Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

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.
Knox/Hester looks like a 1A/1B to me. Knox has made the most of his targets so far, but it's hardly been a TKO, and I'm still convinced that Hester has the better upside. It's hard to tell for sure with the TV angles, but it seems Hester has also generally been the guy drawing tougher coverage. Against Dallas, Hester played most of the snaps against Newman while Knox drew Mike Jenkins. Against Green Bay, I never saw Woodson in coverage on Knox, although I did see Hester draw a DPI penalty against him. If so, that certainly tells you who opposing teams view as the bigger threat.I'd take Royal over Knox, and I'd take Hester over Knox. Ward does need to be dropped with the impending lockout, although if I was in win-now mode, I still might take him over Knox because I think he's going to be a strong starter-caliber WR once Ben returns. I'd rather have Evans than Knox because Evans is miles more talented. And Bowe is a headcase and a constant frustration, but he's also a talented receiver with a high ceiling. I'm not sure I would trade him for Knox, either. McCluster, though, I'd definitely trade for Knox. I'll give Knox a small bump this afternoon, but don't expect anything dramatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just curious... where have all those Ryan Grant haters gone? You know, the ones who said he sucked and was just a guy and that anyone could step into that role in that offense and put the same or better numbers than Grant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts on what kind of player Peyton Hillis should be dealt for?

I own him in 3 leagues, but I don't believe he's a long term starter in the NFL. I'm a bit weak at WR in 2 of the leagues, so at this point, what kind of wide receiver would you target if you were dealing him? Jennings or Colston? Harvin or Wallace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts on what kind of player Peyton Hillis should be dealt for?I own him in 3 leagues, but I don't believe he's a long term starter in the NFL. I'm a bit weak at WR in 2 of the leagues, so at this point, what kind of wide receiver would you target if you were dealing him? Jennings or Colston? Harvin or Wallace?

I doubt anyone would give you any of those guys, but if so take it and run. You might have better luck buying low on someone like Bowe or Britt.

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 disagree about MSW- I don't have a problem dropping him a couple of spots, but he's plenty talented. Yes, the offense is horrible, but I don't see why it would take them a long time to turn it around. If they don't turn it around soon, it's a pretty safe bet that there will be major changes. Plus, MSW is a free agent this offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd run rankings update done. Mostly just made the changes discussed earlier in this thread. Change log.

Discounting MSW but not MJD? I'm concerned about MJD at least for this year. MSW will get catches because that team is going to be constantly playing from behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just curious... where have all those Ryan Grant haters gone? You know, the ones who said he sucked and was just a guy and that anyone could step into that role in that offense and put the same or better numbers than Grant?

I don't remember people saying that. I DO, however, remember people - including me - saying that Grant isn't particularly talented. Then again, I also remember people - including me - saying that Brandon Jackson was even less talented than Grant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd run rankings update done. Mostly just made the changes discussed earlier in this thread. Change log.

Discounting MSW but not MJD? I'm concerned about MJD at least for this year. MSW will get catches because that team is going to be constantly playing from behind.
Thought about dropping him to 3rd behind Peterson, but to be honest, it'd sort of be a pointless move. It's not like you'd ever see a Peterson-for-MJD swap right now. If a Peterson owner wanted to trade him for MJD, he would have done it weeks ago. If an MJD owner had been refusing to trade to the Peterson owner, seeing me drop his value score by 2 points wouldn't prompt them to change their mind.

MJD is no stranger to bad offenses. He's always gotten his before. He'll get his this year, too. One of these weeks he's going to have one of those patented "get right" games and everyone will wonder why they were worried about him in the first place. That's what studs do, and when last I checked, Jones-Drew was still a stud. So I opted to just keep the rankings how I had them and wait a couple more weeks to see how things shake out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm just curious... where have all those Ryan Grant haters gone? You know, the ones who said he sucked and was just a guy and that anyone could step into that role in that offense and put the same or better numbers than Grant?

It's quite possible that Grant is as average as his "haters" think he is, but that Jackson is even worse.

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 think there is a lot of overreaction to Mike Vick throughout the whole industry right now. He's put up two very good games but against two awful defenses. I'm taking a wait and see approach to view how he performs against better defenses. He's also already 30 years old and when his wheels go he's gone. That may not happen for several years since he hasn't taken 11 years of hits yet but still something to be cautious about.Like your ranking of both Stewart and Charles based on their talents.I think Nicks and S. Rice are too low and I think Steve Smith (Car) is way too high. He's been right around 1,000 yards two of the last three years and his QB situation isn't improving anytime soon. He's also 31 years old already with a history of injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have any thoughts on what kind of player Peyton Hillis should be dealt for?I own him in 3 leagues, but I don't believe he's a long term starter in the NFL. I'm a bit weak at WR in 2 of the leagues, so at this point, what kind of wide receiver would you target if you were dealing him? Jennings or Colston? Harvin or Wallace?

This may not be a great data point, but yesterday I traded Hillis and Harrison for Deangelo Williams.

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 think there is a lot of overreaction to Mike Vick throughout the whole industry right now. He's put up two very good games but against two awful defenses. I'm taking a wait and see approach to view how he performs against better defenses. He's also already 30 years old and when his wheels go he's gone. That may not happen for several years since he hasn't taken 11 years of hits yet but still something to be cautious about.

Like your ranking of both Stewart and Charles based on their talents.

I think Nicks and S. Rice are too low and I think Steve Smith (Car) is way too high. He's been right around 1,000 yards two of the last three years and his QB situation isn't improving anytime soon. He's also 31 years old already with a history of injuries.

Vick's ranking isn't a knee-jerk reaction to Vick's production. I've always been sky high on him, way above the rest of "the industry". I had him in the top 30 back in August even after Philly had just committed an extra $12 million to the guy in front of him on the depth chart, and that was back when I still wasn't sure if he could be the Michael Vick of old. I had him at 21st after week 1 back when Kolb was still the starter and Vick was just a 1-week fill-in. I understand that GB wasn't prepared for him and Detroit/Jacksonville are terrible on defense, but Vick is a guy who has always, always, always been a top-12 QB every single season he played just because his rushing totals are so much more valuable from a fantasy perspective than his passing totals. And his new situation is radically better than his situation in Atlanta. If anything, I've underreacted to Michael Vick. After saying for years that he was a slam-dunk lead-pipe top-12 lock if he ever got a starting job again, I suppose it's kind of a copout for me to only have him at 14th.

Rice's injury concerns me. I've seen too many players and front offices downplay injuries. I'm also a little bit offput by the fervor with which Minnesota reportedly pursued Vincent Jackson, because to me that indicates that Sidney Rice is not a part of their long-term plans. I know a lot of people love Nicks, but the guy has 2 career 100 yard games. I think that 3-TD game in week 1 gave all the Nicks fans a severe case of confirmation bias and left them ready to declare him already a stud (while, oddly enough, Anquan Boldin continues flying under the radar because his 3 TD game came in week 3), but I'm not there yet. Also, remember that I'm far cooler on the New York passing game as a whole. I get a lot of comments that Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, and Smith North are all too low. Heck, I even got a comment that Mario Manningham is too low.

Smith South is a tale of two receivers. There's the Smith South who gets competent QB play, and the Smith South who gets incompetent QB play. The latter guy averages 66 receiving yards per game and finishes in the top 20 (WR16 in 15 games in 2007, WR19 in 15 games in 2009). The former guy averages 100 receiving yards per game and finishes in the top 3 (WR1 in PPG in 2008, WR2 in PPG in 2006, WR1 in PPG in 2005). His "history of injuries" might as well be nonexistent- the guy has missed two games to injury in the last three years combined (he also missed 2 games in 2008 to suspension after punching Ray Lucas), and has only missed 4 games in the 5 years since he broke his leg (a non-predictive injury) back in 2004. His trade value might not be as high as his ranking, but I'm not ranking based on trade value. When it comes to actual on-field production, few receivers can keep pace with Smiff. He offers high-end WR2 downside paired with difference-making, #1 overall WR upside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, one bit of constructive feedback I would offer concerns Tier 6 of WRs. Most of those guys are 22-25 year olds with upside. But there are a few 26-28 year olds who have never really produced in the NFL. IMO, a guy like that is not worth much. At best you are hoping he "breaks out" and has a WR3 type year. But most dynasty owners aren't looking for a guy whose upside is WR3. If they aren't producing at high level at that age chances are good that they will be replaced by a more talented guy.

I would move down to tier 7: Hester is WR50 in my PPR league. And he is starting with Cutler throwing the ball in a Martz offense. Breaston you can make an exception because he is at least performing as a WR3. James Jones is 26 and still is only WR56 on one of the best passing offenses. Mark Clayton at 28 is producing for the first time in his career, but I am not a believer. Braylon Edwards can be excepted because he has at least had one monster season in his past and is talented. Mike Williams Seattle? Ok, it's a great come back story but really, the guy is 26 and is come back rah rah story book year he is so far not in the top 60 WRs. His upside is a WR3 and that is unlikely. Jacoby Jones too--he is what he is. An ok WR2 for his team but a WR4 for Fantasy with WR3 as his upside, but at 26 how much more upside is there likely to be? It isn't like he hasn't had opportunity.

Edited by az_prof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think having Deangelo Williams in third tier is too low. He will more than likely be going to a new team next season where he will be featured more--that's my assumption, unless he gets hurt. The guy is tier 1 talent but he splits time with another tier 1 talent. This season CAR hasn't had a good offensive scheme and the blocking is bad, but he is surely as talented as Gore, who is the same age, and is ranked at top of tier 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Jones is 26 and still is only WR56 on one of the best passing offenses.

In fairness he's behind two very good WRs in Jennings and Driver right now, and of course Finley sees a lot of targets as well. The fact that he is producing at all shows there's something there and with Driver being 35, next year Jones could/should get the opportunity to line up across from Jennings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd run rankings update done. Mostly just made the changes discussed earlier in this thread. Change log.

I feel like its a slippery slope to be ranking with an assumed lockout, and don't really agree with the policy.... but if you do choose to do it, it should be uniform.

If DeAngelo, Turner, Jackson get bit... why not Gore? Why is it limited to RBs? Andre will be 31, which should take him to the precipice of the same free fall that Reggie Wayne and Randy Moss have experienced recently. At QB, Peyton is basically retired at 36, and Brees and Brady aren't far behind.

I understand the argument that a runner will probably be hit harder by a missed year than the other positions, but there's a bit of a feeling that you cherry picked the guys to ding for age + lockout.

Otherwise, solid work as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, one bit of constructive feedback I would offer concerns Tier 6 of WRs. Most of those guys are 22-25 year olds with upside. But there are a few 26-28 year olds who have never really produced in the NFL. IMO, a guy like that is not worth much. At best you are hoping he "breaks out" and has a WR3 type year. But most dynasty owners aren't looking for a guy whose upside is WR3. If they aren't producing at high level at that age chances are good that they will be replaced by a more talented guy.I would move down to tier 7: Hester is WR50 in my PPR league. And he is starting with Cutler throwing the ball in a Martz offense. Breaston you can make an exception because he is at least performing as a WR3. James Jones is 26 and still is only WR56 on one of the best passing offenses. Mark Clayton at 28 is producing for the first time in his career, but I am not a believer. Braylon Edwards can be excepted because he has at least had one monster season in his past and is talented. Mike Williams Seattle? Ok, it's a great come back story but really, the guy is 26 and is come back rah rah story book year he is so far not in the top 60 WRs. His upside is a WR3 and that is unlikely. Jacoby Jones too--he is what he is. An ok WR2 for his team but a WR4 for Fantasy with WR3 as his upside, but at 26 how much more upside is there likely to be? It isn't like he hasn't had opportunity.

I was confused at first, but then I realized that you were talking about the Tier 7 WRs and suggesting I move them back into tier 8.Hester's 27 and most receivers have broken out by that age, but that's because most receivers have been playing WR for more than 3 years by that age. This is Devin Hester's 3rd year as a starting WR... at any level. And to say he's "shown nothing" is also incorrect. Hester was 34th in PPG last year in his second year as a WR, ranking just one slot behind Mike Wallace, who I've got two full tiers ahead of Hester. If you take out the game where he got hurt in the 1st quarter and finished with 1 catch for 2 yards (in his juiciest matchup of the year, no less), he was WR28 last year in PPG, ranking just two slots behind Hakeem Nicks, who I've got three full tiers ahead of Hester. He's got just as much upside and history of production as those 22-25 year olds in Tier 7. Plus he has demonstrably elite skills with the ball in his hands, and did you see that TD grab he made? Lots of people don't like Hester, but I think there's a lot to like about him, and I'm not moving him down no matter how many people disagree with the ranking.Breaston doesn't need an exception. He's a startable fantasy WR right now despite Arizona undergoing armageddon at the QB position, and he already has a 1,000 yard season on his resume. I like Breaston where he's at, but if I were to move him anywhere, it'd be up.James Jones has demonstrated he's an NFL-caliber talent, he's just waiting his turn behind Greg Jennings and Donald Driver. Ain't no shame or blame in that. It's not like he's being held on the bench by Maurice Stovall or Joey Galloway, here. He's a very nice high-upside gamble, because Driver is a 35-year old WR playing on two bum knees. Green Bay has a long history of stellar WR production, so if James Jones can inherit a major role, he could easily find himself performing like a fantasy WR2.You may not be a believer in Mark Clayton, but Sam Bradford sure as heck is, and that's what's really important. Jimmy Smith wasted 3 years of his career shuffling between Dallas's practice squad, injured reserve, and 8-man inactive list before Jacksonville rescued him from the scrap heap and turned him into a fantasy monster. A spot at the very end of the top 50 is much deserved while we sit on him and see how his rapport with Bradford continues to develop.Braylon Edwards, ironically enough, is the one guy in Tier 7 who I actually AM seriously considering dropping down to Tier 8. The only thing stopping me is that I think New York lets him walk after the season and I think some other team out there is going to sign him to be a starter.Mike Williams could also probably drop down a tier, but right now I've got him in a holding pattern. I want to give him another couple of weeks to show whatever he was supposed to be showing this season before drawing any major conclusions one way or another. As long as no one has stepped up in Seattle yet, that means there's still room for someone to step up in Seattle.I appreciate the feedback and don't mean to come off as dismissive, but you just happened to pick the one section of the rankings that I feel happiest with, because WR Tier 7 is the only chunk of my rankings where I've done a wholesale "scrap and re-rank" rather than just tweaking individual rankings one player at a time. I just re-stacked Tier 7 yesterday, and I'm happy with how it looks right now.

I also think having Deangelo Williams in third tier is too low. He will more than likely be going to a new team next season where he will be featured more--that's my assumption, unless he gets hurt. The guy is tier 1 talent but he splits time with another tier 1 talent. This season CAR hasn't had a good offensive scheme and the blocking is bad, but he is surely as talented as Gore, who is the same age, and is ranked at top of tier 2.

I'm assuming there's more than likely going to be a lockout next year, which means DeAngelo Williams will be 29 years old when he's looking for a new team... and history has hardly been kind to 29 year old free agent RBs, no matter how talented. Frank Gore remains high because he's incredibly productive right now. I think each of those two backs has probably 2-3 seasons of high-end performance left in them, so if DeAngelo struggles in one of those three seasons while Frank Gore produces at a high level, that means Frank Gore is up to 50% more valuable than DWill.Gore would be falling a bit because of the risk of the lockout, too, but to be honest, there's just not anyone else I feel comfortable putting at RB5 right now. Stewart and Charles have the talent, but not the situation. Mendenhall and Foster have the situation, but not the talent. Best and Mathews still haven't shown enough for me to look at either and say "top 5 dynasty RB".

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 think there is a lot of overreaction to Mike Vick throughout the whole industry right now. He's put up two very good games but against two awful defenses. I'm taking a wait and see approach to view how he performs against better defenses. He's also already 30 years old and when his wheels go he's gone. That may not happen for several years since he hasn't taken 11 years of hits yet but still something to be cautious about.

Like your ranking of both Stewart and Charles based on their talents.

I think Nicks and S. Rice are too low and I think Steve Smith (Car) is way too high. He's been right around 1,000 yards two of the last three years and his QB situation isn't improving anytime soon. He's also 31 years old already with a history of injuries.

Vick's ranking isn't a knee-jerk reaction to Vick's production. I've always been sky high on him, way above the rest of "the industry". I had him in the top 30 back in August even after Philly had just committed an extra $12 million to the guy in front of him on the depth chart, and that was back when I still wasn't sure if he could be the Michael Vick of old. I had him at 21st after week 1 back when Kolb was still the starter and Vick was just a 1-week fill-in. I understand that GB wasn't prepared for him and Detroit/Jacksonville are terrible on defense, but Vick is a guy who has always, always, always been a top-12 QB every single season he played just because his rushing totals are so much more valuable from a fantasy perspective than his passing totals. And his new situation is radically better than his situation in Atlanta. If anything, I've underreacted to Michael Vick. After saying for years that he was a slam-dunk lead-pipe top-12 lock if he ever got a starting job again, I suppose it's kind of a copout for me to only have him at 14th.

Rice's injury concerns me. I've seen too many players and front offices downplay injuries. I'm also a little bit offput by the fervor with which Minnesota reportedly pursued Vincent Jackson, because to me that indicates that Sidney Rice is not a part of their long-term plans. I know a lot of people love Nicks, but the guy has 2 career 100 yard games. I think that 3-TD game in week 1 gave all the Nicks fans a severe case of confirmation bias and left them ready to declare him already a stud (while, oddly enough, Anquan Boldin continues flying under the radar because his 3 TD game came in week 3), but I'm not there yet. Also, remember that I'm far cooler on the New York passing game as a whole. I get a lot of comments that Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, and Smith North are all too low. Heck, I even got a comment that Mario Manningham is too low.

Smith South is a tale of two receivers. There's the Smith South who gets competent QB play, and the Smith South who gets incompetent QB play. The latter guy averages 66 receiving yards per game and finishes in the top 20 (WR16 in 15 games in 2007, WR19 in 15 games in 2009). The former guy averages 100 receiving yards per game and finishes in the top 3 (WR1 in PPG in 2008, WR2 in PPG in 2006, WR1 in PPG in 2005). His "history of injuries" might as well be nonexistent- the guy has missed two games to injury in the last three years combined (he also missed 2 games in 2008 to suspension after punching Ray Lucas), and has only missed 4 games in the 5 years since he broke his leg (a non-predictive injury) back in 2004. His trade value might not be as high as his ranking, but I'm not ranking based on trade value. When it comes to actual on-field production, few receivers can keep pace with Smiff. He offers high-end WR2 downside paired with difference-making, #1 overall WR upside.

Well, although Smith didn't miss any games he did suffer another injury this summer.... IIRC he's broken his arm twice in the last year. Injuries are injuries and he has had a few and combined with his age it starts to become a factor when rating him, IMO.

I don't think we're going to ever see the 2005-2008 Steve Smith because I don't see Jimmy Clausen developing that quickly nor do I see Carolina getting a solid enough QB in there to help him. In a redraft league I would consider Smith a WR2 based on a lot of the stuff you posted but there are a lot of guys I would move ahead of him in a dynasty league because of upside. I think we just disagree on Smith's upside; I don't think he has any and you think he has #1 overall WR upside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd run rankings update done. Mostly just made the changes discussed earlier in this thread. Change log.

I feel like its a slippery slope to be ranking with an assumed lockout, and don't really agree with the policy.... but if you do choose to do it, it should be uniform.

If DeAngelo, Turner, Jackson get bit... why not Gore? Why is it limited to RBs? Andre will be 31, which should take him to the precipice of the same free fall that Reggie Wayne and Randy Moss have experienced recently. At QB, Peyton is basically retired at 36, and Brees and Brady aren't far behind.

I understand the argument that a runner will probably be hit harder by a missed year than the other positions, but there's a bit of a feeling that you cherry picked the guys to ding for age + lockout.

Otherwise, solid work as always.

I'm not ranking under the ASSUMPTION of a lockout, I'm ranking under the POSSIBILITY of a lockout. It's the "Expected Value vs. Expectations" thing all over again. If I think there's a 50% chance of a lockout, then I'm taking DWill's value if there is no lockout, and I'm taking his value if there is a lockout, and I'm splitting the difference. Which I think is important to do, because the lockout is FAR too big and too important of a consideration to be ignored. It's going to have a radical, seismic impact on dynasty leagues. It's much better to begin preparing for it now than to try to scramble and catch up once it's already upon us.

Andre will be 31, but I have no problem with 31-year-old WRs. Randy Moss was my #2 ranked WR when he was 31 behind only Fitzgerald, and Moss responded with a #10 fantasy finish (with New England's backup QB, no less), a #2 fantasy finish, and whatever he has left in the tank still (which was good enough to earn Moss an ADP of the second WR off the board in redrafts this year). In my mind, he fully justified that lofty ranking at age 31. No reason why Andre couldn't be my #2 ranked WR behind Fitz, too. Yes, he'll be on the PRECIPICE of a value drop (and by "precipice", I mean 2 years away), but I'm not going to lower a guy's ranking today in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to lower it tomorrow. That's very, very bad process. I could say "Andre is 31, and WRs typically free fall at 33, so I'm going to lower his ranking now", but then that just leads to "Andre is 30, and WRs typically free fall at 31, so I'm going to lower him now", which leads to "Andre is 29, and WRs typically free fall at 30, so I'm going to lower him now", and so on down the road. That mentality is why a lot of people had the 26/27 year old RBs so far down their rankings in the last couple of years. "Man, Tomlinson really fell off a cliff at 30, and I don't want to be stuck holding the bag, so I'm going to downgrade 29 year old RBs... but everyone else is downgrading 29 year old RBs, so I better sell earlier if I want to retain value, so I'm going to downgrade 28 year old RBs... but everyone else is downgrading 28 year old RBs, so I better sell earlier if I want to retain value, so I'm going to downgrade 27 year old RBs...". Same thing for Peyton Manning (who I think plays until 38, at least) and Drew Brees (who easily still has 5 years left in the tank, lockout or no lockout). I'm not going to downgrade them now in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to wind up downgrading them later.

Now, your larger point definitely holds. There are still some other guys out there who I should be dinging for lockout-related reasons that I haven't dinged yet. This whole "what about the lockout?!" idea just occurred to me last week, and I haven't had time to fully flesh it out in my rankings. For instance, Smiff and Ochocinco definitely need to take a hit. Moss and Wayne probably do, too, but I struggle with that because I worry that I might have them under-ranked to begin with. The threat of a lockout should probably be enough for me to push Finley over Gates, and I need to re-evaluate whether Clark belongs in Tier 1 or Tier 2 (it's hard to move him down right now because his production is so far above guys like Witten and Winslow). At QB, I'd be happy to slide down Manning, Brady, and McNabb if I felt like there were younger guys out there that I was confident enough in to step up and justify their new higher rankings, but I don't feel good enough about Schaub, Roofles, Rivers, or Cutler to pop them into the top 5 at the moment (though if Rivers keeps his production up, that will certainly change). I already mentioned why Frank Gore is still sitting at #5, although it's possible that Mendenhall will leap him in the coming weeks.

This is a big part of why I post my change log and reasoning every week. I'm counting on you guys to question everything and keep me honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice's injury concerns me. I've seen too many players and front offices downplay injuries. I'm also a little bit offput by the fervor with which Minnesota reportedly pursued Vincent Jackson, because to me that indicates that Sidney Rice is not a part of their long-term plans.

Minnesota was not thinking long term, when pursuing Jackson. If they were, they would have pulled the trigger. They are, rightfully so, panicked about THIS season, their last season with one, Brett Favre. I am one of the biggest Rice supporters out there. I simply can't understand how you can possibly put him behind guys like Smith, Colston, Ocho, Jennings, Moss and even Nicks and Crabtree. As you know, he is 24 years old. That is 21.5 in RB years, based on the length of productive careers. He was a top 2-3 WR over the last half of the season and into the playoffs. Those claiming that Brett Favre made Rice, are suddenly silent. Not that it was valid, based on the ways Rice produced last season. Aside from the big 3, I think Rice is right there with the next tier. Crabtree: Has looks bad this season, has bust, character issues, and has proven nothing. Not all WRs get over that hump. Rice IS what we HOPE Crabby WILL be ONE DAY. Jennings: Rice is simply a better, younger football player. Jennings is not even the best WR on his team. Most explosive, not best. Time to move down and time for owners to sell.Nicks: Not proven to be a legit #1 yet.Ocho: Old.Moss: Old.Smith: Old, bad QB.Colston: Rice is younger, better, and Brees spreads the ball out too much to count on Coslton every week. Bryant: Proven nothing. Austin: Had one amazing season, like Rice. I had these two neck and neck before the injury. You have to go Austin, until Rice gets back and stays healthy. But Rice is two years younger.V. Jackson: Sidney is a younger, better player. I like what Jackson does for SD's offense. But Rice is the much better option everywhere excluding the deep ball, and Rice is a great deep-ball threat too. PPR, this isn't even close. Marshall: I am a big Marshall fan. I had him right next to Rice and Austin before the injury. Unlike Rice, Marshall has done it for years. I agree with placing Marshall slightly above Rice, even after Rice returns, for now. White: Rice put up similar numbers to Rice last season. He was projected to put up similar number this season. Equally talented, but Rice is 5 years younger. I had Rice ahead of White before the injury. I understand putting White above Rice until Rice shows that he is back and healthy.D.Jackson: I think he is as talented as Rice, and think they will both put up great numbers for years. They are the same age, and Jackson has stayed healthy, and has another year of production over Rice. I understand putting Jackson ahead of Rice for those reasons. So the only reason I can think of to put Rice behind the players you mentioned, who are either much older, less talented, or unproven, is injury. If that is the case, I can respect that, IF you have medical reason to believe what you do. A history of players with similar procedures would be basis to determine a player is destine to struggle with it moving forward. Simply trying to interpret Minny's interest in VJax is far from an exact science, and not a reason I would deem valid. If there are other factors I am missing, please share. But I am not a Dr. and won't pretend to be. From all accounts, Rice will be back playing this year, and would have been all along, had he had the surgery sooner. At 24, I have no reason to think he will be dealing with this for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, although Smith didn't miss any games he did suffer another injury this summer.... IIRC he's broken his arm twice in the last year. Injuries are injuries and he has had a few and combined with his age it starts to become a factor when rating him, IMO.I don't think we're going to ever see the 2005-2008 Steve Smith because I don't see Jimmy Clausen developing that quickly nor do I see Carolina getting a solid enough QB in there to help him. In a redraft league I would consider Smith a WR2 based on a lot of the stuff you posted but there are a lot of guys I would move ahead of him in a dynasty league because of upside. I think we just disagree on Smith's upside; I don't think he has any and you think he has #1 overall WR upside.

Bone breaks are non-predictive injuries. From what I hear, bones are usually stronger after they break than they were before they broke. As for the rest of it... 4 missed games in 5 years. Seriously, that's about as good of a track record of health as you'll ever find in a WR. Andre Johnson has missed more than that (10 missed games in 5 years). Calvin has missed 3 games in 3 years. Fitzgerald matches Smiff with 4 missed games in 5 years. Randy Moss has 3 missed games in the last 5 years (and 6 missed games in the last 6 years). Colston has missed 7 in the last 4 years. Jennings has missed 5 in the last 4 years. Smiff is no more of an injury risk than Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, Marques Colston, or Greg Jennings.Typically, if a QB is going to be good, he'll show it by Year 2. I could easily see Matt Moore taking back over at some point, or Jimmy Clausen continuing to develop, and Smiff becoming a He-Beast again. Remember, it doesn't take "great" QB play for Smiff to be a He-Beast. All it takes is "not terrible" QB play for Smiff to be a He-Beast. Smiff averaged 100 yards per game from 2005-2008 with Jake Freaking Delhomme under center. He averaged 100 yards per game with Matt Moore under center last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rice's injury concerns me. I've seen too many players and front offices downplay injuries. I'm also a little bit offput by the fervor with which Minnesota reportedly pursued Vincent Jackson, because to me that indicates that Sidney Rice is not a part of their long-term plans.

Minnesota was not thinking long term, when pursuing Jackson. If they were, they would have pulled the trigger. They are, rightfully so, panicked about THIS season, their last season with one, Brett Favre.
I'd have to agree here. Reports are the Vikes offer included a conditional pick that hinged on them signing him long-term, which means they were going to start with a 1 year deal, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd run rankings update done. Mostly just made the changes discussed earlier in this thread. Change log.

I feel like its a slippery slope to be ranking with an assumed lockout, and don't really agree with the policy.... but if you do choose to do it, it should be uniform.

If DeAngelo, Turner, Jackson get bit... why not Gore? Why is it limited to RBs? Andre will be 31, which should take him to the precipice of the same free fall that Reggie Wayne and Randy Moss have experienced recently. At QB, Peyton is basically retired at 36, and Brees and Brady aren't far behind.

I understand the argument that a runner will probably be hit harder by a missed year than the other positions, but there's a bit of a feeling that you cherry picked the guys to ding for age + lockout.

Otherwise, solid work as always.

I'm not ranking under the ASSUMPTION of a lockout, I'm ranking under the POSSIBILITY of a lockout. It's the "Expected Value vs. Expectations" thing all over again. If I think there's a 50% chance of a lockout, then I'm taking DWill's value if there is no lockout, and I'm taking his value if there is a lockout, and I'm splitting the difference. Which I think is important to do, because the lockout is FAR too big and too important of a consideration to be ignored. It's going to have a radical, seismic impact on dynasty leagues. It's much better to begin preparing for it now than to try to scramble and catch up once it's already upon us.

Andre will be 31, but I have no problem with 31-year-old WRs. Randy Moss was my #2 ranked WR when he was 31 behind only Fitzgerald, and Moss responded with a #10 fantasy finish (with New England's backup QB, no less), a #2 fantasy finish, and whatever he has left in the tank still (which was good enough to earn Moss an ADP of the second WR off the board in redrafts this year). In my mind, he fully justified that lofty ranking at age 31. No reason why Andre couldn't be my #2 ranked WR behind Fitz, too. Yes, he'll be on the PRECIPICE of a value drop (and by "precipice", I mean 2 years away), but I'm not going to lower a guy's ranking today in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to lower it tomorrow. That's very, very bad process. I could say "Andre is 31, and WRs typically free fall at 33, so I'm going to lower his ranking now", but then that just leads to "Andre is 30, and WRs typically free fall at 31, so I'm going to lower him now", which leads to "Andre is 29, and WRs typically free fall at 30, so I'm going to lower him now", and so on down the road. That mentality is why a lot of people had the 26/27 year old RBs so far down their rankings in the last couple of years. "Man, Tomlinson really fell off a cliff at 30, and I don't want to be stuck holding the bag, so I'm going to downgrade 29 year old RBs... but everyone else is downgrading 29 year old RBs, so I better sell earlier if I want to retain value, so I'm going to downgrade 28 year old RBs... but everyone else is downgrading 28 year old RBs, so I better sell earlier if I want to retain value, so I'm going to downgrade 27 year old RBs...". Same thing for Peyton Manning (who I think plays until 38, at least) and Drew Brees (who easily still has 5 years left in the tank, lockout or no lockout). I'm not going to downgrade them now in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to wind up downgrading them later.

Now, your larger point definitely holds. There are still some other guys out there who I should be dinging for lockout-related reasons that I haven't dinged yet. This whole "what about the lockout?!" idea just occurred to me last week, and I haven't had time to fully flesh it out in my rankings. For instance, Smiff and Ochocinco definitely need to take a hit. Moss and Wayne probably do, too, but I struggle with that because I worry that I might have them under-ranked to begin with. The threat of a lockout should probably be enough for me to push Finley over Gates, and I need to re-evaluate whether Clark belongs in Tier 1 or Tier 2 (it's hard to move him down right now because his production is so far above guys like Witten and Winslow). At QB, I'd be happy to slide down Manning, Brady, and McNabb if I felt like there were younger guys out there that I was confident enough in to step up and justify their new higher rankings, but I don't feel good enough about Schaub, Roofles, Rivers, or Cutler to pop them into the top 5 at the moment (though if Rivers keeps his production up, that will certainly change). I already mentioned why Frank Gore is still sitting at #5, although it's possible that Mendenhall will leap him in the coming weeks.

This is a big part of why I post my change log and reasoning every week. I'm counting on you guys to question everything and keep me honest.

Well explained, and yeah, I was admittedly having trouble with examples. I saw Gore, and then had the thought about other positions, and nobody really fell into place so I cherry picked a bit of my own. However... I'm curious about this...

I'm not going to lower a guy's ranking today in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to lower it tomorrow. That's very, very bad process. I could say "Andre is 31, and WRs typically free fall at 33, so I'm going to lower his ranking now"

What you're describing here is becoming more and more commonplace in dynasty leagues. That's a general problem, but it seems like its exactly what you're doing here. You've said "DeAngelo is 27, and running backs typically free fall at 30, so since he'll be 29 after the lockout I'm going to lower his ranking now."

You've not only knocked him for missing the lockout year, but you've knocked him because the lockout year only makes him closer to the precipice. Something about it doesn't feel right to me.

In full disclosure, I should admit that I don't have the same reservations that you do about the lockout. I'm probably guilty of sticking my head in the sand here, but I just believe that the NFL makes too much money for too many people to not find a way to keep going, even if just in some kind of "continuing resolution" sort of way. that probably has a bit to do with my attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minnesota was not thinking long term, when pursuing Jackson. If they were, they would have pulled the trigger. They are, rightfully so, panicked about THIS season, their last season with one, Brett Favre.

Minnesota *WAS* thinking long-term. You don't cough up a 2nd round pick for a 1-year rental. Had Minny signed VJax, I remain steadfastly convinced that VJax would have been extended and Sidney would have walked.Even if you want to believe that Minny would have traded a 2nd rounder for a player they had no long-term plans for and who they viewed as essentially equal to Rice... Sidney Rice is on record saying he'll be back by week 8. Vincent Jackson couldn't play for Minny until week 6. Trading for VJax just means that Minny gets a legit WR1 two weeks earlier... unless, of course, Minnesota had some reason to doubt that Rice would be back by week 8, or some reason to question whether Rice would be the same after his return.At the end of the day, it's reading tea leaves. The tea leaves tell me that Minnesota is worried about Sidney Rice, so I, in turn, am worried about Sidney Rice.

Crabtree: Has looks bad this season, has bust, character issues, and has proven nothing. Not all WRs get over that hump. Rice IS what we HOPE Crabby WILL be ONE DAY. Jennings: Rice is simply a better, younger football player. Jennings is not even the best WR on his team. Most explosive, not best. Time to move down and time for owners to sell.Nicks: Not proven to be a legit #1 yet.Ocho: Old.Moss: Old.Smith: Old, bad QB.Colston: Rice is younger, better, and Brees spreads the ball out too much to count on Coslton every week. Bryant: Proven nothing. Austin: Had one amazing season, like Rice. I had these two neck and neck before the injury. You have to go Austin, until Rice gets back and stays healthy. But Rice is two years younger.V. Jackson: Sidney is a younger, better player. I like what Jackson does for SD's offense. But Rice is the much better option everywhere excluding the deep ball, and Rice is a great deep-ball threat too. PPR, this isn't even close.

Crabtree: Rice is not what we hope Crabtree will one day be. Rice is a guy who had a season like one we hope Crabtree will one day have. I remain steadfastly convinced that Michael Crabtree is a superior talent to Sidney Rice. I also think he'll be in a better situation going forward (no Percy Harvin stealing touches, no Tarvaris Jackson throwing passes).Jennings: Look, I'm one of the bigger Greg Jennings "haters" you'll find, but to suggest he's not the best WR on his own team? That's absolutely ludicrous. Jennings is hands down the best WR on his own team, and that team happens to be a pass-first team headed by an elite young QB. He's not a top 10 talent, but he's a young Reggie Wayne. Normally I'm not a big fan of weighing situation too heavily, but Jennings' situation is as rock steady as it gets, and it's light-years better than Rice's.Nicks/Bryant: Of course they haven't proven anything yet. At this stage in his career, neither had Rice. In fact, both players are miles ahead of where Rice was at that phase of his career. If you wait for WRs to prove something before you grab them, all that means is that you're always going to be paying a premium. Hell, in 2004, the "what have you done for me lately" crowd would have thought it was insane to rank Larry Fitzgerald over guys like Joe Horn or Darrell Jackson because Fitzgerald hadn't proven anything, either. I think Bryant is a better talent than Rice, so Bryant goes over Rice. Nicks is only one spot higher, and that's almost entirely owing to my concern over Rice's injury and Minnesota's treatment of him.Ocho/Moss/Smith: My league counts points by old players the same as points by young players. If your league is different, feel free to adjust rankings accordingly.Colston: I agree that Rice is younger and better. Rice is also injureder, too. And while Brees spreads it around, I'd rather have a guy who plays 1A in Drew Brees' 1A/1B/1C/1D than the guy who plays the unquestioned #1 for Tarvaris Jackson, so mentioning situation isn't all that relevant, here.Austin: Had a more amazing season than Sidney Rice. It's been 16 games since his breakout, and over that 16 game span Austin has put up 101/1566/11. Plus, Tony Romo (unlike Brett Favre) isn't going anywhere any time soon. I had him a tier above Rice before the injury... and again, since then, Rice has gotten injured and Minnesota has scrambled desperately to replace him.Vincent Jackson: Better receiver than Rice. Again, that's why Minnesota was so eager to acquire him. Had Minnesota completed the trade, I feel almost certain that they would have given VJax the long-term extension and let Rice walk. Totally convinced of it. Talking like VJax is just a glorified deep threat does a huge disservice to Jackson. He's also one of the top red zone targets in the NFL, and he's fantastic all over the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming there's more than likely going to be a lockout next year, which means DeAngelo Williams will be 29 years old when he's looking for a new team...

Without really commenting on Williams specifically I'm not really sure if basing your rankings on that assumption is the best method. I think that will cause some confusion, and I don't think that a lockout is necessarily the "more than likely" scenario. Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well explained, and yeah, I was admittedly having trouble with examples. I saw Gore, and then had the thought about other positions, and nobody really fell into place so I cherry picked a bit of my own. However... I'm curious about this...

I'm not going to lower a guy's ranking today in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to lower it tomorrow. That's very, very bad process. I could say "Andre is 31, and WRs typically free fall at 33, so I'm going to lower his ranking now"

What you're describing here is becoming more and more commonplace in dynasty leagues. That's a general problem, but it seems like its exactly what you're doing here. You've said "DeAngelo is 27, and running backs typically free fall at 30, so since he'll be 29 after the lockout I'm going to lower his ranking now."You've not only knocked him for missing the lockout year, but you've knocked him because the lockout year only makes him closer to the precipice. Something about it doesn't feel right to me.In full disclosure, I should admit that I don't have the same reservations that you do about the lockout. I'm probably guilty of sticking my head in the sand here, but I just believe that the NFL makes too much money for too many people to not find a way to keep going, even if just in some kind of "continuing resolution" sort of way. that probably has a bit to do with my attitude.
To explain my reasoning behind dropping DeAngelo Williams a bit better... if RBs really free fall at age 30 (and I'm not one of those who believes RBs are incapable of having quality seasons beyond age 30, but just bear with me), then that means that DeAngelo Williams has 3 strong seasons left in him. If there's a lockout, then one of those seasons just disappears. If each season is worth 50 "magical value points" in whatever formula I'm using to determine player value, then a lockout would cause DeAngelo's value to drop from 150 to 100. If I think there's a 50% chance of a lockout, then I might drop DeAngelo's value from 150 to 125. That's where the ranking drop is coming from. If there's a lockout, then everyone loses exactly the same thing in an absolute sense (one season), but they all lose different things in a RELATIVE sense. A lockout might cost DeAngelo 33% of his remaining value. That same lockout might only cost Stewart 16.7% of his remaining value (while we might normally expect 6 productive seasons from 24 to 29, now we only expect 5). Meanwhile, someone like Desean Jackson might only see his value reduced by 9%.Rankings are all relative- you're ranking a player relative to his peers. As a result, any event that has a disproportionately larger impact on some players than others is going to cause those players to shift relative to their peers. The closer a player is to the dropoff point, the more disproportionately the lockout would impact their ranking. Guys at the beginning of their prime won't even feel the hit. Guys who haven't yet entered their prime might even see a slight boost. On the other hand, guys who are at the tail end of their prime- especially guys for whom next year was expected to possibly be their last prime season- are going to see a substantial drop in expected value going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming there's more than likely going to be a lockout next year, which means DeAngelo Williams will be 29 years old when he's looking for a new team...

Without really commenting on Williams specifically I'm not really sure if basing your rankings on that assumption is the best method. I think that will cause some confusion, and I don't think that a lockout is necessarily the most likely scenario.
Everything I've read suggests that a lockout is likely. I've been trying to update my rankings with a 50% assumed chance of lockout- meaning I take what DeAngelo's value will be with no lockout, and I take what his value will be with a lockout, and I split the difference. It's not really scientific or precise, but the lockout is a major nuclear winter that will radically alter the landscape of dynasty leagues across the nation. If you're the only squirrel smart enough to start hoarding nuts in advance, then you'll be able to make a killing selling those nuts to all those other foresight-lacking squirrels who come banging at your door once winter sets in. The potential impact is far too large for dynasty owners to just ignore the possibility altogether, imo. I'm using a 50/50 split right now because I don't want to go overboard, but I do think it's important for smart dynasty owners to begin discussing and preparing for the possibility IMMEDIATELY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well explained, and yeah, I was admittedly having trouble with examples. I saw Gore, and then had the thought about other positions, and nobody really fell into place so I cherry picked a bit of my own. However... I'm curious about this...

I'm not going to lower a guy's ranking today in anticipation of the fact that I'm going to lower it tomorrow. That's very, very bad process. I could say "Andre is 31, and WRs typically free fall at 33, so I'm going to lower his ranking now"

What you're describing here is becoming more and more commonplace in dynasty leagues. That's a general problem, but it seems like its exactly what you're doing here. You've said "DeAngelo is 27, and running backs typically free fall at 30, so since he'll be 29 after the lockout I'm going to lower his ranking now."You've not only knocked him for missing the lockout year, but you've knocked him because the lockout year only makes him closer to the precipice. Something about it doesn't feel right to me.In full disclosure, I should admit that I don't have the same reservations that you do about the lockout. I'm probably guilty of sticking my head in the sand here, but I just believe that the NFL makes too much money for too many people to not find a way to keep going, even if just in some kind of "continuing resolution" sort of way. that probably has a bit to do with my attitude.
To explain my reasoning behind dropping DeAngelo Williams a bit better... if RBs really free fall at age 30 (and I'm not one of those who believes RBs are incapable of having quality seasons beyond age 30, but just bear with me), then that means that DeAngelo Williams has 3 strong seasons left in him. If there's a lockout, then one of those seasons just disappears. If each season is worth 50 "magical value points" in whatever formula I'm using to determine player value, then a lockout would cause DeAngelo's value to drop from 150 to 100. If I think there's a 50% chance of a lockout, then I might drop DeAngelo's value from 150 to 125. That's where the ranking drop is coming from. If there's a lockout, then everyone loses exactly the same thing in an absolute sense (one season), but they all lose different things in a RELATIVE sense. A lockout might cost DeAngelo 33% of his remaining value. That same lockout might only cost Stewart 16.7% of his remaining value (while we might normally expect 6 productive seasons from 24 to 29, now we only expect 5). Meanwhile, someone like Desean Jackson might only see his value reduced by 9%.Rankings are all relative- you're ranking a player relative to his peers. As a result, any event that has a disproportionately larger impact on some players than others is going to cause those players to shift relative to their peers. The closer a player is to the dropoff point, the more disproportionately the lockout would impact their ranking. Guys at the beginning of their prime won't even feel the hit. Guys who haven't yet entered their prime might even see a slight boost. On the other hand, guys who are at the tail end of their prime- especially guys for whom next year was expected to possibly be their last prime season- are going to see a substantial drop in expected value going forward.
Sure, and I totally agree, though I didn't mean to limit focus on DeAngelo.However, your percentage comments do bring me back around to the other guys. If RBs "die" at 30 ( on average ), then DeAngelo loses 33% of his value. If WRs "die" at 33, and QBs at 38, then Andre and Peyton both lost 25% of their value. They should certainly take a hit for losing that large a percentage of this remaining value, even if its no more than a cosmetic one in your "value" column.That said, I think I get where you're coming from, so I'll kick back and wait for future updates, as you said you were still baking this idea, and I assume the full extent of changes haven't happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG:

Crabtree: What makes him more talented? He played in a system in college that generated numbers for every Tom, Dick, and Harry in it. You have to compare their college careers with that in mind. If you want to talk about physical talents, I don't know how you can say that you are confident that Crabtree is more talented. Sidney is 6'4", plenty fast, good vert, good bust, good build, great heands, pretty much all you can look for. Sure there are better specimens, but not many, and not enough better to use that as a reason to take someone over Rice. And again, Crabtree has done nothing, Sidney has.

Jennings: Stats clearly show who the best WR is on the team: Donald Driver. If you want to add TEs, Jennings is number 3.

Nicks/Bryant: Don't take my one statement, greatly exaggerate it, and present it as though that is what I was suggesting. Fitz was a special prospect, in my mind, and in just everyone else's at the time too. A tier above Bryant. And we are not talking about Derrick Mason's, or Joe Horns. We are talking about a 23 (at the time) year old WR coming off of a 1,300/8 season and an ever better post season. Your implied comparison is not even close to similar. And of course you are going to pay a premium for young, proven players. For every Larry there is a Rogers or Terrell. And how are you worried about Harvin stealing catches, but not Austin stealing them from Bryant?

85/Moss/Smith: I have never seen dynasty rankings that don't take age into account. You seem to take it into account for Jonathan Stewart. But they are your rankings.

Colston: He isn't the unquestioned number 1, week to week. Targets numbers show that the only #1 is who Brees thinks is open - that changes week to week. And how do you know Tavaris Jackson is going to ever play a snap for the Vikings again? We don't and it is far from a given. I also notice that you ding Rice for Jackson, but not S.Smith for Clausen. Plus, Colston had a big injury and missed major time too.

Austin: Did you watch the games? Austin got major yards from (abnormally bad) broken tackles, mostly against KC. He got a lot of TDs from hitches at the goal line, that most WRs can make. While I understand that those points count just as much, it does nothing to show that Austin is a better player than Sidney. Plus, you are ignore the postseason, in which Rice was better. The Cowboys goal line offense was really bad, so they didn't runt he ball as much they would have liked to. Austin benefited from that. I am not sure I want to count on that continuing.

Jackson: You are guessing, and have no proof what so ever. If Minny thought Jackson was better than Rice, why didn't they pull the trigger? He is not fantastic all over the field. Again, numbers show this. The ONLY advantage he as on Rice is the deep ball, and I am not sure that continues. Rice is a better route runner, has better hands, and is much more complete. I don't know how anyone can say that Jackson is a better WR than Rice, fantasy football aside. Rice does everything that Vincent does well, almost equally well. Everything that Vincent does not excel at, Rice is much better.

Lastly, you said that you don't cough up a 2nd rounder for a one year rental. Well if you think he is the long term solution, you sure as hell do. Neither of us know what Minny was thinking. Adjusting rankings based on your opinion, seems off to me. Especially because there is an equal argument to suggest that Minny did NOT think Jackson was better than Rice. And a 2nd round pick for a super bowl run, and #2 WR is a good price. Minny, again, STILL turned it down.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, I have some issue with projecting a lock-out as well.

Example: I think it would be hard to have guys like Favre on the list at all if we project out 2 years from now. May as well retire them now.

Example: Hardesty or Tate, out for the season, and possibly not playing for 2 years. Hard to justify any value for broken players with no NFL experience that would be competing with 2 years of rookie values thrown in.

I think it's just too hard to project out on "what ifs" because that would skew a huge portion of the listings. I think you need to go as if they are playing next year for truer value for your audience. You can always change later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, and I totally agree, though I didn't mean to limit focus on DeAngelo.However, your percentage comments do bring me back around to the other guys. If RBs "die" at 30 ( on average ), then DeAngelo loses 33% of his value. If WRs "die" at 33, and QBs at 38, then Andre and Peyton both lost 25% of their value. They should certainly take a hit for losing that large a percentage of this remaining value, even if its no more than a cosmetic one in your "value" column.That said, I think I get where you're coming from, so I'll kick back and wait for future updates, as you said you were still baking this idea, and I assume the full extent of changes haven't happened yet.

Well, the age 33 cutoff for WRs and the age 30 cutoff for RBs are apples and oranges, in terms of historical production. Historically, RBs maintain their production through 28/29 and then give another season or two of reduced effectiveness before going in the tank. WRs maintain their production through 32/33 and then give another 2 seasons or so of reduced effectiveness before going in the tank. In other words 33 in WR years is more like 29 in RB years, while 30 in RB years would be more equivalent to 35 in WR years.Above and beyond that, though, everyone's absolute value decreases because of the lockout, but all that matters is relative value. A WR who puts up 1,100/8 is a solid piece. A TE that puts up 1100/8 is an uberstud. Why? Because it doesn't matter how many points a guy scores, it matters how many points a guy scores relative to his peers. If everyone in the league had their expected career value reduced by 33% right now, then the order and magnitude of my rankings would remain wholly unchanged. It's only in those instances where one player's decrease starts to heavily outweigh the decreases of all the other players around him where you're going to see an actual shift in the rankings.With that said, while reducing everyone's value by a flat 33% wouldn't have any impact on rankings of guys vs. other guys in the NFL... it would certainly have an impact on rankings of guys vs. other guys not yet in the NFL. For instance, the value of a draft pick relative to that of a veteran player is actually increased by the threat of the lockout (especially the value of a 2012 draft pick). By the time the NFL gets back in session after a year off, there'll be a lot more position openings because of guys like DeAngelo missing a year of their prime. In fact, if a lockout actually happens, I'd prefer to have a 2012 draft pick over a comparable 2011 draft pick (independent of the comparable talent level of both drafts). Both sets of players will enter the league at the same time, but the 2011 draft picks will have missed one season of their NFL lives while the 2012 draft picks will not.In fact, that raises an interesting question. At this point, it might be smart to start trading for 2012 picks. Generally, they come cheaper than 2011 picks, but there's a possibility that they'll be SUBSTANTIALLY more valuable, because if there *is* a lockout, I bet a lot of talented underclassmen who might otherwise declare will instead go back to college for another year, meaning not only will the 2012 draft class have more relative value just because they don't wind up missing a season of their NFL careers, but they'll also have more value because it should be a stronger draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that said, while reducing everyone's value by a flat 33% wouldn't have any impact on rankings of guys vs. other guys in the NFL... it would certainly have an impact on rankings of guys vs. other guys not yet in the NFL. For instance, the value of a draft pick relative to that of a veteran player is actually increased by the threat of the lockout (especially the value of a 2012 draft pick). By the time the NFL gets back in session after a year off, there'll be a lot more position openings because of guys like DeAngelo missing a year of their prime. In fact, if a lockout actually happens, I'd prefer to have a 2012 draft pick over a comparable 2011 draft pick (independent of the comparable talent level of both drafts). Both sets of players will enter the league at the same time, but the 2011 draft picks will have missed one season of their NFL lives while the 2012 draft picks will not.

Calvin Johnson's value would not dip 33%. It wouldn't dip at all. It wouldn't be a blanket reduction. It would be heaviligy weighted, and mostly likely, only applicable to older players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just too hard to project out on "what ifs" because that would skew a huge portion of the listings. I think you need to go as if they are playing next year for truer value for your audience. You can always change later.

I'd have to disagree. RBs go from hot dynasty commodities to "eh, he's old" in a flash. I think we're seeing it happen already to Michael Turner. The shrewd owner must jump ship and maintain roster value level with reinforcements before that paradigm shift or he'll be left holding a guy that's too old to trade and too good to drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, RBs maintain their production through 28/29 and then give another season or two of reduced effectiveness before going in the tank.

Do you have numbers for this, or is this more of just your gut reaction from following players? It seems to me the number for RBs is going down. Portis, Larry Johnson, Willie Parker. And that's just the Redskins. It seems 27/28 is the last effective year for a lot of guys. One interesting thing about the lockout is - will there be a Ricky Williams effect? If Ricky went through 250+ carries year after year, he would be out of the league by now. But some time off in India learning yoga, and he gets a second wind.Steven Jackson looks beat down right now. He is warrioring through injuries maybe he shouldn't be. If he had a year off where he could recuperate, would he be a beast again in 2012? Some guys I think will be done. Like Cedric Benson. But elite talent guys who are reaching the cliff like SJax and Gore might stave it off a little longer with a lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG:

Crabtree: What makes him more talented? He played in a system in college that generated numbers for every Tom, Dick, and Harry in it. You have to compare their college careers with that in mind. If you want to talk about physical talents, I don't know how you can say that you are confident that Crabtree is more talented. Sidney is 6'4", plenty fast, good vert, good bust, good build, great heands, pretty much all you can look for. Sure there are better specimens, but not many, and not enough better to use that as a reason to take someone over Rice. And again, Crabtree has done nothing, Sidney has.

Jennings: Stats clearly show who the best WR is on the team: Donald Driver. If you want to add TEs, Jennings is number 3.

Nicks/Bryant: Don't take my one statement, greatly exaggerate it, and present it as though that is what I was suggesting. Fitz was a special prospect, in my mind, and in just everyone else's at the time too. A tier above Bryant. And we are not talking about Derrick Mason's, or Joe Horns. We are talking about a 23 (at the time) year old WR coming off of a 1,300/8 season and an ever better post season. Your implied comparison is not even close to similar. And of course you are going to pay a premium for young, proven players. For every Larry there is a Rogers or Terrell. And how are you worried about Harvin stealing catches, but not Austin stealing them from Bryant?

85/Moss/Smith: I have never seen dynasty rankings that don't take age into account. You seem to take it into account for Jonathan Stewart. But they are your rankings.

Colston: He isn't the unquestioned number 1, week to week. Targets numbers show that the only #1 is who Brees thinks is open - that changes week to week. And how do you know Tavaris Jackson is going to ever play a snap for the Vikings again? We don't and it is far from a given. I also notice that you ding Rice for Jackson, but not S.Smith for Clausen. Plus, Colston had a big injury and missed major time too.

Austin: Did you watch the games? Austin got major yards from (abnormally bad) broken tackles, mostly against KC. He got a lot of TDs from hitches at the goal line, that most WRs can make. While I understand that those points count just as much, it does nothing to show that Austin is a better player than Sidney. Plus, you are ignore the postseason, in which Rice was better. The Cowboys goal line offense was really bad, so they didn't runt he ball as much they would have liked to. Austin benefited from that. I am not sure I want to count on that continuing.

Jackson: You are guessing, and have no proof what so ever. If Minny thought Jackson was better than Rice, why didn't they pull the trigger? He is not fantastic all over the field. Again, numbers show this. The ONLY advantage he as on Rice is the deep ball, and I am not sure that continues. Rice is a better route runner, has better hands, and is much more complete. I don't know how anyone can say that Jackson is a better WR than Rice, fantasy football aside. Rice does everything that Vincent does well, almost equally well. Everything that Vincent does not excel at, Rice is much better.

Lastly, you said that you don't cough up a 2nd rounder for a one year rental. Well if you think he is the long term solution, you sure as hell do. Neither of us know what Minny was thinking. Adjusting rankings based on your opinion, seems off to me. Especially because there is an equal argument to suggest that Minny did NOT think Jackson was better than Rice. And a 2nd round pick for a super bowl run, and #2 WR is a good price. Minny, again, STILL turned it down.

Crabtree: No, every Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn't put up stats at Texas Tech. The whole Air Raid offense is based on having so many players out in patterns that no defense can cover them all. Those offenses churned out a ton of guys who got good yards, but they didn't have a clear-cut go-to guy. Think of the New Orleans Saints and Colston/Henders/Meachem/Moore, only at the college level. The second best WR to come out of Texas Tech was Wes Welker, and he averaged 1076/8 during his two seasons as a full-time starter. Michael Crabtree averaged 1563/21. Michael Crabtree was a QB in high school, so in his first ever season as a WR, he put up 1962/22. DISGUSTING numbers. Those were better numbers than Welker put up in his best two seasons combined. Then, as a rookie, after sitting out all of training camps, and all of preseason, and the first five games of the season, and playing for a lousy offense with a lousy QB, and being in just his 3 year of playing WR at ANY level (high school, college, or professional), Crabtree went out and put up one of the top 10 rookie seasons of the past decade on a per-game basis. And he was a top-10 draft pick. The guy sweats talent.

Jennings: common sense clearly shows who the best WR on the Green Bay Packers is. Hint: it's the guy the opposing defense is double covering, not the guy who's getting open against linebackers on shallow crossing routes.

Nicks/Bryant: You don't think Dez Bryant was viewed as a special talent coming out? How many sets of rankings have Bryant in the top 10? I think Bryant is as highly regarded as Fitzgerald was coming into the league. Also, I think you're being too quick to brush off the Darrell Jackson comparison just because you don't like where it leads. From 2003-2006, Jackson averaged 1200/9 per 16 games. I think that's every bit as impressive as a single 1300/8 season, if not substantially more so. If you'd prefer a different comparison, though, how about saying the "what has he proven?" crowd would have mocked anyone who had Calvin Johnson over Braylon Edwards back in 2008? Or anyone who had Larry Fitzgerald over Michael Clayton in 2005?

85/Moss/Smith: I account for age. I don't overaccount for age. If you want a bit of insight into my methodology, check out this and this.

Colston: I never said he was the unquestioned #1 week to week. I said he was the 1A of the 1A/1B/1C/1D setup. Season to season, though, he's clearly the top banana in New Orleans.

Miles Austin: I was wondering how long it would be before the "do you watch the games" line came up. To answer your question... yeah, I do watch games. I watch a lot of games. Last season, I probably watched 60 whole games and bits and pieces of dozens of others. This season, I've watched every single game that has been played at least once, most of them twice, and some of them three times. Miles Austin is a better WR than Sidney Rice. Hell, you can go ahead and throw that 250 yard, 2 TD game against Kansas City out the window entirely for all I care- that still leaves Austin with 1300/9 over his last 15 games. It still leaves him on pace for 117/1642 this season. The guy's just a better WR than Sidney Rice. Sorry, but he just is. Disagree if you want to, but you will never convince me otherwise.

VJax: Of course I'm guessing. Of course I don't have any proof. That's what ranking is- guessing what will happen without any proof. I was guessing when I said that Michael Vick would be a starting QB for someone within a year, too. I had no proof that Darren McFadden could possibly be any good when I wrote that it was too early to bury him. Those guesses panned out. I've made other guesses that haven't panned out. When I say that Demaryius Thomas is better than Mike Williams TB, I have no proof to back up that statement. When I say that Devin Hester is still developing as a WR, I have no proof to back up that statement. That's sort of what I do- I guess what's going to happen, and then I rank accordingly. In this case, I feel it was a pretty educated guess. You might disagree- if you do, that's fine. Don't rank Vincent Jackson as high in your rankings, then. I actually happen to agree with my own guess (imagine that!), which is why I do rank VJax that high in my rankings.

Look, obviously you think Rice is one of the 5 best WRs in the NFL today, possibly even one of the 3 best. I disagree. I rank him at the tail end of the top 10, behind Fitz, both Johnsons, Austin, Dez, Crabtree, Desean, Marshall, and VJax going forward. You can feel free to disagree with that until you're blue in the face, but I rank based on what I believe, and that's what I believe, so I'm going to rank Sidney Rice accordingly. Period, full stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing about the lockout is - will there be a Ricky Williams effect? If Ricky went through 250+ carries year after year, he would be out of the league by now. But some time off in India learning yoga, and he gets a second wind.

That would be my counterpoint as well. How much of that wear and tear can be attributed to age and how much of it is because that guy has taken an extra year of NFL hits. In simplistic terms, maybe it's a 50/50 split and DeAngelo loses 17% of his value instead of 33%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, I have some issue with projecting a lock-out as well.

Example: I think it would be hard to have guys like Favre on the list at all if we project out 2 years from now. May as well retire them now.

Example: Hardesty or Tate, out for the season, and possibly not playing for 2 years. Hard to justify any value for broken players with no NFL experience that would be competing with 2 years of rookie values thrown in.

I think it's just too hard to project out on "what ifs" because that would skew a huge portion of the listings. I think you need to go as if they are playing next year for truer value for your audience. You can always change later.

Favre's ranking already assumes this is his last season. Same with Tony Gonzo's. Ward, Mason, and Driver are all ranked based on the idea that this is pretty much the end of their usable career, as well. The threat of a lockout doesn't affect those guys, because I'm ranking on the assumption that they're wrapping everything up and anything they happen to get after this year is purely a bonus.

Hardesty and Tate will definitely have an uphill climb after a lockout, but they'll certainly benefit from the fact that the guys ahead of them have also aged and been out of football for a while. For instance, one of the biggest obstacles in front of Hardesty was supposed to be Jerome Harrison. Well, after a lockout, Jerome Harrison will be 29. Yes, Hardesty will also have to fight off two years worth of rookies... but I already said that a lockout increases the value of rookies in relation to veterans. I'm not ranking future draft picks in my rankings (although it's possible I might start doing so at some point in the future), so how Hardesty compares to incoming rookies is irrelevant. All that matters is how he compares to veterans already in the league, and to be honest, all of the guys surrounding Hardesty are going to struggle just as badly against the challenges of incoming rookies. I could downgrade Hardesty, but I'd have to downgrade Brandon Jackson, Michael Bush, Tashard Choice, and Peyton Hillis an equal amount, which would result in a set of rankings where every player was in the exact same order as they were before.

The point of dynasty is being ahead of the curve. This whole "pretend this major seismic event won't happen, and then if it does happen scramble to try to catch up like everyone else" idea doesn't fly with me. If I'm aware of a major possibility like the looming lockout, I'm going to account for it. To deliberately ignore information that important is to produce an inferior set of rankings. If that's what everyone else is doing, then I don't mean for this to sound conceited, but everyone else is producing an inferior set of rankings (Edit for clarification: inferior compared to what they could be producing). Their rankings are flawed because they completely ignore a rather huge data point. Ignoring a possible lockout would be like ignoring the fact that a player is on the last year of his contract and his team might not extend him. If Reggie Wayne was on the last year of his contract and I was suggesting lowering him because his value would plummet if Indy let him walk, would you say "there are too many variables, I think a smarter play is to ignore the possibility entirely and if it comes to pass, just scramble to dump him for a ham sandwich like all the other Wayne owners"?

I feel like I owe it to my audience to give them my complete unfiltered thoughts. I made Jason agree to that before I signed on. It's right there on the front page of our website: "Our philosophy in rankings essentially boils down to the belief that why you rank a player where you do is far more important than where you rank him. We would rather rank a player for the right reasons and wind up being wrong about him than rank a player for the wrong reasons and wind up being right about him. In the long run, sound reasoning cannot result in anything other than sound rankings... Our ultimate goal is to keep you coming back not so much to see where players are ranked, but to see why they are ranked where they are ranked, and to equip you with the tools to agree or disagree with that ranking for the right reasons."

With that said, while reducing everyone's value by a flat 33% wouldn't have any impact on rankings of guys vs. other guys in the NFL... it would certainly have an impact on rankings of guys vs. other guys not yet in the NFL. For instance, the value of a draft pick relative to that of a veteran player is actually increased by the threat of the lockout (especially the value of a 2012 draft pick). By the time the NFL gets back in session after a year off, there'll be a lot more position openings because of guys like DeAngelo missing a year of their prime. In fact, if a lockout actually happens, I'd prefer to have a 2012 draft pick over a comparable 2011 draft pick (independent of the comparable talent level of both drafts). Both sets of players will enter the league at the same time, but the 2011 draft picks will have missed one season of their NFL lives while the 2012 draft picks will not.

Calvin Johnson's value would not dip 33%. It wouldn't dip at all. It wouldn't be a blanket reduction. It would be heaviligy weighted, and mostly likely, only applicable to older players.
Ummm... isn't that what I've been saying? Only the older players will see their ranking change because they're taking a much higher relative value hit than the young guys?

Do you have numbers for this, or is this more of just your gut reaction from following players? It seems to me the number for RBs is going down. Portis, Larry Johnson, Willie Parker. And that's just the Redskins. It seems 27/28 is the last effective year for a lot of guys.

One interesting thing about the lockout is - will there be a Ricky Williams effect? If Ricky went through 250+ carries year after year, he would be out of the league by now. But some time off in India learning yoga, and he gets a second wind.

Steven Jackson looks beat down right now. He is warrioring through injuries maybe he shouldn't be. If he had a year off where he could recuperate, would he be a beast again in 2012?

Some guys I think will be done. Like Cedric Benson. But elite talent guys who are reaching the cliff like SJax and Gore might stave it off a little longer with a lockout.

Gut feeling based loosely on historical numbers and my fantasy experience. I'm planning to do a much more in-depth study on positional aging patterns sometime. It's on my to-do list. Unfortunately, I've got a lot of things on my to-do list. Too much fantasy football and not enough daylight. It'll probably have to wait until the offseason. Edited by SSOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing about the lockout is - will there be a Ricky Williams effect? If Ricky went through 250+ carries year after year, he would be out of the league by now. But some time off in India learning yoga, and he gets a second wind.

That would be my counterpoint as well. How much of that wear and tear can be attributed to age and how much of it is because that guy has taken an extra year of NFL hits. In simplistic terms, maybe it's a 50/50 split and DeAngelo loses 17% of his value instead of 33%.
I used to be on the "mileage" side of the "what causes RBs to break down" debate. Since then, I've shifted over more towards the "age" side. I'm sure mileage plays a role, but I think age plays a larger role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG:

Crabtree: I am not saying he is not talented, or not the best WR to ever come from TT. But comparing his numbers to a guy like Rice, who played on a run first SEC team is not easy. As far as college pedigree, I don't know that it is lopsided, if in Crabtree's favor. But again, I ask: What makes Crabree more talented? What makes him better than Rice?

Nicks/Bryant: Lets not try to use an example, because we will never agree on one. I do think Fitz, was, and always will be better than Dez Bryant. Of course you will find examples, such as Braylon, to show that you are right. But there are just as many that go the other way, if not more. I think it takes a lot to assume that a rookie or 2nd year guy is going to be better than a 23 year old that put up 1,300/8 and much better in the playoffs. Prove it, then I'll rank you above proven guys, yet to reach their prime.

Miles Austin: 2009 playoffs. Both were on the same field, who was better? Lets use the playoffs in general, who was better? Austin is better in space, Rice is better at catching the ball over, around, under, next to defenders. Take your pick. I think they are equal and Rice is younger. As I said, until Rice comes back healthy, I have Austin ranked above him.

Jackson: There is a difference between guessing or using your best judgement to project a players impact (McFadden) and taking a non-trade as a negative to Rice. The Cowboys traded up for Bryant. Using your logic, they must be saying something about Austin, no? And agian, if they thought Jackson was better, whey didn't they trade for him? I will tell you why they were interested, they are in panic mode, as they should be, because the void left by Rice is H U G E. And if you include the playoff games, Austin's per game stats were not better.

I apologize for the "did you watch" comment. I did not mean it in the manner that it come off. Should have used a better collection of words. Just trying to point out that Austin's numbers alone are not enough to say he clearly the better player.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crabtree is quicker out of breaks and stronger than Rice. Rice is faster, taller, and better at jump balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miles Austin: 2009 playoffs. Both were on the same field, who was better? Lets use the playoffs in general, who was better? Austin is better in space, Rice is better at catching the ball over, around, under, next to defenders. Take your pick. I think they are equal and Rice is younger. As I said, until Rice comes back healthy, I have Austin ranked above him. Jackson: There is a difference between guessing or using your best judgement to project a players impact (McFadden) and taking a non-trade as a negative to Rice. The Cowboys traded up for Bryant. Using your logic, they must be saying something about Austin, no? And agian, if they thought Jackson was better, whey didn't they trade for him? I will tell you why they were interested, they are in panic mode, as they should be, because the void left by Rice is H U G E. And if you include the playoff games, Austin's per game stats were not better.I apologize for the "did you watch" comment. I did not mean it in the manner that it come off. Should have used a better collection of words. Just trying to point out that Austin's numbers alone are not enough to say he clearly the better player.

Austin: That's a great idea, let's completely disregard a 16-game body of work and judge both players based strictly on one head-to-head matchup. Come on, doesn't that strike you as the very epitome of bad process? Data is data. More data is better data. Counting one of Sidney Rice's games for extra because it just happened to come in week 18 instead of week 17 does not seem like a winning process over the long haul.Jackson: I've never met Brad Childress. I am not related to him. We've never gone bowling or played golf together. He's never dated my sister. We didn't attend the same high school. I don't have a cousin working in the film room. I can't call Brad Childress up and say "Hey Chilly, why were you trying so hard to trade for Jackson?". I've got to use the data that I do have to try to figure that out for myself. You think that Chilly was trying desperately to acquire Jackson because the loss of Rice leaves a huge void and Minnesota needs to fill it. Personally, I think that's absurd, given that Vincent Jackson won't be available until week 6, and Sidney Rice (if you believe what he says) will be back by week 8. Why would Minnesota trade a 2nd rounder to plug that Sidney Rice hole for two weeks until Rice himself returned? To me, that explanation doesn't make any sense.Back to Austin: This has never been about Austin's numbers. This has always been about Miles Austin the player. I don't care how Sidney Rice's per-game numbers compare to Miles Austin's if you count the playoffs, or don't count the playoffs, or count games they started, or only count games after their first 15 points fantasy game, or whatever you do. It's not about the numbers. It's about Miles Austin as a player vs. Sidney Rice as a player, not about Miles Austin as a statline vs. Sidney Rice as a statline. As a player, Miles Austin is better. That's my opinion. You aren't going to change it.For what it's worth, if you include the playoffs, Miles Austin has 109/1663/11 in 18 games since breaking out and Sidney Rice has 88/1450/12 in 16 games since breaking out. Pro-rate Austin's numbers to 16 games and he'd have 97/1478/10. No real appreciable difference between the two lines, imo. Austin has 9 receptions for 28 more yards, Rice has 2 more TDs, and in my opinion, none of the variation can be attributed to anything other than statistical noise. As a statline, I'd say the two players have been pretty much a wash so far. As a player, though, I'd still stand behind Miles Austin, even if Rice was fully healthy (which, of course, he's not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Jones is 26 and still is only WR56 on one of the best passing offenses.

In fairness he's behind two very good WRs in Jennings and Driver right now, and of course Finley sees a lot of targets as well. The fact that he is producing at all shows there's something there and with Driver being 35, next year Jones could/should get the opportunity to line up across from Jennings.
Well, Finley is going away and will continue to see a high target number. Jennings isn't going anywhere. Driver is old but if James can't move him out of the way at 35 what makes you think that when Jones is 27 he will be handed the job? It seems just as likely that they draft someone else to compete and/or take the spot. There is also Nelson to compete against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing about the lockout is - will there be a Ricky Williams effect? If Ricky went through 250+ carries year after year, he would be out of the league by now. But some time off in India learning yoga, and he gets a second wind.

That would be my counterpoint as well. How much of that wear and tear can be attributed to age and how much of it is because that guy has taken an extra year of NFL hits. In simplistic terms, maybe it's a 50/50 split and DeAngelo loses 17% of his value instead of 33%.
I used to be on the "mileage" side of the "what causes RBs to break down" debate. Since then, I've shifted over more towards the "age" side. I'm sure mileage plays a role, but I think age plays a larger role.
I have never seen any evidence that "mileage" means anything. In fact, the opposite is almost the case. A guy who has 10,000 yards has proven that he is durable. He can play injured. And he doesn't have a penchant for injury. A guy with low mileage either wasn't good enough to secure a starting job at a young age or has had some injuries that sat him on the bench. I don't see how either of those speak well to the likelihood of his playing well into his late 20s or early 30s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding a possible hold out and trading for 2012 picks. I have thought about this, and if I were rebuilding I would. But, there is risk. In our league you have to pay in advance to trade future picks. And, I think there is a good chance that a lockout will mean the end of many dynasty leagues. I have tried here and in my league to initiate talks about how we will deal with the draft order in 2012 and no one wants to talk about it. The under lying reason is that it will be a huge problem. So, you could be trading plays that are good right now for future picks that you may never get to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen any evidence that "mileage" means anything. In fact, the opposite is almost the case. A guy who has 10,000 yards has proven that he is durable. He can play injured. And he doesn't have a penchant for injury. A guy with low mileage either wasn't good enough to secure a starting job at a young age or has had some injuries that sat him on the bench. I don't see how either of those speak well to the likelihood of his playing well into his late 20s or early 30s.

Every regression I've seen has always included a mileage component, it's just been very weak compared to age. Like, one year of age might break an RB down as much as 600 extra carries. The mileage component is always there, though.

Hang on a sec, I'll root around at the PFR blog and see if I can find any of the relevant blog posts.

Edit: Jackpot.

Here's Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of Drinen's "Age vs. Mileage" study. Part 1 tries to find similar pairs of low mileage and high mileage players and then see who had more carries going forward. It concludes that the high mileage guys had more carries, but raises concerns that the pairs really aren't that similar (typically a guy who has gotten a ton more carries through age 28 is a better RB than one who hasn't). The second part tried to create a list of comparable RBs without looking at mileage, then sort them by mileage through age 27, and then measure which group had the most carries going forward from there. It also found that the high mileage guys had more carries going forward, although there were still some "how similar are the backs" concerns, and personally, I would have rather seen the data expressed in "games remaining" rather than "carries remaining" because I don't think usage-going-forward is at all independent of usage-to-date (and I think the real question is whether career length going forward is independent of usage to date). The third part was just a regression of a sample of RBs to determine the weight of age vs. mileage in terms of carries going forward. It found that 1 year of age was worth roughly 800 carries in terms of how much "tread it took off the tires", so to speak, although the predictive power of the carries was very weak, so it's hard to take that data as too meaningful. Again, my only real problem with the study is I'd rather it look at games remaining than carries remaining, because high carry backs are going to continue getting a lot of carries. A back can get more carries but still have his career cut shorter than a "low mileage" back.

Anyway, the sum total of all the studies is that age is SUBSTANTIALLY more important than workload in terms of determining how much career an RB has left in front of him, and that "high mileage", if anything, might even be a positive indicator. Which, of course, gets back to my "coaches are smart" theory that coaches only give a high workload to RBs that are built to handle a high workload.

Finally, I leave you with a pair of studies by Jason Lisk that argue that mileage matters, but only in a very short-term sense. RBs that got a ton of carries 3 years ago are no more at risk today, but RBs that got a ton of carries 3 weeks ago are.

Edited by SSOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those trying to buy low on Shonn Greene, you may have to wait a while. I sent an offer of Tolbert, Gresham, 1st, 2nd and was shot down in dramatic fashion. I was told that AP was the only player he would move him for. I have AJ, Fitz, S. Rice, Forte among others. Not that I would trade any of them for Greene (maybe Forte), but I was shocked that he said he wouldn't move him for Fitz or AJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those trying to buy low on Shonn Greene, you may have to wait a while. I sent an offer of Tolbert, Gresham, 1st, 2nd and was shot down in dramatic fashion. I was told that AP was the only player he would move him for. I have AJ, Fitz, S. Rice, Forte among others. Not that I would trade any of them for Greene (maybe Forte), but I was shocked that he said he wouldn't move him for Fitz or AJ.

You just got unlucky. I've also tried to use him to buy WRs (Jennings, Collie) and been told they had no interest in him. That offer is close if the other guy really likes Gresham. He would have to really like Gresham. I still think he is more valuable than Forte. Even in PPR (though it's much closer there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those trying to buy low on Shonn Greene, you may have to wait a while. I sent an offer of Tolbert, Gresham, 1st, 2nd and was shot down in dramatic fashion. I was told that AP was the only player he would move him for. I have AJ, Fitz, S. Rice, Forte among others. Not that I would trade any of them for Greene (maybe Forte), but I was shocked that he said he wouldn't move him for Fitz or AJ.

:jawdrop:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those trying to buy low on Shonn Greene, you may have to wait a while. I sent an offer of Tolbert, Gresham, 1st, 2nd and was shot down in dramatic fashion. I was told that AP was the only player he would move him for. I have AJ, Fitz, S. Rice, Forte among others. Not that I would trade any of them for Greene (maybe Forte), but I was shocked that he said he wouldn't move him for Fitz or AJ.

You just got unlucky. I've also tried to use him to buy WRs (Jennings, Collie) and been told they had no interest in him. That offer is close if the other guy really likes Gresham. He would have to really like Gresham. I still think he is more valuable than Forte. Even in PPR (though it's much closer there).
You tried to trade Shonn Greene for Austin Collie straight up in a dynasty league and were shot down? Or was Collie just a key part of a larger package you were trying to acquire?

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.