away). BUTWhen I look at SSOG ranking I can't help but think he belongs in front of some of the guys on his list. For example, SSOG has the very good point in his player commentary comparing him to Knowshon Moreno. What about the last two weeks makes you think he should still be behind Moreno? Spiller has a similar pedigree but maybe even more questions about potential injury, bad situation, and usage. Plus he is older than McFadden. In the little that I have seen of his highlights from this year he appears to have some of the same concerns (damn he looks tall and skinny). But he is actually making appropriate cuts/decisions and picking up very good yardage. So again, am I insane? Or is it reasonable that I am considering McFadden as a top 20 dynasty RB?Edited to add:In fact of the people in front of him on SSOG ranking I would be hard pressed to say I prefer any of the following to McFadden:Shonn GreeneKnowshon MorenoCJ SpillerFelix JonesAnd could see an argument for putting him over Pierre ThomasI don't think there is anyone behind him who I would even consider putting in front of him.

I would put him above Jones and maybe Spiller and that is it. I don't alter my dynasty rankings much after 2 games. Greene, Moreno, and Jones all pass the eye test, as far as being able to carry the load in the NFL. As you said, McFadden is skinny and carries his weight high. The way the NFL is changing, you have to take RBBC threat very seriously. Assuming all 5 of the players we are talking about reach their potential and are equal NFL players, Moreno and Greene are the only two with little RBBC threat. They are two guys that a franchise would feel comfortable being about to wear a defense down and get consistent, tough yards. On the flip-side, Spiller, McFadden, and maybe Jones, would all need to be protected. They would need their number of carries monitored to keep them fresh. Because what they do best relies on them being fresh and electric, you need a back to spell them carries, wear down defenses, and get the short yards (redzone). Assuming Greene and Moreno reach their potential, you don't have those worries. To sum it all up, until McFadden shows that he can do what he has done for these 2 games, for a full season, I wouldn't put him over Knowshown or Greene. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put him above Jones and maybe Spiller and that is it. I don't alter my dynasty rankings much after 2 games. Greene, Moreno, and Jones all pass the eye test, as far as being able to carry the load in the NFL. As you said, McFadden is skinny and carries his weight high. The way the NFL is changing, you have to take RBBC threat very seriously. Assuming all 5 of the players we are talking about reach their potential and are equal NFL players, Moreno and Greene are the only two with little RBBC threat. They are two guys that a franchise would feel comfortable being about to wear a defense down and get consistent, tough yards. On the flip-side, Spiller, McFadden, and maybe Jones, would all need to be protected. They would need their number of carries monitored to keep them fresh. Because what they do best relies on them being fresh and electric, you need a back to spell them carries, wear down defenses, and get the short yards (redzone). Assuming Greene and Moreno reach their potential, you don't have those worries.

To sum it all up, until McFadden shows that he can do what he has done for these 2 games, for a full season, I wouldn't put him over Knowshown or Greene.

But that is the problem. Most of us don't want to wait for a full season. At this point he is younger than both those guys and at least in comparison to Moreno has been more productive. Greene looked good in the playoffs but he really hasn't proven anything either. I'm not saying I am hugely confident in McFadden. I just think that he has at least as much upside as any of the guys ranked near him and I'm starting to think he is more likely to attain that upside than those guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the dreaded RBBC changed the way you should draft in your dynasty start-ups? Has the fact that teams are able to replace their once heroic, workhorse back with multiple, cheaper replacements crippled the value of the running in all formats? Have the bigger, faster, more explosive athletes in the NFL today drastically shortened the shelf life RBs? Is drafting RB/RB dead?

My assertion is yes, definitely. It has created a huge gap between the elite RBs and the rest of the class. A gap so big that elite WRs should be should be valued more than any RB outside of the top 3. The NFL has picked up on this, drafting running backs often and late in the draft. It is time that the dynasty fantasy football world caught up.

Before stating my case, I would like to address the points that I see coming, most of which are valid.

-VORP: Value over replacement player has been the biggest reason to draft a RB over a WR. There are far fewer RBs worth playing every Sunday, than there are WRs. Thus, locking up runningback spots should be more important than locking up your WRs spots. It is a lot easier to lock up your WRs spots. You can find a playable WRs in the waiver wire week after week, even in bigger leagues. The same can not be said for RBs. I understand, appreciate, and take this into account. This is the primary reason why my theory applies to dynasty leagues.

-Consistency: RBs are more consistent than WRs. This is for a couple reasons. The biggest being that the RB relies on more touches. Because of that, the RBs number vary less on each touch. Most running backs can have a good day without many carries over 10 yards. Because a WR typically relies on 5-10 touches, having that cut down to 3-6 on a single week, will drastically cut their numbers. Wide receivers also rely much more on the big play. Because of this, their numbers will vary more, week to week, as by nature, the big play is much less consistent. Again, I understand, appreciate, and take this into account.

I am also aware that there are more reasons, such as % of redzone touches, ratio of productive RBs to WRs on a team, or even on the field on any given play, and so on.

Here is my reasoning:

WRs last longer: I won't go too much into this, as we all know this is basic information.

WRs are more talented, at their draft spots: My wording might be a bit tricky there. Let me go a bit more into this. I was part of a draft in which Pierre Thomas was drafted above Brandon Marshall. I think most of the owners in my league would have made the same pick, based on the format (r/r/w/w/f/f). This goes back to VORP. But I think most can agree that Brandon Marshall is much more talented than Pierre Thomas. A way that I look at it is like this, Brandon Marshall is Brandon Marshall. If he was traded tomorrow, he would still be a #1 WR. Pierre Thomas is "insert name of starting Saints RB". He is being drafted based on his opportunity and not his talent. Because of this, PT is much easier for the Saints to replace, making it more likely he will be replaced or have his role reduced. PT would not start on most NFL teams. If he did, it would only be as a 1A in a RBBC. Another example is Arian Foster. Arian Foster is being valued as a top 8-14 dynasty fantasy back. Opinions vary, but based on the drafting of Ben Tate, I think Houston agrees with me, Foster is an average NFL talent. I will use Foster in my next example, which is very closely related to talent level.

Threat of the RBBC: Arian Foster is the starting runningback of a top 5 offense in the NFL. Because of that, he has major value, and could score RB1 numbers this season and possibly into the future. But because Foster is not an all world talent, they threat of the RBBC is very prevalent and could happen as soon as next season. I used the following example in another thread: "Houston brings in a back to keep Foster fresh. It could be a new back or a healthy Ben Tate. Because there are good odds that the new back is close in talent level, the idea that Foster is the only back needing to be fresh is quickly irradiated. A move to a 60/40 split is made. That does not include the 3rd down work of a guy like Slaton." Arian Foster is no Brandon Marshall, but will almost certainly be drafted before him in most startups next year (24 YO RB1). Arian Foster is "insert name of starting Texans RB". If he is no longer the starting RB, he only is Arian Foster, who is an average NFL talent. That is only one of many scenarios. Foster is not good enough for Houston to pass on a RB they like in the draft. Every April the Foster (any average starting RB) owner has reason to worry. It makes sense for NFL franchises to place as little premium on the position as possible, as it is arguably, one of the easiest positions to fill, and offers the shortest shelf life. If an NFL team can find 2-3 good players to take the role of RB, you keep them all healthier, fresher, and less valuable on the market. It makes sense for an NFL team to do this, and that is why it is happening. Only special talents are beyond the threat of this happening.

Using my biggest, most recent, and most competitive league as an example, here are the RBs that were drafted before Larry Fitzgerald:

CJ

AP

MJD

Ray Rice

Michael Turner

Frank Gore

Rashard Mendenhal

Chris Wells

Jonathan Stewart

DeAngelo Williams

Steven Jackson

Ryan Matthews

In my opinion, the only players on this list that are more valuable than Larry, in a dynasty format are CJ, AP, MJD, and possibly Ray Rice.

Larry has averaged 1,200 yards and 10 touchdowns over his career (1,300/11.6 the past 3), to this point. The only players on the above list to average those numbers (give or take a bit), and NOT miss major time with injury are CJ, AP, MJD, and Frank Gore, and DeAngelo Williams. Due to Larry being a WR, he has as much gas left in the take as anyone on the list. I say this under the impression that they dreaded 30 yo RB mark is inching it's way to 29, then 28. (See Barber, Jacobs, and a few others) Yet WRs seem to be lasting as long as ever. Donald Driver, Derrick Mason, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Ochocinco and the list continues.

Thinking in dynasty terms, you are either gambling on an unproven player, taking a back towards the end of his career, or are lucky enough to get one of the top 3, young RBs in the NFL. Those are the three scenarios in which you would draft a RB over a WR, the last of which is the only that I deem valid.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put him above Jones and maybe Spiller and that is it. I don't alter my dynasty rankings much after 2 games. Greene, Moreno, and Jones all pass the eye test, as far as being able to carry the load in the NFL. As you said, McFadden is skinny and carries his weight high. The way the NFL is changing, you have to take RBBC threat very seriously. Assuming all 5 of the players we are talking about reach their potential and are equal NFL players, Moreno and Greene are the only two with little RBBC threat. They are two guys that a franchise would feel comfortable being about to wear a defense down and get consistent, tough yards. On the flip-side, Spiller, McFadden, and maybe Jones, would all need to be protected. They would need their number of carries monitored to keep them fresh. Because what they do best relies on them being fresh and electric, you need a back to spell them carries, wear down defenses, and get the short yards (redzone). Assuming Greene and Moreno reach their potential, you don't have those worries.

To sum it all up, until McFadden shows that he can do what he has done for these 2 games, for a full season, I wouldn't put him over Knowshown or Greene.

But that is the problem. Most of us don't want to wait for a full season. At this point he is younger than both those guys and at least in comparison to Moreno has been more productive. Greene looked good in the playoffs but he really hasn't proven anything either. I'm not saying I am hugely confident in McFadden. I just think that he has at least as much upside as any of the guys ranked near him and I'm starting to think he is more likely to attain that upside than those guys.
I do see your point. But how is McFadden's two weeks more valuable than Greene's playoff performances? How are they any more valid than Moreno's top two weeks?

Don't get me wrong, all three are risky. But I think McFadden's ceiling is much lower than the other two. I think the other 2 can be the main guy. I think McFadden (if the Raiders are smart) is destine to be a RBBC piece, even if he reaches his potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not buying the McFadden hype. I've talked at length about how virtually any RB on an NFL roster can put up a handful of good games if you give him 20+ touches. That certainly applies to former top 10 picks. Don't let the last two weeks fool you into thinking that McFadden is a stone lock to maintain these levels of production. I'd argue that he's still a below average NFL starter whose main value is derived from a friendly situation. The Raiders have one of the bottom 5 RB corps in the NFL, meaning they have no other viable options. McFadden might well have the best season of his career this year, but I'd be looking to move him now if I could get good value.

Whether or not he should be ranked ahead of Moreno/Felix/Greene/Spiller is another question. I guess he might be a good bet to outscore that crew this season, so if that's your main focus then you could make that deal. Long term I think Spiller is a better version of the same player. Felix has already proven to be a very good back. It's his situation that's hurting his value. Greene is a little less dynamic than these guys, but he's the best power runner of this gang and he still figures to have a significant role going forward for the Jets. His current struggles look more like the result of LT's resurgence and less like the result of Greene being a terrible back. How long do you expect LT to play at a high level and stay healthy? I'm not too high on Moreno, but I like him more than McFadden.

The fact that you're considering McFadden over Felix/Spiller/Greene just reeks of the "what have you done for me lately" mindset. The latter three have begun their seasons in brutal fashion thanks largely to situational factors. Massively downgrading them in dynasty leagues would be a kneejerk reaction. I'm wary of kneejerk reactions in dynasty leagues. Maybe you're right and DMC will have a better career than one or more of those guys, but I'd caution you to slow down and question whether or not you're letting two games skew your outlook more than you should be. What McFadden is doing right now is no different than what Felix/Greene did in the playoffs and what Spiller is expected to eventually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though i have always been a fan of Mcfadden, the thing that suprises me is he is averaging 5 YPC without breaking a long run. He is doing the things that most people thought he couldnt, running with power, balance, and finishing runs. Considering his age and his circumstanes(injuries, QB, etc.) i am not going to hold the past two years against him too much. Even though i only have him at 21 now, i could see Mcfadden being a top 10-15 dynasty back by season end. My biggest concern at this point is Michael Bush, and how the Raiders will use him when he gets back. Although if DMac keeps playing the way he has, it might no matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put him above Jones and maybe Spiller and that is it. I don't alter my dynasty rankings much after 2 games. Greene, Moreno, and Jones all pass the eye test, as far as being able to carry the load in the NFL. As you said, McFadden is skinny and carries his weight high. The way the NFL is changing, you have to take RBBC threat very seriously. Assuming all 5 of the players we are talking about reach their potential and are equal NFL players, Moreno and Greene are the only two with little RBBC threat. They are two guys that a franchise would feel comfortable being about to wear a defense down and get consistent, tough yards. On the flip-side, Spiller, McFadden, and maybe Jones, would all need to be protected. They would need their number of carries monitored to keep them fresh. Because what they do best relies on them being fresh and electric, you need a back to spell them carries, wear down defenses, and get the short yards (redzone). Assuming Greene and Moreno reach their potential, you don't have those worries.

To sum it all up, until McFadden shows that he can do what he has done for these 2 games, for a full season, I wouldn't put him over Knowshown or Greene.

But that is the problem. Most of us don't want to wait for a full season. At this point he is younger than both those guys and at least in comparison to Moreno has been more productive. Greene looked good in the playoffs but he really hasn't proven anything either. I'm not saying I am hugely confident in McFadden. I just think that he has at least as much upside as any of the guys ranked near him and I'm starting to think he is more likely to attain that upside than those guys.
I do see your point. But how is McFadden's two weeks more valuable than Greene's playoff performances? How are they any more valid than Moreno's top two weeks?

Don't get me wrong, all three are risky. But I think McFadden's ceiling is much lower than the other two. I think the other 2 can be the main guy. I think McFadden (if the Raiders are smart) is destine to be a RBBC piece, even if he reaches his potential.

If Mcfadden reaches his potential(a top 5 pick), why would the Raiders be smart to use him in a RBBC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put him above Jones and maybe Spiller and that is it. I don't alter my dynasty rankings much after 2 games. Greene, Moreno, and Jones all pass the eye test, as far as being able to carry the load in the NFL. As you said, McFadden is skinny and carries his weight high. The way the NFL is changing, you have to take RBBC threat very seriously. Assuming all 5 of the players we are talking about reach their potential and are equal NFL players, Moreno and Greene are the only two with little RBBC threat. They are two guys that a franchise would feel comfortable being about to wear a defense down and get consistent, tough yards. On the flip-side, Spiller, McFadden, and maybe Jones, would all need to be protected. They would need their number of carries monitored to keep them fresh. Because what they do best relies on them being fresh and electric, you need a back to spell them carries, wear down defenses, and get the short yards (redzone). Assuming Greene and Moreno reach their potential, you don't have those worries.

To sum it all up, until McFadden shows that he can do what he has done for these 2 games, for a full season, I wouldn't put him over Knowshown or Greene.

But that is the problem. Most of us don't want to wait for a full season. At this point he is younger than both those guys and at least in comparison to Moreno has been more productive. Greene looked good in the playoffs but he really hasn't proven anything either. I'm not saying I am hugely confident in McFadden. I just think that he has at least as much upside as any of the guys ranked near him and I'm starting to think he is more likely to attain that upside than those guys.
I do see your point. But how is McFadden's two weeks more valuable than Greene's playoff performances? How are they any more valid than Moreno's top two weeks?

Don't get me wrong, all three are risky. But I think McFadden's ceiling is much lower than the other two. I think the other 2 can be the main guy. I think McFadden (if the Raiders are smart) is destine to be a RBBC piece, even if he reaches his potential.

If Mcfadden reaches his potential(a top 5 pick), why would the Raiders be smart to use him in a RBBC?
To keep him fresh, healthy, and use him in the roles that fit him best. He is better suited for a Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, Reggie Bush type role than a Steven Jackson role, in my opinion.

The same reason Dallas hasn't made Felix the starter, the same reason ATL doesn't start Norwood, KC doesn't start Charles, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been able to watch McFadden yet, but the reports from a few respected members have been glowing. I never really cared for him coming out of Arkansas, but I still would have taken him over S Greene. Greene has average speed at best, and his power is vastly overrated. He's not a very good receiver, and has average to good vision. Any decent RB could gain 4 ypc behind the Jets line. IMO, McFadden has way more upside than Greene.

Edited by GreatLakesMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would put him above Jones and maybe Spiller and that is it. I don't alter my dynasty rankings much after 2 games. Greene, Moreno, and Jones all pass the eye test, as far as being able to carry the load in the NFL. As you said, McFadden is skinny and carries his weight high. The way the NFL is changing, you have to take RBBC threat very seriously. Assuming all 5 of the players we are talking about reach their potential and are equal NFL players, Moreno and Greene are the only two with little RBBC threat. They are two guys that a franchise would feel comfortable being about to wear a defense down and get consistent, tough yards. On the flip-side, Spiller, McFadden, and maybe Jones, would all need to be protected. They would need their number of carries monitored to keep them fresh. Because what they do best relies on them being fresh and electric, you need a back to spell them carries, wear down defenses, and get the short yards (redzone). Assuming Greene and Moreno reach their potential, you don't have those worries.

To sum it all up, until McFadden shows that he can do what he has done for these 2 games, for a full season, I wouldn't put him over Knowshown or Greene.

But that is the problem. Most of us don't want to wait for a full season. At this point he is younger than both those guys and at least in comparison to Moreno has been more productive. Greene looked good in the playoffs but he really hasn't proven anything either. I'm not saying I am hugely confident in McFadden. I just think that he has at least as much upside as any of the guys ranked near him and I'm starting to think he is more likely to attain that upside than those guys.
I do see your point. But how is McFadden's two weeks more valuable than Greene's playoff performances? How are they any more valid than Moreno's top two weeks?

Don't get me wrong, all three are risky. But I think McFadden's ceiling is much lower than the other two. I think the other 2 can be the main guy. I think McFadden (if the Raiders are smart) is destine to be a RBBC piece, even if he reaches his potential.

If Mcfadden reaches his potential(a top 5 pick), why would the Raiders be smart to use him in a RBBC?
To keep him fresh, healthy, and use him in the roles that fit him best. He is better suited for a Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, Reggie Bush type role than a Steven Jackson role, in my opinion.

The same reason Dallas hasn't made Felix the starter, the same reason ATL doesn't start Norwood, KC doesn't start Charles, and so on.

What makes him similar to those players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not buying the McFadden hype. I've talked at length about how virtually any RB on an NFL roster can put up a handful of good games if you give him 20+ touches. That certainly applies to former top 10 picks. Don't let the last two weeks fool you into thinking that McFadden is a stone lock to maintain these levels of production. I'd argue that he's still a below average NFL starter whose main value is derived from a friendly situation. The Raiders have one of the bottom 5 RB corps in the NFL, meaning they have no other viable options. McFadden might well have the best season of his career this year, but I'd be looking to move him now if I could get good value.Whether or not he should be ranked ahead of Moreno/Felix/Greene/Spiller is another question. I guess he might be a good bet to outscore that crew this season, so if that's your main focus then you could make that deal. Long term I think Spiller is a better version of the same player. Felix has already proven to be a very good back. It's his situation that's hurting his value. Greene is a little less dynamic than these guys, but he's the best power runner of this gang and he still figures to have a significant role going forward for the Jets. His current struggles look more like the result of LT's resurgence and less like the result of Greene being a terrible back. How long do you expect LT to play at a high level and stay healthy? I'm not too high on Moreno, but I like him more than McFadden.The fact that you're considering McFadden over Felix/Spiller/Greene just reeks of the "what have you done for me lately" mindset. The latter three have begun their seasons in brutal fashion thanks largely to situational factors. Massively downgrading them in dynasty leagues would be a kneejerk reaction. I'm wary of kneejerk reactions in dynasty leagues. Maybe you're right and DMC will have a better career than one or more of those guys, but I'd caution you to slow down and question whether or not you're letting two games skew your outlook more than you should be. What McFadden is doing right now is no different than what Felix/Greene did in the playoffs and what Spiller is expected to eventually do.

I guess my point is not that I think McFadden is some superstar lock top 5 guy. I just think it may be possible that he isn't some bust crap unrosterable guy. I think what is really going on is that once you get out of the top 8-10 guys there just are so many question marks about everybody who is left. Especially when dealing with other guys who I never really liked that much to begin with. I think Felix Jones has all the talent in the world and sure looks the part of an NFL RB. But Dallas really goes out of their way to make sure he doesn't get very many carries. That could be because they don't think he can handle it or it could be that they just also like the other guys on their roster.Greene looks like just a guy to me. I don't see anything particularly special about him other than his situation. And, even with that situation he isn't producing. I know, small sample size and all, I just have been really surprised that he hasn't relagated LT to third down duties. Moreno is a guy who just seems barely above average. And like SSOG loves to point out he has more carries with a worse average than McFadden. And he's older.I guess when it comes right down to it, arguing over whether McFadden should be 23 or 20 really isn't a big deal. I just was ready to bury him in the preseason before Bush got hurt and have been surprised by how well he has played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mcfadden reaches his potential(a top 5 pick), why would the Raiders be smart to use him in a RBBC?

To keep him fresh, healthy, and use him in the roles that fit him best. He is better suited for a Felix Jones, Jamaal Charles, Reggie Bush type role than a Steven Jackson role, in my opinion.The same reason Dallas hasn't made Felix the starter, the same reason ATL doesn't start Norwood, KC doesn't start Charles, and so on.
What makes him similar to those players?
:confused: I don't think he is. Felix looks like he should be an everydown back. I am amazed that he hasn't taken over that job.I can see comparing Charles and Norwood based on body type, but Charles plays at a higher level than Norwood ever has. Norwood was always about hitting a crease and just running like hell. Charles has much better moves and vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes him similar to those players?

Skill set, home-run ability, body type - most importantly, the fact that I feel he is better suited as a change of pace back. He is not going to be the guy to carry the ball 20-25 times and wear down a defense, season after season. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been able to watch McFadden yet, but the reports from a few respected members have been glowing. I never really cared for him coming out of Arkansas, but I still would have taken him over S Greene. Greene has average speed at best, and his power is vastly overrated. He's not a very good receiver, and has average to good vision. Any decent RB could gain 4 ypc behind the Jets line. IMO, McFadden has way more upside than Greene.

You would have taken him over Greene in a startup draft this past year? I doubt that. Their ADPs were worlds apart. McFadden couldn't beat out Michael Bush and had proven nothing. Greene Looked like a monster, when he got his shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvin = bust ? Sure looking like it big time. Kid having all kinds of problems. Looks like he was ranked way too high. How was this kid ranked over Nicks earlier this year on this site ? Head scratcher.

Is now the time to unload him before he ends up having zero value left or hold tight and possibly sink with the ship ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvin = bust ? Sure looking like it big time. Kid having all kinds of problems. Looks like he was ranked way too high. How was this kid ranked over Nicks earlier this year on this site ? Head scratcher.Is now the time to unload him before he ends up having zero value left or hold tight and possibly sink with the ship ?

The hip injury is an added concern. Favre is not playing well and Percy is in the process of learning a new position. Childress could be finding more creative ways to use him however. I wouldn't give up on him now as you wouldn't get value for him given the circumstances anyway. Sit tight, be patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes him similar to those players?

Skill set, home-run ability, body type - most importantly, the fact that I feel he is better suited as a change of pace back. He is not going to be the guy to carry the ball 20-25 times and wear down a defense, season after season.

I dont know, Mcfadden looked pretty good doing exaclty that over the last two weeks.

In all honesty, i am not a big believer in the RBBC. I think most of these "smaller" backs could handle 18-20+ tocuhes a game. I just think some teams/coaches get carried away with the RBBC. A RB needs to get into the flow of a game, if you keep taking him in and out, that makes it tough to do. I understand that RB is a brutal postion to play, and everyone needs the occasional breather, but these full blown RBBC's are not the way to go...IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes him similar to those players?

Skill set, home-run ability, body type - most importantly, the fact that I feel he is better suited as a change of pace back. He is not going to be the guy to carry the ball 20-25 times and wear down a defense, season after season.

I dont know, Mcfadden looked pretty good doing exaclty that over the last two weeks.

In all honesty, i am not a big believer in the RBBC. I think most of these "smaller" backs could handle 18-20+ tocuhes a game. I just think some teams/coaches get carried away with the RBBC. A RB needs to get into the flow of a game, if you keep taking him in and out, that makes it tough to do. I understand that RB is a brutal postion to play, and everyone needs the occasional breather, but these full blown RBBC's are not the way to go...IMO.

Two weeks, due to an injury.

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.