Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

That Owens/Gates deal shocks me. A pair of top 4 rookie picks for Moss shocks me considering I couldn't trade Roddy White for the 1.01 pick this season in several PPR leagues. I just can't imagine that these are typical trades made for a 33-35 year old receiver. I strongly disagree that this type of value can still be *easily* found. It's the exception to the norm from my vantage point.

For what you can get for a guy like Wayne (31) right now, it isn't worth trading him. The window is past on his top value and his production is MUCH more valuable. If you own him, you're better off holding him until he retires and get whatever he has left. Do you really want to trade Wayne for a guy like Steve Smith (NYG), Harvin, Holmes, Nicks? The comparable value of a 31+ receiver are not going to be your stud caliber guys save Nicks (depending on how you feel about his ceiling). Yea, it's value, but not the guys who are likely to be perenial top 10 recievers.

You're also assuming that these guys play until 34-35, I'm not sure all of these "top" guys will with the turnover in the NFL. There are very view that last that long at high production.

Hey, you're the guy who provided the list of receiver comps in your study. Every single receiver you listed provided starter-caliber production at age 34 except for Torry Holt. 6 of the 8 receivers who have played their age 34 season already were top 25, a seventh finished 30th, and then there was Holt, whose career has been derailed by degenerative knee injuries.

Okay, maybe "easy" wasn't the right word to describe getting good value for Moss or Owens, maybe "possible" is a much better word. Lots of people spent a lot of time trying to lowball me for those two. I held firm and said "this is where I've got them ranked, this is what I think they'll produce going forward, don't bother making an offer until you're willing to meet that price". Eventually, a receiver gets hot or an owner gets needy and you can get something done. Wayne's value might be down right now, but last year he was 31 and people were berating me for DARING to rank someone other than Reggie Wayne as my #5 dynasty WR, just because Wayne was playing hot. If he plays hot this year, people will forget all about his age again.

Do you have a link to that result? I just ran a quick and dirty analysis (using these numbers), and over the past 5 years 59% of WR VBD has been scored by guys under age 29, versus only 31% scored by guys over 29. Here's the distribution (with age and total VBD scored at that age; total VBD was 6028):

21 20

22 110

23 398

24 499

25 747

26 585

27 539

28 678

29 589

30 481

31 365

32 176

33 231

34 366

35 182

36 62

There's a long peak from 25-29, gradual falloff on each end to 23 and 31, and decent production from age 32 till 34 or 35.

I also looked up the top 100 WR receiving seasons of the past 20 years (measured by receiving yards). 63 of those seasons happened before age 29 and only 23 happened after age 29. That distribution has about the same pattern with a 25-29 peak and gradual falloff at each end, but it's even less favorable to receivers in their 30s. Here's the distribution (with age and number of seasons at that age in the top 100):

21 1

22 2

23 8

24 4

25 11

26 11

27 11

28 15

29 14

30 8

31 5

32 4

33 3

34 2

35 1

Neither of these analyses track individual WRs over the course of their career, which would be harder for me to do.

Those numbers are heavily skewed by the unspecial guys on the list (as well as partly by the young guys who haven't played their age 31+ seasons, since it seems to me that the quality of receiving in the NFL is on the rise). I was basing my claim off of the list of 13 WRs that Patoons provided. Those WRs represented the best of the best. Those 13 WRs scored 2479 total VBD from age 25-28 and 2467 VBD from age 29-32... and that second figure doesn't yet include Smiff's 31 or 32 seasons, Ocho's 32 season, or Wayne's 32 season. I think it's a safe bet that in the 13-receiver sample that Patoons himself provided to make his point, the WRs will have accrued significantly more VBD after age 29 than they did before.

Wouldn't this support my position?

Trade guys around 29 and buy the undervalued older top receiver after age 29, or in other words, cash in on value (production or perceived value) when it's at it's height?

Your position is that you should be getting rid of receivers at 29, not that you should be acquiring them at 29. As a result, you're missing out on their post-29 production, which is greater than the pre-29 production you already cashed in on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my main dynasty I just don't think I'd be able to get a WR over 30 at a bargain price, unless the owner was in fire sale mode.What have you seen Ocho go for this year? Who else would you be targeting right now with this strategy?

Ocho, Wayne, Santana Moss specifically. Even Steve Smith (CAR). Hines Ward and Donald Driver as well, but they'll come much cheaper. Re: Steve Smith - he's being ranked top 10, but his trade value sure isn't at that spot right now. No one wants to touch him for some reason (even before the injury last week).I've seen Ocho Cinco go for Johnny Knox this year (offseason) and also for Donald Brown (offseason). Obviously, only 2 leagues, but he's being ranked around the likes of Percy Harvin, Dewayne Bowe, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't this support my position? Trade guys around 29 and buy the undervalued older top receiver after age 29, or in other words, cash in on value (production or perceived value) when it's at it's height?

Your position is that you should be getting rid of receivers at 29, not that you should be acquiring them at 29. As a result, you're missing out on their post-29 production, which is greater than the pre-29 production you already cashed in on.
But my position is to sell before 29 and buy after 30, which would align our positions (as stated in my blog post). Receivers 30 years old+ become VBD after 30 (atleast from my numbers - if you have different numbers - please share). Why hold them when this happens when there's a one year window of opportunity to gain value?Also, the reason I supplied top receivers in my analysis is because those are the only guys that would produce any kind of meaningful result based on consistent top performance and years in the league. Otherwise the result would be extremely volatile and unclear. In my opinion, the sampling based on these # of WRs supports even further that you should deal at 29 years old since there are very few who play for a large number of years after that. That's a topic for another day though.

Those numbers are heavily skewed by the unspecial guys on the list (as well as partly by the young guys who haven't played their age 31+ seasons, since it seems to me that the quality of receiving in the NFL is on the rise). I was basing my claim off of the list of 13 WRs that Patoons provided. Those WRs represented the best of the best. Those 13 WRs scored 2479 total VBD from age 25-28 and 2467 VBD from age 29-32... and that second figure doesn't yet include Smiff's 31 or 32 seasons, Ocho's 32 season, or Wayne's 32 season. I think it's a safe bet that in the 13-receiver sample that Patoons himself provided to make his point, the WRs will have accrued significantly more VBD after age 29 than they did before.

This is exactly my point, though you miss out on the 1 year drop in value if you hold the receiver from 29 - 30. I strongly encourage buying "older" receivers after they turn 30-31. Edited by Patoons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those numbers are heavily skewed by the unspecial guys on the list (as well as partly by the young guys who haven't played their age 31+ seasons, since it seems to me that the quality of receiving in the NFL is on the rise). I was basing my claim off of the list of 13 WRs that Patoons provided. Those WRs represented the best of the best. Those 13 WRs scored 2479 total VBD from age 25-28 and 2467 VBD from age 29-32... and that second figure doesn't yet include Smiff's 31 or 32 seasons, Ocho's 32 season, or Wayne's 32 season. I think it's a safe bet that in the 13-receiver sample that Patoons himself provided to make his point, the WRs will have accrued significantly more VBD after age 29 than they did before.

I think that Patoons' list was chosen partly for longevity, so that he could see how the perceived value of guys who continued to play well into their 30s dropped over time. If you were just looking at players who were highly valued before their age 29 season, then you'd include guys like Antonio Freeman, Keyshawn Johnson, and Amani Toomer rather than Driver and Mason. But seeing Toomer's value fall off a cliff like a running back wouldn't have told you anything interesting, so to keep the study manageable players like him got left out.A lot of the receivers who have had success into their 30s have been late bloomers who didn't do much before age 27 - look at Jimmy & Rod, along with Mason & Driver. Their success doesn't tell us much about the sell at 29 strategy, since they aren't the guys you'd be selling high on. Then there are the Rice/Moss/Owens/Bruce types who are just ridiculously good, which suggests that you shouldn't try to sell the very best receivers at age 29. But there aren't many of them. The interesting question is whether you can distinguish the Hines Wards from the Amani Toomers, and what you should do if you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30. So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout. I love that you brought this up btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!

FF guru and Monty Python enthusiast!

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point, though you miss out on the 1 year drop in value if you hold the receiver from 29 - 30. I strongly encourage buying "older" receivers after they turn 30-31.

I don't know, you know how I feel of the "stock market mentality". Let's say I sell Andre Johnson today. Next year, I might be able to buy another older receiver... but there's no guarantee that the older receiver I can buy is Andre Johnson. There's no guarantee that the guy I sold him to is one of the owners that panics at the big 30 next to his name and not one of the owners who, like me, knows that great receivers age like fine wine. Sure, I could sell Andre and get myself an Ochocinco... but I don't want an Ochocinco. Even at his peak, Ochocinco had nothing on Andre Johnson. Andre Johnson is more Randy Moss/Terrell Owens and Ochocinco is more Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce. Great receivers, sure, but not Moss/Owens types. So, if I have a Moss/Owens type today, why on earth should I sell him while he's right in the middle of his prime so that I could try to land a different Moss/Owens type cheaper somewhere down the road. I mean, the goal is to get yourself a real, prime, Grade A difference maker, so why let one go once you've got him?

The thing about perceived value is that it only matters if you trade a player. If you never trade a player, the only value that ever matters is actual value. Personally, I'd rather just hold on to an Andre Johnson until his actual value starts drying up rather than trying to play the market with his perceived value, especially because, as I already mentioned, there's no guarantee that the market behaves tomorrow the same way that it behaved yesterday. As Randy Moss, Chad Ochocinco, Steve Smith, Hines Ward, and Donald Driver continue producing well into their 30s, I expect people to re-evaluate their player valuations. You already mentioned that 30 year old WRs are good targets so it seems that you agree with me that a 29+ year old WR's actual value remains sky high... your entire strategy is just based on trying to out-maneuver the market with regards to perceived value. If the market changes, then you're left out on the cold. You become the guy who sold Andre Johnson when he had 5 more top-10 seasons left in the tank and then couldn't manage to buy him back again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already mentioned that 30 year old WRs are good targets so it seems that you agree with me that a 29+ year old WR's actual value remains sky high... your entire strategy is just based on trying to out-maneuver the market with regards to perceived value. If the market changes, then you're left out on the cold. You become the guy who sold Andre Johnson when he had 5 more top-10 seasons left in the tank and then couldn't manage to buy him back again.

I'd be ok in taking my chances considering it hasn't changed in the last 10 years. With people's obsession with the young/unknown, it's very difficult seeing this change.

Regardless, there are two ways to go here and they are viable options assuming you execute both effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already mentioned that 30 year old WRs are good targets so it seems that you agree with me that a 29+ year old WR's actual value remains sky high... your entire strategy is just based on trying to out-maneuver the market with regards to perceived value. If the market changes, then you're left out on the cold. You become the guy who sold Andre Johnson when he had 5 more top-10 seasons left in the tank and then couldn't manage to buy him back again.

I'd be ok in taking my chances considering it hasn't changed in the last 10 years. With people's obsession with the young/unknown, it's very difficult seeing this change.

Regardless, there are two ways to go here and they are viable options assuming you execute both effectively.

Have you seen this work? Like SSOG, I don't think it is a good idea. I theory, I get it. In a vacuum, in makes some sense. But have you seen it work?

The reason I ask is this: I get the idea of recycling your team to keep it young and relevant. But I don't see it work very often. In a vacuum, I understand the logic behind trading a top 5 WR for a top 15 WR and a draft pick. But I don't see it pay off.

My theory is this, it is just as easy to recycle your team with older players whose value has fallen off a lot more than their production. It is a lot easier to trade for guys like LT, Thomas Jones, Donald Driver, Ochocinco, and so on. Every year you get a first round draft pick - a renewable asset. Every year there are teams that simply aren't in the hunt. Every those owners are moving their older talent to teams competing. Why doesn't it make sense to continually move your picks for proven talent? That proven talent may only last 3 years, on average. But you getting a huge discount on production, even it if short lived.

For example, how many 1st round picks would it take to get Megatron right now? Assuming they are mid to late picks, I would say 4 or 5? Now lets say Megatron has 10 years left, and top 10 production in each of those years. Is he any more valuable than top 10 WR that you can get for 1 first round pick, but who only lasts 3 years (32-33 year old)? If you did this every 3 years (trade a pick for older talent), you would have 12 years of top 10 production for 4 first rounders, as apposed to 10 years from Megetron. Now the number could change and there are plenty of variables. But I think my point is pretty understandable. I am not actually advocating that you trade your 1st rounder for 30 year old players every year. Not at all. I am just pointing out that you don't need to constantly keep your team young, to constantly compete, even in 5-10 year spans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen this work? Like SSOG, I don't think it is a good idea. I theory, I get it. In a vacuum, in makes some sense. But have you seen it work?The reason I ask is this: I get the idea of recycling your team to keep it young and relevant. But I don't see it work very often. In a vacuum, I understand the logic behind trading a top 5 WR for a top 15 WR and a draft pick. But I don't see it pay off.

Yes - I do this and it's worked in the past. Does it always work? No, but like several other dynasty strategies, it does work.ETA: I never before traded for guys back again at the age of 31... I usually waited another year or so, but with this study, I'm probably going to try and move that up. Edited by Patoons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen this work? Like SSOG, I don't think it is a good idea. I theory, I get it. In a vacuum, in makes some sense. But have you seen it work?The reason I ask is this: I get the idea of recycling your team to keep it young and relevant. But I don't see it work very often. In a vacuum, I understand the logic behind trading a top 5 WR for a top 15 WR and a draft pick. But I don't see it pay off.

Yes - I do this and it's worked in the past. Does it always work? No, but like several other dynasty strategies, it does work.ETA: I never before traded for guys back again at the age of 31... I usually waited another year or so, but with this study, I'm probably going to try and move that up.
To be honest, I'm going to be shocked if you can pull it off in a real dynasty league. If you trade Andre Johnson for 3 first round picks, and then a year later go and try to trade 2 first round picks for him, even if his market value has fallen I think the other guy is going to laugh in your face because what you're offering is so much lower than what you were asking for a year ago. The other guy will realize instantly that you're trying to play him, and nobody likes getting played. If an owner thinks he's getting played, he'll dig his heels in and refuse to deal.I also think that using startup ADP as a proxy for market value in an established dynasty is a poor way to go. In my experience, it's much easier to get an older player late in a startup than it is to get one cheap in an established league. The reason why is because in an established league, most of the older players are already owned by the people who value the older players highly (and therefore are going to ask for much more than market value). Also, in an established league, a lot of those older players are on contenders who won't weaken their chances of winning this year for any amount of prospects or future firsts or "market value". In a startup I did this offseason, I got Ochocinco as the 24th WR off the board. In my established league, if I approached the Ochocinco owner and offered him WR24 value for Ocho, he'd scoff in my face. And I wouldn't blame him- in my startup league, if you approached me and offered me WR24 value for Ocho, I'd scoff in your face, too. In both cases, Ocho has landed on the team of the guy who is highest on him, which means "market value" really loses all meaning if you're looking to acquire him. I've got him 16th in my rankings. If you want him, you have to pay WR16 price. I don't care if that's what "market value" is for him or not, that's just what he's going to cost.I just think the guy who is going to trade big for Andre Johnson at 29 is NOT the guy who is going to overreact and sell low on him at 30. He's the guy who is going to laugh in your face when you go back with your hat in your hand and try to buy low a year from now, only to realize that you just traded away the better half of Johnson's career and now have no chance to get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not overreacting to Week 1.I argued he was no better than a WR2 who fluked into an insane number of TDs last year and wasn't likely to repeat it. Willing to be wrong, but standing by it for now.

So far so good for Desean.The big plays still seem to be coming, plus he is being targeted more than the last two years. Alot of people not giving this guy enough credit, you dont have to be big to be talented. Edited by Go deep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not overreacting to Week 1.I argued he was no better than a WR2 who fluked into an insane number of TDs last year and wasn't likely to repeat it. Willing to be wrong, but standing by it for now.

So far so good for Desean.The big plays still seem to be coming, plus he is being targeted more than the last two years. Alot of people not giving this guy enough credit, you dont have to be big to be talented.
I was never concerned with his talent, but I was clearly wrong (so far) about Vick's impact. From what I've seen, Vick is still looking downfield when he scrambles much more than he has in the past, even though he does take off at times. I'm honestly surprised, I expected Maclin to be better as a first read and then DeSean to struggle, but it looks like Vick is having a similar effect on DeSean as VY has with CJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not overreacting to Week 1.

I argued he was no better than a WR2 who fluked into an insane number of TDs last year and wasn't likely to repeat it. Willing to be wrong, but standing by it for now.

So far so good for Desean.

The big plays still seem to be coming, plus he is being targeted more than the last two years.

Alot of people not giving this guy enough credit, you dont have to be big to be talented.

I was never concerned with his talent, but I was clearly wrong (so far) about Vick's impact. From what I've seen, Vick is still looking downfield when he scrambles much more than he has in the past, even though he does take off at times.

I'm honestly surprised, I expected Maclin to be better as a first read and then DeSean to struggle, but it looks like Vick is having a similar effect on DeSean as VY has with CJ.

Im not sure how much Vick has to do with it, DJax was doing the same thing last year with Mcnabb and Kolb.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think Maclin would be the first read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not overreacting to Week 1.

I argued he was no better than a WR2 who fluked into an insane number of TDs last year and wasn't likely to repeat it. Willing to be wrong, but standing by it for now.

So far so good for Desean.

The big plays still seem to be coming, plus he is being targeted more than the last two years.

Alot of people not giving this guy enough credit, you dont have to be big to be talented.

I was never concerned with his talent, but I was clearly wrong (so far) about Vick's impact. From what I've seen, Vick is still looking downfield when he scrambles much more than he has in the past, even though he does take off at times.

I'm honestly surprised, I expected Maclin to be better as a first read and then DeSean to struggle, but it looks like Vick is having a similar effect on DeSean as VY has with CJ.

Im not sure how much Vick has to do with it, DJax was doing the same thing last year with Mcnabb and Kolb.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think Maclin would be the first read?

As I said before - McNabb has always been one of the best at keeping a play alive, and Kolb is also more of a pocket paser even though I think his mobility is underrated. While Vick is obviously equally able to keep a play alive with his legs, he tends to get upfield if his first read or two isn't open immediately.

On many of DeSean's long TDs, he's wide open - and I think a lot of that comes from the fact that he's nearly impossible to cover for more than a few seconds. DeSean create space with his speed and quickness, but he's easier to jam at the line (even if he'll eventually get open). Meanwhile, Maclin and Celek both have a little more size and can create space on short slants.

Vick is not known for his accuracy, and my concern is that he would look for the bigger targets initially, and would take off before a double-teamed DeSean gets open deep. I know it's not a great comparison because ATL didn't have a DeSean back then, but look at the *type* of receivers who Vick targeted a lot in the past: Alge Crumpler and Brian Finneran.

Edited by corpcow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who went all-in with Shonn Greene, what are you thinking now?

As I've never been a believer in him as nothing more than a Rudi Johnson type (best case), it seems like he isn't running with the same decisiveness that he exhibited late last season. I was almost willing to say that I was wrong on my initial evaluation of him, but from what I'm seeing so far this season, he's not the least bit impressive. And in PPR leagues, he's looking pretty worthless going forward from my standpoint.

Greene and LT are running behind the same line yet obtaining far different results. Being easily outclassed by a 30-year old RB doesn't bode well for a supposed young stud. If you cut bait now, what do you think you can get? Donald Brown? Felix? McCoy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who went all-in with Shonn Greene, what are you thinking now? As I've never been a believer in him as nothing more than a Rudi Johnson type (best case), it seems like he isn't running with the same decisiveness that he exhibited late last season. I was almost willing to say that I was wrong on my initial evaluation of him, but from what I'm seeing so far this season, he's not the least bit impressive. And in PPR leagues, he's looking pretty worthless going forward from my standpoint. Greene and LT are running behind the same line yet obtaining far different results. Being easily outclassed by a 30-year old RB doesn't bode well for a supposed young stud. If you cut bait now, what do you think you can get? Donald Brown? Felix? McCoy?

On that note, LeSean McCoy looks like a completely different runner to me this year. Running with much more authority and decisiveness, the opposite of Greene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30. So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout. I love that you brought this up btw.
I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload. I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Mcfadden is for real. Im not sure what excuses the haters can come up with now, but he looks fantastic.

As long as he stays healthy, he is looking good. The OL is opening good holes and he is good when he gets through the hold untouched. But I still think he will get nicked up and then his production will dip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!

With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30.

So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout.

I love that you brought this up btw.

I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload.

I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:

a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.

b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.

c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.

d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.

e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.

Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.

First off, if there will be a lockout, is it a given that there will be a 2011 NFL draft? Will the current CBA stay in effect through April 2011? If not, there wouldn't be a draft, would there?

You seem to be assuming there will be, and further assuming that your leagues will conduct both 2011 and 2012 rookie drafts. Is that necessarily required? I don't believe you addressed what seems to be the most obvious and appropriate option: hold off your 2011 rookie draft until it is certain games will be played in 2011.

If that means drafting in late August because there won't be a lockout, great. Business as usual.

If it means drafting in mid October after some games were missed, so be it. Use the 2011 draft order for the 2011 draft, as usual. Use the 2011 season results to determine 2012 draft order, as usual. The fact that it will be an abbreviated season isn't particularly relevant.

If it means not drafting in 2011 if the entire season is missed, so be it. In that event, you don't conduct a 2011 rookie draft, and what would have been the 2011 draft order can be used in 2012, with the 2012 rookie draft pool containing all rookies from what would have been the 2011 and 2012 rookie classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing back the "29 year old receiver" talk, what are people's thoughts on Lee Evans long term? A few years ago I was an owner hoping he would bolt town when his contract ended. Then he screwed me by signing a 4 year extension and my league folded.

Now I just traded Devin Thomas and a 2011 2nd rounder for him.

My thinking is such: Lee Evans, despite his time in the league, is still only 29 years old. He is still extremely physically talented. His problem is his QB. The Bills seem primed to have another crap year, putting them in the sweepstakes for one of a number of talented QBs soon to leave for the NFL. I can buy now for a low price, get some occasional WR3 production out of him, and stash him with the hopes of Buffalo finally getting a legit QB on their roster (and hopefully a new coaching staff to go along with him). Even better, he may eventually get traded. Anyone agree? I view him as a very good buy low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing back the "29 year old receiver" talk, what are people's thoughts on Lee Evans long term? A few years ago I was an owner hoping he would bolt town when his contract ended. Then he screwed me by signing a 4 year extension and my league folded. Now I just traded Devin Thomas and a 2011 2nd rounder for him. My thinking is such: Lee Evans, despite his time in the league, is still only 29 years old. He is still extremely physically talented. His problem is his QB. The Bills seem primed to have another crap year, putting them in the sweepstakes for one of a number of talented QBs soon to leave for the NFL. I can buy now for a low price, get some occasional WR3 production out of him, and stash him with the hopes of Buffalo finally getting a legit QB on their roster (and hopefully a new coaching staff to go along with him). Even better, he may eventually get traded. Anyone agree? I view him as a very good buy low.

I am an Evans owner since my league started five years ago and I would trade him for what you did if you are rebuilding. I still think he is talented--not uber talented like AJ or Fitz or Moss, but talented in a second tier way. However, as long as he on the Bills he will not be able to capitalize on his talent. At 29, even if they draft a QB next season, he will be 31 before that QB is really ready for action. He is a definite sell if you can decent quality in return. He will have a big game here or there, but he just isn't consistent enough to be a regular starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things about Greene:

- The Jets have had a brutal schedule. They haven't played a single weak team. Looking ahead, there aren't many soft spots.

- Greene only has 30 carries this season. That's a fairly insignificant sample size. Barely more than a game of work. Literally one big play could elevate his modest YPC into respectable territory.

- He was never going to be a superstar home run hitter. That's not his game. He's a ground-and-pound type of back. Rudi Johnson isn't a bad comparison. Rudi had several useful FF seasons, but he was never much of a big play threat.

- LT is playing well. This is the most surprising thing for me because LT looked totally done in San Diego. As long as he continues to show some burst, he'll cut into Greene's workload.

- Greene did much of his damage last season with fresh legs against tired defenses. That's a recipe for inflated production. On the other hand, if they continue to use him sparingly early in the season, there's no reason why he can't have the same kind of success a month or two from now. He's definitely the kind of back whose effectiveness climbs late in the game/late in the season as teams get tired and start getting sloppy in their tackling.

He's a guy that I would hold or maybe even buy. He's never going to be a superstar, but he's a solid RB3 with RB2 upside if his situation improves. Not many power backs are going to give you startable production when they're only getting 10 carries per game. His outlook could change swiftly if LT gets dinged or hits a wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Austin Collie's move up the food chain, anyone? He's gotta be top 30 at a bare minimum, as he's looking like a young Stokley ~'04 as a low end in a primo passing offense in perpetuity? And the upside is Reggie Wayne 2.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Austin Collie's move up the food chain, anyone? He's gotta be top 30 at a bare minimum, as he's looking like a young Stokley ~'04 as a low end in a primo passing offense in perpetuity? And the upside is Reggie Wayne 2.0?

I agree. Top 30 seems low, the way things are going. I would have to look and see where he fits, but he is tearing it up, is young, and is a professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Collie is the breakout receiver of the year. The way he's putting up points and in a passing offense he should stay in the top 10 all season and has another 5 years of top notch production once Wayne gets old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!

With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30.

So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout.

I love that you brought this up btw.

I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload.

I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:

a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.

b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.

c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.

d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.

e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.

Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.

First off, if there will be a lockout, is it a given that there will be a 2011 NFL draft? Will the current CBA stay in effect through April 2011? If not, there wouldn't be a draft, would there?

You seem to be assuming there will be, and further assuming that your leagues will conduct both 2011 and 2012 rookie drafts. Is that necessarily required? I don't believe you addressed what seems to be the most obvious and appropriate option: hold off your 2011 rookie draft until it is certain games will be played in 2011.

If that means drafting in late August because there won't be a lockout, great. Business as usual.

If it means drafting in mid October after some games were missed, so be it. Use the 2011 draft order for the 2011 draft, as usual. Use the 2011 season results to determine 2012 draft order, as usual. The fact that it will be an abbreviated season isn't particularly relevant.

If it means not drafting in 2011 if the entire season is missed, so be it. In that event, you don't conduct a 2011 rookie draft, and what would have been the 2011 draft order can be used in 2012, with the 2012 rookie draft pool containing all rookies from what would have been the 2011 and 2012 rookie classes.

I have read on here FBG staff say that there WILL be a 2011 draft, regardless of the Hold Out. So, that is my assumption. Obviously, if there is no draft in 2011, then it would be simple--there would be one draft in 2012 using 2010 results. But what if there are two drafts as expected? Why not have a contingency rule? What I find interesting is that NFL teams have contingency plans in their contracts for staff and coaches in case of a Lockout--in other words, they are preparing. But fantasy players seem to want to live in fantasy world and not make plans/rules. I don't understand. If there is no lockout, then you don't have to use your contingency. But by not having a plan, if there is a lockout then we will all be discussing this later next year when everyone has a vested interest in their leagues decision. If I am in last place in 2010 then I will think there should be TWO drafts, 2011 and 2012, using the same 2010 draft order. If I won in 2010 then I will think differently. Shouldn't the rule be in place before draft order is determined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Collie is the breakout receiver of the year. The way he's putting up points and in a passing offense he should stay in the top 10 all season and has another 5 years of top notch production once Wayne gets old.

The question is, is he Stokeley (who disappeared) or is he Welker? I am not convinced yet. He is benefiting from injuries to Garcon and Gonzalez right now. And any given week a different player could be Peyton's favorite target when they are all healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be perfectly honest, McFadden is one more disappointing year away from being slapped with the bust label if you ask me. Sure he was a beast coming out of college but he hasn't done anything yet to convince me that he's going to fulfill that potential in the NFL and Bush has looked like the far superior RB in Oak. I don't know why so many people are seemingly high on McFadden when he's done virtually nothing but disappoint his owners for 2 years. In 2 years he's only managed to score 5 TDs (FIVE!!!) and 856 yards on 217 carries with only a single 100 yard game to his name, that's not even 4 yards per carry. He's proven nothing thus far and the only thing he has proven is that he can't stay healthy and lacks good vision. This is a make or break year for McFadden and based on his career thus far, I'm not anticipating anything other than the status quo. Bush is the RB to own for the Raiders.

I guess so much for these thoughts ? McFadden has made me pay for passing on him at pick 9.11 in my new dynasty league.It's been 13 years since I have had a new dynasty start up draft and I did 2 of them this year.Both of them were complete disastors in the number of players I passed up trying to get upside.I think I was more succesful in 1997 because I just drafted for the most part like a normal draft.Taking players like Stewart and Greene look to be season killers this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Collie is the breakout receiver of the year. The way he's putting up points and in a passing offense he should stay in the top 10 all season and has another 5 years of top notch production once Wayne gets old.

The question is, is he Stokeley (who disappeared) or is he Welker? I am not convinced yet. He is benefiting from injuries to Garcon and Gonzalez right now. And any given week a different player could be Peyton's favorite target when they are all healthy.
I agree but Anthony Gonzalez is pretty much an afterthought now. He will only be a 4th receiver at best on Indy. Garcon is the real x-factor depending on how he comes back and who gets the most looks from Peyton. Right now, Peyton has all the confidence in the world in Collie. I say more Welker than Stokley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things about Greene:- The Jets have had a brutal schedule. They haven't played a single weak team. Looking ahead, there aren't many soft spots.- Greene only has 30 carries this season. That's a fairly insignificant sample size. Barely more than a game of work. Literally one big play could elevate his modest YPC into respectable territory. - He was never going to be a superstar home run hitter. That's not his game. He's a ground-and-pound type of back. Rudi Johnson isn't a bad comparison. Rudi had several useful FF seasons, but he was never much of a big play threat. - LT is playing well. This is the most surprising thing for me because LT looked totally done in San Diego. As long as he continues to show some burst, he'll cut into Greene's workload.- Greene did much of his damage last season with fresh legs against tired defenses. That's a recipe for inflated production. On the other hand, if they continue to use him sparingly early in the season, there's no reason why he can't have the same kind of success a month or two from now. He's definitely the kind of back whose effectiveness climbs late in the game/late in the season as teams get tired and start getting sloppy in their tackling. He's a guy that I would hold or maybe even buy. He's never going to be a superstar, but he's a solid RB3 with RB2 upside if his situation improves. Not many power backs are going to give you startable production when they're only getting 10 carries per game. His outlook could change swiftly if LT gets dinged or hits a wall.

I thought coming into this year Greene looked like a younger Michael Turner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!

With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30.

So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout.

I love that you brought this up btw.

I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload.

I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:

a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.

b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.

c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.

d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.

e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.

Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.

First off, if there will be a lockout, is it a given that there will be a 2011 NFL draft? Will the current CBA stay in effect through April 2011? If not, there wouldn't be a draft, would there?

You seem to be assuming there will be, and further assuming that your leagues will conduct both 2011 and 2012 rookie drafts. Is that necessarily required? I don't believe you addressed what seems to be the most obvious and appropriate option: hold off your 2011 rookie draft until it is certain games will be played in 2011.

If that means drafting in late August because there won't be a lockout, great. Business as usual.

If it means drafting in mid October after some games were missed, so be it. Use the 2011 draft order for the 2011 draft, as usual. Use the 2011 season results to determine 2012 draft order, as usual. The fact that it will be an abbreviated season isn't particularly relevant.

If it means not drafting in 2011 if the entire season is missed, so be it. In that event, you don't conduct a 2011 rookie draft, and what would have been the 2011 draft order can be used in 2012, with the 2012 rookie draft pool containing all rookies from what would have been the 2011 and 2012 rookie classes.

Yes there will be a 2011 NFL draft that is already written in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload. I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.

The lockout, if it happens, will occur AFTER the draft. 2011 rookie drafts can happen as normal. SHould the entire season get wiped out, I'd suggest a random draft order for a 2012 rookie draft, with a temporary bump in roster limits to accomadate the added unknowns of a lost year.No need to get nearly as complicated as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who went all-in with Shonn Greene, what are you thinking now? As I've never been a believer in him as nothing more than a Rudi Johnson type (best case), it seems like he isn't running with the same decisiveness that he exhibited late last season. I was almost willing to say that I was wrong on my initial evaluation of him, but from what I'm seeing so far this season, he's not the least bit impressive. And in PPR leagues, he's looking pretty worthless going forward from my standpoint. Greene and LT are running behind the same line yet obtaining far different results. Being easily outclassed by a 30-year old RB doesn't bode well for a supposed young stud. If you cut bait now, what do you think you can get? Donald Brown? Felix? McCoy?

I burned a 3rd round start up draft pick on Greene and I won't be cutting bait with him. Lucky for me I drafted LT in round 14 so I am actually starting him while I will let Greene learn from the master. If you heard last night Greene talked about being taught how to run routes on passes from LT. It may look bad now considering the cost but unless your getting McCoy from someone (doubtful) then why trade him for Felix or Donald Brown ? Those seem like panic moves to me.Greene will not be a start this year unless LT gets hurt.Remember this is only his 2nd year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who went all-in with Shonn Greene, what are you thinking now? As I've never been a believer in him as nothing more than a Rudi Johnson type (best case), it seems like he isn't running with the same decisiveness that he exhibited late last season. I was almost willing to say that I was wrong on my initial evaluation of him, but from what I'm seeing so far this season, he's not the least bit impressive. And in PPR leagues, he's looking pretty worthless going forward from my standpoint. Greene and LT are running behind the same line yet obtaining far different results. Being easily outclassed by a 30-year old RB doesn't bode well for a supposed young stud. If you cut bait now, what do you think you can get? Donald Brown? Felix? McCoy?

I burned a 3rd round start up draft pick on Greene and I won't be cutting bait with him. Lucky for me I drafted LT in round 14 so I am actually starting him while I will let Greene learn from the master. If you heard last night Greene talked about being taught how to run routes on passes from LT. It may look bad now considering the cost but unless your getting McCoy from someone (doubtful) then why trade him for Felix or Donald Brown ? Those seem like panic moves to me.Greene will not be a start this year unless LT gets hurt.Remember this is only his 2nd year.
I agree with this line of thought. That said, some of the "buy low" offers aren't that low. On a squad I expect to remain competitive, I had to jump on an offer of Hightower and Mike Wallace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!

With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30.

So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout.

I love that you brought this up btw.

I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload.

I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:

a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.

b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.

c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.

d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.

e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.

Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.

First off, if there will be a lockout, is it a given that there will be a 2011 NFL draft? Will the current CBA stay in effect through April 2011? If not, there wouldn't be a draft, would there?

You seem to be assuming there will be, and further assuming that your leagues will conduct both 2011 and 2012 rookie drafts. Is that necessarily required? I don't believe you addressed what seems to be the most obvious and appropriate option: hold off your 2011 rookie draft until it is certain games will be played in 2011.

If that means drafting in late August because there won't be a lockout, great. Business as usual.

If it means drafting in mid October after some games were missed, so be it. Use the 2011 draft order for the 2011 draft, as usual. Use the 2011 season results to determine 2012 draft order, as usual. The fact that it will be an abbreviated season isn't particularly relevant.

If it means not drafting in 2011 if the entire season is missed, so be it. In that event, you don't conduct a 2011 rookie draft, and what would have been the 2011 draft order can be used in 2012, with the 2012 rookie draft pool containing all rookies from what would have been the 2011 and 2012 rookie classes.

I have read on here FBG staff say that there WILL be a 2011 draft, regardless of the Hold Out. So, that is my assumption. Obviously, if there is no draft in 2011, then it would be simple--there would be one draft in 2012 using 2010 results. But what if there are two drafts as expected? Why not have a contingency rule? What I find interesting is that NFL teams have contingency plans in their contracts for staff and coaches in case of a Lockout--in other words, they are preparing. But fantasy players seem to want to live in fantasy world and not make plans/rules. I don't understand. If there is no lockout, then you don't have to use your contingency. But by not having a plan, if there is a lockout then we will all be discussing this later next year when everyone has a vested interest in their leagues decision. If I am in last place in 2010 then I will think there should be TWO drafts, 2011 and 2012, using the same 2010 draft order. If I won in 2010 then I will think differently. Shouldn't the rule be in place before draft order is determined?
Yes, it should be in place already or put in place ASAP. And I already outlined the best and simplest alternative IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Collie is the breakout receiver of the year. The way he's putting up points and in a passing offense he should stay in the top 10 all season and has another 5 years of top notch production once Wayne gets old.

The question is, is he Stokeley (who disappeared) or is he Welker? I am not convinced yet. He is benefiting from injuries to Garcon and Gonzalez right now. And any given week a different player could be Peyton's favorite target when they are all healthy.
Neither. He's nothing like either Welker or Stokley.A lot of people aren't convinced. They should have been convinced last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Austin Collie's move up the food chain, anyone? He's gotta be top 30 at a bare minimum, as he's looking like a young Stokley ~'04 as a low end in a primo passing offense in perpetuity? And the upside is Reggie Wayne 2.0?

Absolutely. He's legit top 30 and, I agree, probably quite a bit higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too early to talk about some backups that will be starting next year, or some free agents that look to land a starting role somewhere else? Jamaal Charles, Felix Jones or Tashard Choice, and Kolb are the first that come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Collie is the breakout receiver of the year. The way he's putting up points and in a passing offense he should stay in the top 10 all season and has another 5 years of top notch production once Wayne gets old.

The question is, is he Stokeley (who disappeared) or is he Welker? I am not convinced yet. He is benefiting from injuries to Garcon and Gonzalez right now. And any given week a different player could be Peyton's favorite target when they are all healthy.
Neither. He's nothing like either Welker or Stokley.

A lot of people aren't convinced. They should have been convinced last year.

Sure he is, he is white.

Just kidding, i agee, i dont see any similarities between the three.

I like Collie, i had him higher than Garcon on my dynasty rankings before the last couple weeks. However, i am hesitant to put him in my top 25 right now. His situation has alot more to do with his numbers than his talent. I just wonder if he would be putting up numbers anywhere close to this if he played for any other team.

I know, but he doesnt play for any other team, he plays for the Colts. What happens when Gonzo and Garcon come back? What happens if Collie misses a few games and some other no name WR steps in and plays well? Although he looks great, i just dont have alot of faith in his long term outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now Collie is the breakout receiver of the year. The way he's putting up points and in a passing offense he should stay in the top 10 all season and has another 5 years of top notch production once Wayne gets old.

The question is, is he Stokeley (who disappeared) or is he Welker? I am not convinced yet. He is benefiting from injuries to Garcon and Gonzalez right now. And any given week a different player could be Peyton's favorite target when they are all healthy.
Neither. He's nothing like either Welker or Stokley.

A lot of people aren't convinced. They should have been convinced last year.

Sure he is, he is white.

Just kidding, i agee, i dont see any similarities between the three.

I like Collie, i had him higher than Garcon on my dynasty rankings before the last couple weeks. However, i am hesitant to put him in my top 25 right now. His situation has alot more to do with his numbers than his talent. I just wonder if he would be putting up numbers anywhere close to this if he played for any other team.

I know, but he doesnt play for any other team, he plays for the Colts. What happens when Gonzo and Garcon come back? What happens if Collie misses a few games and some other no name WR steps in and plays well? Although he looks great, i just dont have alot of faith in his long term outlook.

Then you would classify him as a "sell"? What do you think he could fetch with his current value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for something completely different!With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30. So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?

I think it's certainly at least 50/50, but I'm pretty much ignorant concerning this subject. I really don't have anything of value to add, but I would appreciate it if anyone could post links to websites that provide relevant information concerning the CBA and/or the lockout. I love that you brought this up btw.
I have been trying to get my dynasty league to plan for this because it looks almost certain to happen. But no one wants to even consider it. One of the problems I see is that leagues use the previous year's fantasy results to determine rookie draft order. That's fine for determining 2011 draft order, but what about 2012? It doesn't seem right that the same team should draft #1 two years in a row. Meanwhile, the best teams will be aging and will not have a chance to cash in during lockout year. By the team 2012 rolls around their studs will be two years older and they will have had two consecutive years of not having good rookie picks to reload. I suggested the following: So if there is no 2011 to determine draft order for 2012, how do yo do it? You could:a) Use 2011 draft order. This seems to give a huge advantage to teams that do badly this year; can you imagine two first round rookie picks consecutively? Meanwhile, the better teams have aged and they haven't had a chance to win with them in 2011.b) Do a lottery for 2012. Risk here: someone who is perceived to have a great team gets #1 pick.c) Have each owner rank all teams (excluding their own) from 1-11, with 1 being best. Each team is then tallied with the votes of all owners. The team with the most ranking points picks first, and so on. Risk: someone could deliberately rank someone higher just because they don't like them or because they are in their conference. Personally, I wouldn't worry about this. Good: the draft is supposed to help out bad teams and this would do just that, at least based on the perception of the majority of the league.d) Use a reputable website's dynasty ranking (rotoworld or footballguys?) to assign a value for each player on each team based on player rankings. Team with the highest number (their players are ranked the lowest) drafts first, and so on. Advantage: no bias. Rankings like these tend to reflect the general value of players. Negative: none that I can see. This should determine a draft order based as much as possible on perceived strength of teams, which is the goal of the draft.e) Weighted lottery like the NBA, using 2010 results as a baseline for 2012, but adjusted so every team has a weighted chance for the higher slots. Example, the 12th team has a 50% chance of getting #1 in 2012; the 11th team 25%, and so on. Not sure how you would come up with the weighting system, but the idea is to give the teams that were worst in 2010 a slightly higher chance of getting a better pick, but the the better teams still have some chance. Problem: complicated; how do you program the selecting? Advantage: gives everyone a chance to get a good pick but gives the teams that were worst in 2010 a better chance.Personally, I like c or d. I think either one would give us as fair a determination of the worst and best teams as possible.
Here's my plan: This year's finish will determine draft order in a "distribution draft". In the distribution draft, teams won't draft players, they'll draft draft picks. The team with the #1 overall draft pick, for instance, might draft "2011 1.01". The team with the #2 draft pick would then have his choice between "2012 1.01" or "2011 1.02", and so on down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't saying Collie is like Stokley or Welker physically or how they play. He was saying is a one year wonder like Stokley or for real like Welker. Read between the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collie is doing great this year, did decent as a rookie, and led the NCAA in receiving yardage the year before. Can we really call him a 1 year wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished the ranking updates. Looking forward to hearing from you guys about who I overlooked and who I overreacted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished the ranking updates. Looking forward to hearing from you guys about who I overlooked and who I overreacted to.

I watched the NYG/TEN game and I'm wondering if Mario Manningham is undervalued. Smith is the guy who delivered 100 receptions last year, Nicks is the guy with pedigree who looks the part, but (other than red zone) Eli's seeming to favor Manningham as much as anyone. The talent was always there. He was considered a 1st round pick by some before his combine 40 time was terrible, and he always delivered in college. Still think Louis Murphy is a riser. Guy is the same guy as Johnny Knox. Burners not getting red zone looks.I think it's time to start dropping MSW. I own him in a few (too many) leagues. But the guy can't beat quality #1s, the offense is terrible, and it's going to take them a while to turn it around. Not a sell low necessarily, but he's less talented and/or less valuable than Wallace, Maclin, Collie, and Mike Williams. His only TD came in the waning seconds of a game they were getting blown out of. He belongs with Bowe and Evans, not Wallace.Brandon Jacobs needs to drop to the scrap heap tier. Garbage like Blount, Snelling, McGahee, Hightower are all better to own.Would have expected more movement on McFadden and to a lesser extent McCoy. Would you really trade them for Shonn Greene at this point? They belong in the next tier up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished the ranking updates. Looking forward to hearing from you guys about who I overlooked and who I overreacted to.

Maybe under-reacting on Knox. I was little baffled by the preseason debate about who the receiver to own on the Bears was. Is it over now? Knox is performing exactly like I thought he would--making the most of his targets, getting downfield, running good routes. Seems like a perfect fit in that offense and will eventually convert some of Cutler's bombs into touchdowns. I'd certainly have him above McCluster, Ward, Evans, Bowe and Royal, and waaaay above Hester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished the ranking updates. Looking forward to hearing from you guys about who I overlooked and who I overreacted to.

I watched the NYG/TEN game and I'm wondering if Mario Manningham is undervalued. Smith is the guy who delivered 100 receptions last year, Nicks is the guy with pedigree who looks the part, but (other than red zone) Eli's seeming to favor Manningham as much as anyone. The talent was always there. He was considered a 1st round pick by some before his combine 40 time was terrible, and he always delivered in college. Still think Louis Murphy is a riser. Guy is the same guy as Johnny Knox. Burners not getting red zone looks.I think it's time to start dropping MSW. I own him in a few (too many) leagues. But the guy can't beat quality #1s, the offense is terrible, and it's going to take them a while to turn it around. Not a sell low necessarily, but he's less talented and/or less valuable than Wallace, Maclin, Collie, and Mike Williams. His only TD came in the waning seconds of a game they were getting blown out of. He belongs with Bowe and Evans, not Wallace.Brandon Jacobs needs to drop to the scrap heap tier. Garbage like Blount, Snelling, McGahee, Hightower are all better to own.Would have expected more movement on McFadden and to a lesser extent McCoy. Would you really trade them for Shonn Greene at this point? They belong in the next tier up.
I'm down on the New York passing game as a whole, which naturally means I don't have a very high opinion of the guy who is at best the 3rd option (and possibly the 4th option behind Boss).I like Murphy, and would have him ranked above Knox if they were both in Chicago, but it's hard for me to get too excited about him in Oakland, where he's going to have Al Davis forcing the Raiders coach to use DHB more and the threat of Chaz Schilens finally getting healthy looming over him. He should still probably be a bit higher. I need to rethink that entire WR35-51 tier, because there are a lot of guys who are looking just a touch out of place.Good point on MSW. I'll be moving him from the top of Tier 5 to the top of Tier 6 this afternoon.Regarding Jacobs, I figured he'd be getting another opportunity next season, but I realize now that if I'm dropping Williams and SJax because of the looming lockout, Jacobs needs to get hit, too. If the NFL locks out next season, Jacobs won't play another down until he's 30 years old. Yuck.I would probably trade McFadden for Greene, although I'd have to think about it more than the current ranking disparity would suggest. I would probably not trade McCoy for Greene. Tier 3 is getting kind of bloated... I think I'll probably re-evaluate the guys at the top of that tier, move some of them up into Tier 2, and then jump McCoy and McFadden into tier 3.

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.