Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

Alright guys, I've got a working plan on how I'm going to handle this lockout stuff going forward, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole to see who salutes.

The idea, at least initially, is to make two sets of rankings. The first set of rankings will assume that there's no lockout, and it will just be a business-as-usual set of rankings. The second set of rankings will assume that there *IS* a lockout. Basically, what I'll do for the second set is just add 1 to everyone's age and then go through and rank them again. Instead of ranking DeAngelo as if he was 27, I'd rank him as if he was 28. Instead of ranking AJ as if he was 29, I'd rank him as if he was 30. Instead of ranking Brett Favre as if he was 67, I'd rank him as if he was 68. And so on, and so forth.

Now, keeping one set of rankings perpetually up to date gets cumbersome enough on its own, so at that point, I'd come up with a mental probability of how likely I think the lockout is (at this point, I'd probably say 50/50, although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise). After I've got that probability, I'll create a weighted average of the two sets of rankings, combine them into a single set, and bingo bammo, I've got my "accounting for the possibility of lockout" rankings up and running. Once I've got it up, I can just tweak that set weekly rather than messing with the two source ranking lists individually. If at any time something occurs that causes me to substantially alter my estimation of the probability of a lockout, I'll repeat the exercise but with new weights assigned to each possibility when I average the lists together.

So... thoughts? Suggestions? Am I on the right track here, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys, I've got a working plan on how I'm going to handle this lockout stuff going forward, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole to see who salutes.

The idea, at least initially, is to make two sets of rankings. The first set of rankings will assume that there's no lockout, and it will just be a business-as-usual set of rankings. The second set of rankings will assume that there *IS* a lockout. Basically, what I'll do for the second set is just add 1 to everyone's age and then go through and rank them again. Instead of ranking DeAngelo as if he was 27, I'd rank him as if he was 28. Instead of ranking AJ as if he was 29, I'd rank him as if he was 30. Instead of ranking Brett Favre as if he was 67, I'd rank him as if he was 68. And so on, and so forth.

Now, keeping one set of rankings perpetually up to date gets cumbersome enough on its own, so at that point, I'd come up with a mental probability of how likely I think the lockout is (at this point, I'd probably say 50/50, although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise). After I've got that probability, I'll create a weighted average of the two sets of rankings, combine them into a single set, and bingo bammo, I've got my "accounting for the possibility of lockout" rankings up and running. Once I've got it up, I can just tweak that set weekly rather than messing with the two source ranking lists individually. If at any time something occurs that causes me to substantially alter my estimation of the probability of a lockout, I'll repeat the exercise but with new weights assigned to each possibility when I average the lists together.

So... thoughts? Suggestions? Am I on the right track here, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

LMAO! I like the plan but I think you'd meed more than just n+1 of the player's age. I know lack of a CBA makes it virtually impossible but tracking when a player will be an UFA or if their team might cut them in the final year of an inflated contract is pretty big. I don't know, just thinking out loud. Too difficult? What do you guys think?

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?
No, it wasn't that cut and dry. He trade baited Collie and Jennings for a RB because he was starting Jacobs as RB2. I have about 7 good to adequate RBs (ranging from Mendenhall down to Hightower and Hillis) in that league. I gave him my whole list of RBs and the only one he eliminated as not at all interested is Greene. He was "spooked" by Pierre, Bradshaw, and Hillis and probably would not have traded for those either, and he admitted he didn't have the goods to get Mendenhall. I think Pierre or Bradshaw for Collie would have been overpaying, but my read is he wouldn't have taken those deals anyway.He ended up trading another WR for another RB (Jennings+2nd for MJD+scrubs). He got a much better deal than I would have given him. He benefited a lot from the fact I traded Foster+Wallace+parts for Calvin to the former MJD+Calvin owner the previous week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO! I like the plan but I think you'd meed more than just n+1 of the player's age. I know lack of a CBA makes it virtually impossible but tracking when a player will be an UFA or if their team might cut them in the final year of an inflated contract is pretty big. I don't know, just thinking out loud. Too difficult? What do you guys think?

That stuff might be pretty big, but it's also not a variable dependent on the lockout. If a guy is going to be a free agent in his next season, that's true whether the next season is in 2011 or 2012. If a guy is in the last season of an inflated contract, that's true whether that last season falls in 2011 or 2012. Neither of those situations would make a player's value different in the "lockout" scenario than it would be in the "non-lockout" scenario. The only thing that is not constant between the "lockout" and "no lockout" scenarios is a player's age. Well, that, and the size of the rookie class they're competing against, but that doesn't have any impact on a player's rankings vs. his peers, because all of his peers are also competing against that larger rookie class. A rising tide lifts all ships and all that jazz.I actually thought that just doing an N+1 set of rankings was a pretty elegant solution to a very messy question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO! I like the plan but I think you'd meed more than just n+1 of the player's age. I know lack of a CBA makes it virtually impossible but tracking when a player will be an UFA or if their team might cut them in the final year of an inflated contract is pretty big. I don't know, just thinking out loud. Too difficult? What do you guys think?

That stuff might be pretty big, but it's also not a variable dependent on the lockout. If a guy is going to be a free agent in his next season, that's true whether the next season is in 2011 or 2012. If a guy is in the last season of an inflated contract, that's true whether that last season falls in 2011 or 2012. Neither of those situations would make a player's value different in the "lockout" scenario than it would be in the "non-lockout" scenario. The only thing that is not constant between the "lockout" and "no lockout" scenarios is a player's age. Well, that, and the size of the rookie class they're competing against, but that doesn't have any impact on a player's rankings vs. his peers, because all of his peers are also competing against that larger rookie class. A rising tide lifts all ships and all that jazz.

I actually thought that just doing an N+1 set of rankings was a pretty elegant solution to a very messy question.

Not necessarily, some of this years UFAs became RFAs like VJax and Austin (pre contract extension); that scenario still isn't clear. There's a chance (no idea what %) that the CBA forces RFAs repeat their RFA year. VJax, for example, might still be property of SD as an RFA if the CBA is structured that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO! I like the plan but I think you'd meed more than just n+1 of the player's age. I know lack of a CBA makes it virtually impossible but tracking when a player will be an UFA or if their team might cut them in the final year of an inflated contract is pretty big. I don't know, just thinking out loud. Too difficult? What do you guys think?

That stuff might be pretty big, but it's also not a variable dependent on the lockout. If a guy is going to be a free agent in his next season, that's true whether the next season is in 2011 or 2012. If a guy is in the last season of an inflated contract, that's true whether that last season falls in 2011 or 2012. Neither of those situations would make a player's value different in the "lockout" scenario than it would be in the "non-lockout" scenario. The only thing that is not constant between the "lockout" and "no lockout" scenarios is a player's age. Well, that, and the size of the rookie class they're competing against, but that doesn't have any impact on a player's rankings vs. his peers, because all of his peers are also competing against that larger rookie class. A rising tide lifts all ships and all that jazz.

I actually thought that just doing an N+1 set of rankings was a pretty elegant solution to a very messy question.

Not necessarily, some of this years UFAs became RFAs like VJax and Austin (pre contract extension); that scenario still isn't clear. There's a chance (no idea what %) that the CBA forces RFAs repeat their RFA year. VJax, for example, might still be property of SD as an RFA if the CBA is structured that way.
That's not a major deal, though. The only players who would possibly be affected by that are Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins. I can't imagine the NFLPA letting that slip through, though, and I have no doubt the owners wouldn't fight to keep it in, since it has no impact on 30 of the 32 franchises (actually, it could be argued it has a negative impact on Washington, Seattle, Minnesota, St. Louis, and all the other teams that want to try to sign VJax).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys, I've got a working plan on how I'm going to handle this lockout stuff going forward, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole to see who salutes.

The idea, at least initially, is to make two sets of rankings. The first set of rankings will assume that there's no lockout, and it will just be a business-as-usual set of rankings. The second set of rankings will assume that there *IS* a lockout. Basically, what I'll do for the second set is just add 1 to everyone's age and then go through and rank them again. Instead of ranking DeAngelo as if he was 27, I'd rank him as if he was 28. Instead of ranking AJ as if he was 29, I'd rank him as if he was 30. Instead of ranking Brett Favre as if he was 67, I'd rank him as if he was 68. And so on, and so forth.

Now, keeping one set of rankings perpetually up to date gets cumbersome enough on its own, so at that point, I'd come up with a mental probability of how likely I think the lockout is (at this point, I'd probably say 50/50, although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise). After I've got that probability, I'll create a weighted average of the two sets of rankings, combine them into a single set, and bingo bammo, I've got my "accounting for the possibility of lockout" rankings up and running. Once I've got it up, I can just tweak that set weekly rather than messing with the two source ranking lists individually. If at any time something occurs that causes me to substantially alter my estimation of the probability of a lockout, I'll repeat the exercise but with new weights assigned to each possibility when I average the lists together.

So... thoughts? Suggestions? Am I on the right track here, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

That sounds reasonable.

Intrade has an online betting market for whether there's a lockout (go to Current Events in the sidebar, and then NFL Lockout is last on the list) which you could use to estimate the probability of a lockout. It doesn't have any bets yet and the bid-ask spread is extremely wide (from a 10% chance of a lockout to a 67% chance), so you can't use it yet, but if it gets some action and the bid-ask spread narrows then this becomes an option. Then you could do your full re-weighting update any time the market probability of a lockout differs from the probability that you used by more than 10% (or some other threshold that you choose).

I wonder if you could also have your two separate ratings update automatically whenever you tweak your combined ratings. For instance, if you maintain the ratio of a player's no-lockout value and his lockout value from when you initially made the separate ratings, then you'd have an algorithm for calculating their updated value for each of the separate ratings based on the combined rating. e.g. First you give a player 80 value if no lockout and 60 value if there's a lockout. Then assuming a 50% chance of a lockout he gets a combined rating of 70 value. Then he plays poorly and you drop his combined value to 60. Keeping an 80/60 ratio of no-lockout value to lockout value, for them to average out to 60 he must have a no-lockout value of 68.6 and a lockout value of 51.4. You could set up an excel spreadsheet or something to calculate that automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys, I've got a working plan on how I'm going to handle this lockout stuff going forward, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole to see who salutes.The idea, at least initially, is to make two sets of rankings. The first set of rankings will assume that there's no lockout, and it will just be a business-as-usual set of rankings. The second set of rankings will assume that there *IS* a lockout. Basically, what I'll do for the second set is just add 1 to everyone's age and then go through and rank them again. Instead of ranking DeAngelo as if he was 27, I'd rank him as if he was 28. Instead of ranking AJ as if he was 29, I'd rank him as if he was 30. Instead of ranking Brett Favre as if he was 67, I'd rank him as if he was 68. And so on, and so forth.Now, keeping one set of rankings perpetually up to date gets cumbersome enough on its own, so at that point, I'd come up with a mental probability of how likely I think the lockout is (at this point, I'd probably say 50/50, although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise). After I've got that probability, I'll create a weighted average of the two sets of rankings, combine them into a single set, and bingo bammo, I've got my "accounting for the possibility of lockout" rankings up and running. Once I've got it up, I can just tweak that set weekly rather than messing with the two source ranking lists individually. If at any time something occurs that causes me to substantially alter my estimation of the probability of a lockout, I'll repeat the exercise but with new weights assigned to each possibility when I average the lists together.So... thoughts? Suggestions? Am I on the right track here, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I think you are on the right track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright guys, I've got a working plan on how I'm going to handle this lockout stuff going forward, so I thought I'd run it up the flagpole to see who salutes.

The idea, at least initially, is to make two sets of rankings. The first set of rankings will assume that there's no lockout, and it will just be a business-as-usual set of rankings. The second set of rankings will assume that there *IS* a lockout. Basically, what I'll do for the second set is just add 1 to everyone's age and then go through and rank them again. Instead of ranking DeAngelo as if he was 27, I'd rank him as if he was 28. Instead of ranking AJ as if he was 29, I'd rank him as if he was 30. Instead of ranking Brett Favre as if he was 67, I'd rank him as if he was 68. And so on, and so forth.

Now, keeping one set of rankings perpetually up to date gets cumbersome enough on its own, so at that point, I'd come up with a mental probability of how likely I think the lockout is (at this point, I'd probably say 50/50, although I'm open to people trying to convince me otherwise). After I've got that probability, I'll create a weighted average of the two sets of rankings, combine them into a single set, and bingo bammo, I've got my "accounting for the possibility of lockout" rankings up and running. Once I've got it up, I can just tweak that set weekly rather than messing with the two source ranking lists individually. If at any time something occurs that causes me to substantially alter my estimation of the probability of a lockout, I'll repeat the exercise but with new weights assigned to each possibility when I average the lists together.

So... thoughts? Suggestions? Am I on the right track here, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

That sounds reasonable.

Intrade has an online betting market for whether there's a lockout (go to Current Events in the sidebar, and then NFL Lockout is last on the list) which you could use to estimate the probability of a lockout. It doesn't have any bets yet and the bid-ask spread is extremely wide (from a 10% chance of a lockout to a 67% chance), so you can't use it yet, but if it gets some action and the bid-ask spread narrows then this becomes an option. Then you could do your full re-weighting update any time the market probability of a lockout differs from the probability that you used by more than 10% (or some other threshold that you choose).

I wonder if you could also have your two separate ratings update automatically whenever you tweak your combined ratings. For instance, if you maintain the ratio of a player's no-lockout value and his lockout value from when you initially made the separate ratings, then you'd have an algorithm for calculating their updated value for each of the separate ratings based on the combined rating. e.g. First you give a player 80 value if no lockout and 60 value if there's a lockout. Then assuming a 50% chance of a lockout he gets a combined rating of 70 value. Then he plays poorly and you drop his combined value to 60. Keeping an 80/60 ratio of no-lockout value to lockout value, for them to average out to 60 he must have a no-lockout value of 68.6 and a lockout value of 51.4. You could set up an excel spreadsheet or something to calculate that automatically.

Thanks for the tip on Intrade. That'll actually be a nice way to go about it once the market starts getting set. In the meantime, I'll probably just roll with my 50/50 estimate.

As far as making tools to blend the two sets of ranking seamlessly... I think that developing the tools sounds like more work than just keeping 3 different sets of rankings, one of which I update weekly and the other two of which I update monthly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you were a contender sitting on Vjax, would you move him? I highly doubt he plays this year.An Vjackson movement out there??

I am a contender, but don't have VJax. If I did and I thought my window of opportunity was closing (say I had Ced Ben, Turner, SSmith south, Wayne) and I had a legit shot, I would definately move him to secure one player that would put me over the top (say, for a stud TE or something like that if I was weak at the position)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you were a contender sitting on Vjax, would you move him? I highly doubt he plays this year.An Vjackson movement out there??

I am in a ten team league. I had MJD, R Rice and CJ (LBJ) as my solid core of RB's along with Bradshaw. My WR's are S Smith (north), Roddy, M Clayton and Harvin (with some others). QB's were Brees and Ryan.I traded Bradshaw for Stafford and then Ryan for V Jax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you were a contender sitting on Vjax, would you move him? I highly doubt he plays this year.An Vjackson movement out there??

I've got two contenders with VJax on them. One team was incredibly young (the core was Roeth, Ray Rice, JStew, Austin, Fitz, VJax, Finley), while the other team was aging a little (DeAngelo and Gates both playing major roles with little young depth behind them, but tons of quality youth at QB and WR). In theory, I should be trying to move VJax in the second league either for some quality depth at RB or TE, or else to strengthen my starters to really load up for a championship this year... but nobody in that league is interested in giving me what I consider fair compensation, so I'm not interested in trading him in that league. No sense selling low now when I know full well that his value is going to rebound in a huge way a couple months from now.In the first league I wasn't actively shopping him, but I still wound up swapping him earlier this year when two owners both approached me with offers commensurate with my ranking of VJax. During the window when he looked likely to get traded this season, I had offers of VJax+2nd for Rivers+1st (likely late) and of VJax/2nd/Naanee for Brees. Both owners offered the trade because they were thrilled with their depth at the QB position. I wound up doing the VJax/2nd/Nanee for Brees trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm simply in total denial regarding a lockout. It makes absolutely zero sense for the NFL to crap on their fans and stunt their ascending growth based on a few $100M, when we're talking about a multiple-billion dollar revenue stream. That would not be bad business, that could be a self-inflicted catastrophe.....they will lose a significant portion of their fanbase, maybe for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm simply in total denial regarding a lockout. It makes absolutely zero sense for the NFL to crap on their fans and stunt their ascending growth based on a few $100M, when we're talking about a multiple-billion dollar revenue stream. That would not be bad business, that could be a self-inflicted catastrophe.....they will lose a significant portion of their fanbase, maybe for good.

I don't buy this for a second. The NFL is bulletproof. Hockey staged a lockout and lost a bunch of fans, sure, but the NFL is not the NHL. MLB lost a bunch of fans once people realized everyone was using steroids, but in the NFL the DRoY just tested positive, and not only does nobody care, but the AP actually re-voted and gave him the award all over again.If the NFL ever had a lockout, they'd come back from it almost as strong as they were before they left. Sure, they'd take some hit, but I doubt it'd be a big one, and I doubt it would last more than a year or two. At this point, it's too big of a part of American culture. Edited by SSOG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm simply in total denial regarding a lockout. It makes absolutely zero sense for the NFL to crap on their fans and stunt their ascending growth based on a few $100M, when we're talking about a multiple-billion dollar revenue stream. That would not be bad business, that could be a self-inflicted catastrophe.....they will lose a significant portion of their fanbase, maybe for good.

I don't buy this for a second. The NFL is bulletproof. Hockey staged a lockout and lost a bunch of fans, sure, but the NFL is not the NHL. MLB lost a bunch of fans once people realized everyone was using steroids, but in the NFL the DRoY just tested positive, and not only does nobody care, but the AP actually re-voted and gave him the award all over again.If the NFL ever had a lockout, they'd come back from it almost as strong as they were before they left. Sure, they'd take some hit, but I doubt it'd be a big one, and I doubt it would last more than a year or two. At this point, it's too big of a part of American culture.
Sadly, that is exactly what MLB thought in the mid 90's. Two things happened: 1) The NFL was sitting there, basically waiting for MLB to screw up so it could move in as the primary sport - which it did (it might have done so anyway - but the work stoppage certainly expedited the process) 2) MLB owners underestimated how many casual baseball fans would jump ship following the strike.IMHO, the NBA is to the NFL now what the NFL was to baseball in 90's - the up and coming sport, that will move in, in terms of marketing if the NFL drops the ball with a work stoppage. As I said, sadly, if the NFL owners feel as you do (that the NFL is bulletproof) they are doomed to repeat the same history. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to not kill the golden goose, just as she is laying the most eggs.I don't want this thread to vere off too much, so if we want to talk about this issue more, we should probably start a new thread. Just wanted to toss out my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, that is exactly what MLB thought in the mid 90's. Two things happened: 1) The NFL was sitting there, basically waiting for MLB to screw up so it could move in as the primary sport - which it did (it might have done so anyway - but the work stoppage certainly expedited the process) 2) MLB owners underestimated how many casual baseball fans would jump ship following the strike.

IMHO, the NBA is to the NFL now what the NFL was to baseball in 90's - the up and coming sport, that will move in, in terms of marketing if the NFL drops the ball with a work stoppage. As I said, sadly, if the NFL owners feel as you do (that the NFL is bulletproof) they are doomed to repeat the same history. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to not kill the golden goose, just as she is laying the most eggs.

I don't want this thread to vere off too much, so if we want to talk about this issue more, we should probably start a new thread. Just wanted to toss out my 2 cents.

the NBA is up and coming? From what I can tell the ratings are dropping aside from the finals with Lebron.

If you expect many NFL fans to move to the NBA, I think you're way off the mark. Sure, Lebron and the Heat will bring some attention but nowhere near enough to put the NBA on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm simply in total denial regarding a lockout. It makes absolutely zero sense for the NFL to crap on their fans and stunt their ascending growth based on a few $100M, when we're talking about a multiple-billion dollar revenue stream. That would not be bad business, that could be a self-inflicted catastrophe.....they will lose a significant portion of their fanbase, maybe for good.

I don't buy this for a second. The NFL is bulletproof. Hockey staged a lockout and lost a bunch of fans, sure, but the NFL is not the NHL. MLB lost a bunch of fans once people realized everyone was using steroids, but in the NFL the DRoY just tested positive, and not only does nobody care, but the AP actually re-voted and gave him the award all over again.If the NFL ever had a lockout, they'd come back from it almost as strong as they were before they left. Sure, they'd take some hit, but I doubt it'd be a big one, and I doubt it would last more than a year or two. At this point, it's too big of a part of American culture.
Baseball was a big part of American culture too; of course that culture has changed. Baseball came of age in the days of radio, a medium it lends itself to well. Sure, baseball is OK to watch on TV but it really lacks an overall sense of excitement. Football is slowed down by the commercials but you get that in all forms of entertainment shown on the video screen, Baseball's season is too damn while football's shorter season lends a greater sense of importance to each game. Basketball is just awful to watch. The advent of one on one play has taken a lot of the strategy out of the game. who the heck wants to watch one guy dribble the ball and heave up a shot? Not me.So that leaves us with football. (Hey I love hockey but it just isn't ingrained into the American psyche.) So I would agree with SSOG that the sport would likely come back strong and I believe a lot of it has to do with Fantasy Football. It's easy to play, you only really have to be tangentially involved in most of the popular league forms and you really don't need to know a lot about the sport. People have an alegiance with a team but they become "fans" of many players and jump around from screen to screen to keep up with their players. Thus the popularity of the Red Zone Channel. I mean what would that look like in Baseball? You'ld have to spend 10 minutes to watch an at bat; not good for the society we live in today.I absolutely would hate to see a lock out. But of all the sports Football has the potential to come back strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, that is exactly what MLB thought in the mid 90's. Two things happened: 1) The NFL was sitting there, basically waiting for MLB to screw up so it could move in as the primary sport - which it did (it might have done so anyway - but the work stoppage certainly expedited the process) 2) MLB owners underestimated how many casual baseball fans would jump ship following the strike.

IMHO, the NBA is to the NFL now what the NFL was to baseball in 90's - the up and coming sport, that will move in, in terms of marketing if the NFL drops the ball with a work stoppage. As I said, sadly, if the NFL owners feel as you do (that the NFL is bulletproof) they are doomed to repeat the same history. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to not kill the golden goose, just as she is laying the most eggs.

I don't want this thread to vere off too much, so if we want to talk about this issue more, we should probably start a new thread. Just wanted to toss out my 2 cents.

the NBA is up and coming? From what I can tell the ratings are dropping aside from the finals with Lebron.

If you expect many NFL fans to move to the NBA, I think you're way off the mark. Sure, Lebron and the Heat will bring some attention but nowhere near enough to put the NBA on top.

Definitely. Not only is the NBA have a major ratings and attendance crisis, but it's even facing the possibility of its own lockout. The NBA isn't an up-and-coming league, it's a league in major, major crisis. Nearly half of the teams in the league are losing money right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With every passing game I want to :kicksrock: on Foster

2 dynasty start up leagues and missed him on both.

He went in the 10th round in one and last pick of the 6th in the other

I had a shot at him in the 9th in the one (before Tate's injury) and a pick at 6.09 in the other and passed. (after Tate's injury)

Man that freaking stinks

Foster was ranked below players like Bradon Jacobs, M-Bush and Fred Jackson here before Tate's injury and below Tate himself.

I guess you missed on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foster was ranked below players like Bradon Jacobs, M-Bush and Fred Jackson here before Tate's injury and below Tate himself.I guess you missed on that one.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm simply in total denial regarding a lockout. It makes absolutely zero sense for the NFL to crap on their fans and stunt their ascending growth based on a few $100M, when we're talking about a multiple-billion dollar revenue stream. That would not be bad business, that could be a self-inflicted catastrophe.....they will lose a significant portion of their fanbase, maybe for good.

I don't buy this for a second. The NFL is bulletproof. Hockey staged a lockout and lost a bunch of fans, sure, but the NFL is not the NHL. MLB lost a bunch of fans once people realized everyone was using steroids, but in the NFL the DRoY just tested positive, and not only does nobody care, but the AP actually re-voted and gave him the award all over again.If the NFL ever had a lockout, they'd come back from it almost as strong as they were before they left. Sure, they'd take some hit, but I doubt it'd be a big one, and I doubt it would last more than a year or two. At this point, it's too big of a part of American culture.
Sadly, that is exactly what MLB thought in the mid 90's. Two things happened: 1) The NFL was sitting there, basically waiting for MLB to screw up so it could move in as the primary sport - which it did (it might have done so anyway - but the work stoppage certainly expedited the process) 2) MLB owners underestimated how many casual baseball fans would jump ship following the strike.IMHO, the NBA is to the NFL now what the NFL was to baseball in 90's - the up and coming sport, that will move in, in terms of marketing if the NFL drops the ball with a work stoppage. As I said, sadly, if the NFL owners feel as you do (that the NFL is bulletproof) they are doomed to repeat the same history. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to not kill the golden goose, just as she is laying the most eggs.I don't want this thread to vere off too much, so if we want to talk about this issue more, we should probably start a new thread. Just wanted to toss out my 2 cents.
:lmao: I was going to write something similar Double G but just didn't feel like explaining. And the popularity of fantasy football has propelled football, but when all those fantasy leagues disappear, how many will reform? I think there is a good chance my dynasty league will fold and if it does I may give this game up and spend my time on studying the stock market so I can really make some money. Our society is so rife with entertainment opportunities that people will find other things and some won't come back. Some will be mad at owners and players--and I will be one of them. It's time to do something for fans and make the games more affordable--instead they just fleece fans and there is no loyalty to fans or community by owners or players. They will move your team faster than you can blink: just ask Cleveland or Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you guys feel about:

Keven Smith -

Michael Bush -

Ronnie Brown -

Mike Tolbert -

These are three guys I am going to test the waters on this week, and one that I recently grabbed.

Smith is still young and if he can fully recover, he could be a in a 1A/1B split, for what looks to be an offense with a bright future. He offers more in between the tackles than Best, IMO.

Bush is not a starting runningback in the NFL At least not one that will be a long term solution. But, his value is low right now with all of the McFadden love. I think he is a valid week to week flex option for a few years, with potential to be top 12 a couple times a year in the event of an injury.

Brown - Only 28. I say only, because he seems be getting written off. Players like LT, Ricky, T.Jones and a few others are able to last into their 30s. If Ronnie can do that, I think now is the perfect time to buy. On the flipside, he has had a lot more injury concerns than the 3 mentioned above. Maybe that is offset some by the milage factor. Who knows.

I traded for this guy on whim, needing a RB for one week, due to injury. He has paid off, so far. I had to give up Javon Ringer to get him, which hurt because I liked Javon more long term, at the time. But the SD offense doesn't lose anything when Tolbert is in. He is only 24 and I am hoping that SD views Tolbert as a goal line back fit to spell Matthews and keep him around for a few years. If he can offer Tim Hightower value (although different ways of producing) I think he is a good buy this season. You just might want to wait for Matthews to be completely healthy before pulling the trigger. His price might be high right now.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

Because the Texans system is more responsible for his numbers than he is.Does anyone really think his numbers would be even close to what they are if he played for the Rams, Steelers, Bills, Bucs, etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

He was viewed as a second round talent after his junior year with Tennessee. He went back for his senior season. The Vols changed coaches and offensive schemes. He did poorly, and lingering injuries caused him to have a crappy combine and pro day. His odd personality and maturity issues meant there were even more concerns.

So, you have poor senior year + poor combine/pro day + questions about maturity. A lot of people think that undrafted means no talent. Often, it simply means too many questions, or a risk teams aren't willing to take.

A great article describing his fall is found here: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/...;cowboys-texans.

Really, I'm shocked that people--mostly those whose only impression of him was formed during the 2009 draft--still insist he has no talent.

Edited by lyon812

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Foster was a good find. On the other hand, Steve Slaton and Derrick Ward both averaged well over 6 YPC in yesterday's game for Houston.

Pretty much any back can look decent in Houston's system. Even Ron Dayne and Ryan Moats had their moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

Because the Texans system is more responsible for his numbers than he is.Does anyone really think his numbers would be even close to what they are if he played for the Rams, Steelers, Bills, Bucs, etc.?
No, I don't.Then again, I'm not convinced Rashard Mendenhall, Beanie Wells, Shonn Greene, Jamaal Charles, Ryan Mathews, or Jahvid Best would have done nearly as well in Arian Foster's place on the Texans offense. This isn't as simple as the offensive system making the player. System backs quite simply do not look this good and do not impress to the extent that he has. They put up numbers but don't look electric or elite while doing it. Arian Foster not only has the numbers of an elite player, but he suddenly LOOKS like an elite player. Is he? Probably not, but as I said in a different thread about him, you don't have to be an elite player to play and perform like one. This system was practically built for the exact skillset that Foster possesses. Everything I have seen from him tells me he has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. What he lacks in other areas (wiggle, pile moving ability, top line speed) he MORE than makes up with those 3 things. If Gary Kubiak were to design the ideal running back to handle their system, he would draw up a player that has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. Sound familiar?Essentially I think we have the potential for a perfect storm here- a system that perfectly fits the exact skillset of a player, such that it enhances his play to greater heights and makes him play and perform better than other potentially more "talented" players. It happened with Priest Holmes. Who's to say it can't be happneing all over again with Arian Foster?I maintain the smart move (maybe a better way to phrase it would be the safe move?) is to move him if you can get a bonafide, legit top 5 talent. He still has some concern and doesn't have near the track record to be able to feel comfortable about his future yet. However, I no longer think it is ludicrous to think that Foster can maintain what he is doing now for the forseeable future (meaning into next season and beyond). Too many people are becoming WAY too quick to push Foster to the side as a simple product of his situation. This is a clear indication to me that these people have not actually watched him play and have not seen the way he is piling up the gaudy numbers. As I said in the other Foster thread, once upon a time you could have switched Foster's name with Priest Holme's name and had this EXACT same debate and discussion. We all know how well that turned out for everyone saying Holmes was a fraud... Granted, he is a long, long way off from getting to that point. However, it's not as unfathomable as some in this thread seem to think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Foster was a good find. On the other hand, Steve Slaton and Derrick Ward both averaged well over 6 YPC in yesterday's game for Houston.Pretty much any back can look decent in Houston's system. Even Ron Dayne and Ryan Moats had their moments.

This is indicitive of someone who did not watch the game to me.The difference between the offense with Foster on the field and the offense with any other running back on the field was like night and day, frankly.Numbers do not tell the whole story- Ward and Slaton looked like players that were capable of piling up yardage against a woefully terrible run defense in the Raiders. Foster, on the other hand, looked like a player capable of piling up yardage AGAINST ANY TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. There is a giant, massive difference between the 2.One play in my mind clearly showed that Foster is not a simple system back (I was notably on the fence about this coming into this week and have since been converted). It was an innocent 3rd quarter dump off/swing pass to the left flat. He was 1 on 1 with a defender, came up to him, juked, left him standing frozen, showed unexpected and frankly incredible burst to the corner to turn upfield, and then showed elite level vision to find a cutback lane. All told, he turned what should have been a 1-5 yard gain into a 31 yard gain. This play was not a product of any system helping him out, this play was a product of Foster simply having the ability to do it. The system helps, but does NOT do things like that. I feel pretty confident saying Ward and Slaton would have NO CHANCE to make the play he made (and for everyone saying that Foster 2010 is simply a repeat of Slaton 2008, there is NO CHANCE Slaton 2008 could have made this play either).If this were a single, isolated play, that would be one thing. However, it is not. He shows he possesses elite vision, cutback ability, and short term burst on a game by game basis. In each of his 4 games, he has managed to take what should have been a 1-5 yard play and turn it into a 20+ yard play at least once. At some point, you have to start realizing the system is helping him, but is far from the only reason he is producing. Is he Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, or Jonathan Stewart talented? No. Is his talent being undersold by most people in this thread? Yes, I think it absolutely is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

He was viewed as a second round talent after his junior year with Tennessee. He went back for his senior season. The Vols changed coaches and offensive schemes. He did poorly, and lingering injuries caused him to have a crappy combine and pro day. His odd personality and maturity issues meant there were even more concerns.

So, you have poor senior year + poor combine/pro day + questions about maturity. A lot of people think that undrafted means no talent. Often, it simply means too many questions, or a risk teams aren't willing to take.

A great article describing his fall is found here: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2010/...;cowboys-texans.

Really, I'm shocked that people--mostly those whose only impression of him was formed during the 2009 draft--still insist he has no talent.

Too often talent equals obvious athletic ability. Easy to look at a guy a and see a cut-up bodied guy who is fast and jumps high and call him talented. (just to note: it is not just a message board thing NFL scout fall for athletic over skilled all the time). Much tougher to really know who is more skilled. Vision, subtle cutting ability, hole anticipation, ability to avoid hits, mental ability adjust to changes in plays as they happen, etc. There are several scouting guys on this board who attempt learn how to get better at recogzing these things and adjust their evaluation of what talent means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

Because the Texans system is more responsible for his numbers than he is.Does anyone really think his numbers would be even close to what they are if he played for the Rams, Steelers, Bills, Bucs, etc.?
No, I don't.Then again, I'm not convinced Rashard Mendenhall, Beanie Wells, Shonn Greene, Jamaal Charles, Ryan Mathews, or Jahvid Best would have done nearly as well in Arian Foster's place on the Texans offense. This isn't as simple as the offensive system making the player. System backs quite simply do not look this good and do not impress to the extent that he has. They put up numbers but don't look electric or elite while doing it. Arian Foster not only has the numbers of an elite player, but he suddenly LOOKS like an elite player. Is he? Probably not, but as I said in a different thread about him, you don't have to be an elite player to play and perform like one. This system was practically built for the exact skillset that Foster possesses. Everything I have seen from him tells me he has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. What he lacks in other areas (wiggle, pile moving ability, top line speed) he MORE than makes up with those 3 things. If Gary Kubiak were to design the ideal running back to handle their system, he would draw up a player that has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. Sound familiar?Essentially I think we have the potential for a perfect storm here- a system that perfectly fits the exact skillset of a player, such that it enhances his play to greater heights and makes him play and perform better than other potentially more "talented" players. It happened with Priest Holmes. Who's to say it can't be happneing all over again with Arian Foster?I maintain the smart move (maybe a better way to phrase it would be the safe move?) is to move him if you can get a bonafide, legit top 5 talent. He still has some concern and doesn't have near the track record to be able to feel comfortable about his future yet. However, I no longer think it is ludicrous to think that Foster can maintain what he is doing now for the forseeable future (meaning into next season and beyond). Too many people are becoming WAY too quick to push Foster to the side as a simple product of his situation. This is a clear indication to me that these people have not actually watched him play and have not seen the way he is piling up the gaudy numbers. As I said in the other Foster thread, once upon a time you could have switched Foster's name with Priest Holme's name and had this EXACT same debate and discussion. We all know how well that turned out for everyone saying Holmes was a fraud... Granted, he is a long, long way off from getting to that point. However, it's not as unfathomable as some in this thread seem to think it is.
Is it possible for him to be the long term answer in Houston, of course. Your right, the same things were said about Holmes, and i still think it is true. Had LJ been the RB during Priests glory days, i believe his numbers would have been at least as good. I think comparing Fosters situation to that is fair, but i thnk a better comparison might be Slaton for obvious reasons. You say Fosters abilities are perfect for the Texans system, well people were saying the same thing about Slaton. The fact of the matter is just about any RB's skill set would be perfect for the Texans system. Im not suggesting someone should trade Foster now before he implodes, he should be a top 5 Rb for the rest of the season. However, considering what you could get for him now, it would make sense to see what he might fetch in a trade. Ofc ourse it depends on things like the current status of your team. Any team that is not a playoff contender could easily get a top tier player, plus a small handfull of prospects and/or picks. I would trade him for Sidney Rice, Marshawn Lynch and a first 2011 pick, or something similar(again, if i wasnt a playoff contender). There are a couple other little things that bother me about Foster. Will Foster continure to get 70-80% of the RB touches? I know it was against the Raiders, but the other two RB's looked pretty good. Why beat up your #1 back if you dont have to? The other thing is his suspension yesterday. On a team that seems to be able to just plug in any RB, how patient will the Texans be with him. I dont know alot about his personal life, but skipping meetings isnt a good sign.Barring injury, fumbles, meeting skipping, etc. Foster will certainly finish as a top 5 RB this year, but when it comes to dynasty leagues, i feel better with a player(s) i know will produce no matter his situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

Because the Texans system is more responsible for his numbers than he is.

Does anyone really think his numbers would be even close to what they are if he played for the Rams, Steelers, Bills, Bucs, etc.?

No, I don't.

Then again, I'm not convinced Rashard Mendenhall, Beanie Wells, Shonn Greene, Jamaal Charles, Ryan Mathews, or Jahvid Best would have done nearly as well in Arian Foster's place on the Texans offense. This isn't as simple as the offensive system making the player. System backs quite simply do not look this good and do not impress to the extent that he has. They put up numbers but don't look electric or elite while doing it. Arian Foster not only has the numbers of an elite player, but he suddenly LOOKS like an elite player. Is he? Probably not, but as I said in a different thread about him, you don't have to be an elite player to play and perform like one. This system was practically built for the exact skillset that Foster possesses. Everything I have seen from him tells me he has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. What he lacks in other areas (wiggle, pile moving ability, top line speed) he MORE than makes up with those 3 things. If Gary Kubiak were to design the ideal running back to handle their system, he would draw up a player that has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. Sound familiar?

Essentially I think we have the potential for a perfect storm here- a system that perfectly fits the exact skillset of a player, such that it enhances his play to greater heights and makes him play and perform better than other potentially more "talented" players. It happened with Priest Holmes. Who's to say it can't be happneing all over again with Arian Foster?

I maintain the smart move (maybe a better way to phrase it would be the safe move?) is to move him if you can get a bonafide, legit top 5 talent. He still has some concern and doesn't have near the track record to be able to feel comfortable about his future yet. However, I no longer think it is ludicrous to think that Foster can maintain what he is doing now for the forseeable future (meaning into next season and beyond). Too many people are becoming WAY too quick to push Foster to the side as a simple product of his situation. This is a clear indication to me that these people have not actually watched him play and have not seen the way he is piling up the gaudy numbers. As I said in the other Foster thread, once upon a time you could have switched Foster's name with Priest Holme's name and had this EXACT same debate and discussion. We all know how well that turned out for everyone saying Holmes was a fraud... Granted, he is a long, long way off from getting to that point. However, it's not as unfathomable as some in this thread seem to think it is.

Is it possible for him to be the long term answer in Houston, of course. Your right, the same things were said about Holmes, and i still think it is true. Had LJ been the RB during Priests glory days, i believe his numbers would have been at least as good. I think comparing Fosters situation to that is fair, but i thnk a better comparison might be Slaton for obvious reasons. You say Fosters abilities are perfect for the Texans system, well people were saying the same thing about Slaton. The fact of the matter is just about any RB's skill set would be perfect for the Texans system.

Im not suggesting someone should trade Foster now before he implodes, he should be a top 5 Rb for the rest of the season. However, considering what you could get for him now, it would make sense to see what he might fetch in a trade. Ofc ourse it depends on things like the current status of your team. Any team that is not a playoff contender could easily get a top tier player, plus a small handfull of prospects and/or picks. I would trade him for Sidney Rice, Marshawn Lynch and a first 2011 pick, or something similar(again, if i wasnt a playoff contender).

There are a couple other little things that bother me about Foster. Will Foster continure to get 70-80% of the RB touches? I know it was against the Raiders, but the other two RB's looked pretty good. Why beat up your #1 back if you dont have to? The other thing is his suspension yesterday. On a team that seems to be able to just plug in any RB, how patient will the Texans be with him. I dont know alot about his personal life, but skipping meetings isnt a good sign.

Barring injury, fumbles, meeting skipping, etc. Foster will certainly finish as a top 5 RB this year, but when it comes to dynasty leagues, i feel better with a player(s) i know will produce no matter his situation.

I do not dispute most of this, except the bolded parts. First, Slaton 2008 is NOTHING like Foster 2010. In terms of production, they are somewhat comparable (although even there Foster is blowing him away). This has everything to do with the way they look when producing the stats. Slaton 2008 looked like a GOOD running back in this offense. Foster looks like an ELITE running back in this offense. There is a very large difference between the two. I don't actually believe he is a legit, elite stud and this is where the offense is inflating him. However, I do believe he is a good player who could perform on other teams, which is not something I ever thought Slaton 2008 was capable of. Average running backs in great situations become good players and never pass the eye test. Good running backs in great situations become elite players and do pass the eye test. The former is Slaton 2008, the latter is Foster 2010. As I said, I would move Foster if I could get a bonafide top 5 talent that lacks the risk and uncertainty that Foster carries with him. However, the list of players I would be willing to move him for has shrunk drastically from 4 weeks ago (hell, it shrunk drastically from even a week ago). I tend to prefer the side of deals that returns me the the best player in the deal, and in your above trade example, Foster would be the best player in the deal (unless you knew the 1st round pick would be top 3). Maybe this could turn into a useful discussion. The following are the only players I would instantly, without a doubt trade him for:

QB- Aaron Rodgers

RB- Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Maurice Jones-Drew

WR- Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson

That is where my list of must-trade players ends. A list that comprises a whopping 7 players. To me, those 7 players are the only mortal locks to produce this year, next year, and the year after at the ultra elite, cream of the crop levels you expect of tier 1 players. After that, there are a slew of guys that you certainly could make a case are much better and/or safer than Foster, but are absolutely no guarantee and an equal case could be made that Foster is the better option (at least in my opinion):

QB- Drew Brees, Peyton Manning

RB- Ray Rice, Frank Gore, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall, Jamaal Charles, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best

WR- Miles Austin, Roddy White, DeSean Jackson, Brandon Marshall, Vincent Jackson, Dez Bryant

That is another 15 players in the "maybe" catagory. Out of these 15, there are a handful of players I would probably trade him for (Ray Rice, Frank Gore, Jonathan Stewart, Miles Austin), but most I would not. That leaves us with 7 players I would for sure trade him for, with another 3-4 I would probably trade him for. This puts him in some pretty elite company.

Outside of those 7 + 3-4, everyone has just as many question marks and concerns as Foster does (and truthfully, Frank Gore and Jonathan Stewart have just as many concerns and questions as well). Not only that, Foster is a good bet to outproduce every player from the 2nd list this season (plus some from the 1st list as well) and has a higher ceiling than many of them, given that offense and the talent he is flashing through 4 weeks (although he notably has a much lower floor than many of them).

Edited by Herm23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think that Orton may be a possible longterm solution in Denver?

I know they've got Tebow waiting and Orton is on a 1 year tender, but Orton's really took to the system and is the engine that makes that Denver Offense go..

because that running game isn't working at the moment.

What are his chances of sticking there and how do we see his dynasty value moving from this point onward?

Edited by ty247

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think that Orton may be a possible longterm solution in Denver? I know they've got Tebow waiting and Orton is on a 1 year tender, but Orton's really took to the system and is the engine that makes that Denver Offense go.. because that running game isn't working at the moment.What are his chances of sticking there and how do we see his dynasty value moving from this point onward?

I have a feeling they will not want to let him go and try to re-sign him before the end of the season. If they wait too long, they will have to give him big money and I don't think they want that. He's definitely shown that he deserves it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

Because the Texans system is more responsible for his numbers than he is.Does anyone really think his numbers would be even close to what they are if he played for the Rams, Steelers, Bills, Bucs, etc.?
No, I don't.Then again, I'm not convinced Rashard Mendenhall, Beanie Wells, Shonn Greene, Jamaal Charles, Ryan Mathews, or Jahvid Best would have done nearly as well in Arian Foster's place on the Texans offense. This isn't as simple as the offensive system making the player. System backs quite simply do not look this good and do not impress to the extent that he has. They put up numbers but don't look electric or elite while doing it. Arian Foster not only has the numbers of an elite player, but he suddenly LOOKS like an elite player. Is he? Probably not, but as I said in a different thread about him, you don't have to be an elite player to play and perform like one. This system was practically built for the exact skillset that Foster possesses. Everything I have seen from him tells me he has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. What he lacks in other areas (wiggle, pile moving ability, top line speed) he MORE than makes up with those 3 things. If Gary Kubiak were to design the ideal running back to handle their system, he would draw up a player that has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. Sound familiar?Essentially I think we have the potential for a perfect storm here- a system that perfectly fits the exact skillset of a player, such that it enhances his play to greater heights and makes him play and perform better than other potentially more "talented" players. It happened with Priest Holmes. Who's to say it can't be happneing all over again with Arian Foster?I maintain the smart move (maybe a better way to phrase it would be the safe move?) is to move him if you can get a bonafide, legit top 5 talent. He still has some concern and doesn't have near the track record to be able to feel comfortable about his future yet. However, I no longer think it is ludicrous to think that Foster can maintain what he is doing now for the forseeable future (meaning into next season and beyond). Too many people are becoming WAY too quick to push Foster to the side as a simple product of his situation. This is a clear indication to me that these people have not actually watched him play and have not seen the way he is piling up the gaudy numbers. As I said in the other Foster thread, once upon a time you could have switched Foster's name with Priest Holme's name and had this EXACT same debate and discussion. We all know how well that turned out for everyone saying Holmes was a fraud... Granted, he is a long, long way off from getting to that point. However, it's not as unfathomable as some in this thread seem to think it is.
I drafted Foster for $11 in my $100 salary cap dynasty league. I am thrilled. But I'd still trade him for a top guy like Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, or Andre Johnson in a heartbeat. The guy looks fantastic, but he doesn't have the track record of a proven stud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did Foster go undrafted in the NFL draft in 2009 ?

Because the Texans system is more responsible for his numbers than he is.Does anyone really think his numbers would be even close to what they are if he played for the Rams, Steelers, Bills, Bucs, etc.?
No, I don't.Then again, I'm not convinced Rashard Mendenhall, Beanie Wells, Shonn Greene, Jamaal Charles, Ryan Mathews, or Jahvid Best would have done nearly as well in Arian Foster's place on the Texans offense. This isn't as simple as the offensive system making the player. System backs quite simply do not look this good and do not impress to the extent that he has. They put up numbers but don't look electric or elite while doing it. Arian Foster not only has the numbers of an elite player, but he suddenly LOOKS like an elite player. Is he? Probably not, but as I said in a different thread about him, you don't have to be an elite player to play and perform like one. This system was practically built for the exact skillset that Foster possesses. Everything I have seen from him tells me he has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. What he lacks in other areas (wiggle, pile moving ability, top line speed) he MORE than makes up with those 3 things. If Gary Kubiak were to design the ideal running back to handle their system, he would draw up a player that has elite vision, cutback ability, and short range burst. Sound familiar?Essentially I think we have the potential for a perfect storm here- a system that perfectly fits the exact skillset of a player, such that it enhances his play to greater heights and makes him play and perform better than other potentially more "talented" players. It happened with Priest Holmes. Who's to say it can't be happneing all over again with Arian Foster?I maintain the smart move (maybe a better way to phrase it would be the safe move?) is to move him if you can get a bonafide, legit top 5 talent. He still has some concern and doesn't have near the track record to be able to feel comfortable about his future yet. However, I no longer think it is ludicrous to think that Foster can maintain what he is doing now for the forseeable future (meaning into next season and beyond). Too many people are becoming WAY too quick to push Foster to the side as a simple product of his situation. This is a clear indication to me that these people have not actually watched him play and have not seen the way he is piling up the gaudy numbers. As I said in the other Foster thread, once upon a time you could have switched Foster's name with Priest Holme's name and had this EXACT same debate and discussion. We all know how well that turned out for everyone saying Holmes was a fraud... Granted, he is a long, long way off from getting to that point. However, it's not as unfathomable as some in this thread seem to think it is.
I drafted Foster for $11 in my $100 salary cap dynasty league. I am thrilled. But I'd still trade him for a top guy like Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, or Andre Johnson in a heartbeat. The guy looks fantastic, but he doesn't have the track record of a proven stud.
I agree and have said as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think that Orton may be a possible longterm solution in Denver?

I know they've got Tebow waiting and Orton is on a 1 year tender, but Orton's really took to the system and is the engine that makes that Denver Offense go..

because that running game isn't working at the moment.

What are his chances of sticking there and how do we see his dynasty value moving from this point onward?

Kyle Orton has 2 years left on his deal. He was on the final year of his contract, but Denver gave him an additional year this last offseason.

I gave him an aggressive bump up to 11th in my most recent rankings update, and I wonder if I'm still not underrating him because I've built up years worth of bias against him. If I had been in a coma for 10 years and this year was the first football I had seen since 2000, I'd say that Kyle Orton was one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL. He's just been so, so, so good through 4 games this year. 4 games does not a full season make, but I cannot say enough good things about how well he's been playing. It's reminiscent of Drew Brees in San Diego- the Chargers drafted a QB in the first round and everyone just wrote Brees off, only to see him become one of the most efficient signal callers in the entire NFL.

And speaking of my newest rankings update, it's live and the change log is available here: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/forums/view...p?f=3&t=139

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do we rank BJGE going forward?

As one year starter and career RRBC back based on his skill-set and situation. People around here tier that differently but in terms of trade value, I suspect that you can get some version of a 2nd or player with some but not great upside. Not sure the last time a NE RB was a true stud, but for the moment he looks playable as 3rd (desparate 2nd) and/or bye week fill-in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you guys feel about McCoy now? I picked him up in a trade steal during the offseason but never really believed in him, must say he looked very good on Sunday vs the Redskins. Two weeks ago I offered McCoy & H. Ward for R. Rice (PPR Dynasty) and was turned down. I'm thinking the value shift has swayed even more after two weeks.

I'm tied at the top of the league this year and also built for the future will a young nucleus.

Would you move McCoy for Rice straight up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone think that Orton may be a possible longterm solution in Denver?

I know they've got Tebow waiting and Orton is on a 1 year tender, but Orton's really took to the system and is the engine that makes that Denver Offense go..

because that running game isn't working at the moment.

What are his chances of sticking there and how do we see his dynasty value moving from this point onward?

Kyle Orton has 2 years left on his deal. He was on the final year of his contract, but Denver gave him an additional year this last offseason.

I gave him an aggressive bump up to 11th in my most recent rankings update, and I wonder if I'm still not underrating him because I've built up years worth of bias against him. If I had been in a coma for 10 years and this year was the first football I had seen since 2000, I'd say that Kyle Orton was one of the 5 best QBs in the NFL. He's just been so, so, so good through 4 games this year. 4 games does not a full season make, but I cannot say enough good things about how well he's been playing. It's reminiscent of Drew Brees in San Diego- the Chargers drafted a QB in the first round and everyone just wrote Brees off, only to see him become one of the most efficient signal callers in the entire NFL.

And speaking of my newest rankings update, it's live and the change log is available here: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/forums/view...p?f=3&t=139

That's exactly what I've been thinking SSOG..

I'm actually astonished at how good he's looked in Denver.. and it's easy to forget he's only 27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm simply in total denial regarding a lockout. It makes absolutely zero sense for the NFL to crap on their fans and stunt their ascending growth based on a few $100M, when we're talking about a multiple-billion dollar revenue stream. That would not be bad business, that could be a self-inflicted catastrophe.....they will lose a significant portion of their fanbase, maybe for good.

I don't buy this for a second. The NFL is bulletproof. Hockey staged a lockout and lost a bunch of fans, sure, but the NFL is not the NHL. MLB lost a bunch of fans once people realized everyone was using steroids, but in the NFL the DRoY just tested positive, and not only does nobody care, but the AP actually re-voted and gave him the award all over again.If the NFL ever had a lockout, they'd come back from it almost as strong as they were before they left. Sure, they'd take some hit, but I doubt it'd be a big one, and I doubt it would last more than a year or two. At this point, it's too big of a part of American culture.
Sadly, that is exactly what MLB thought in the mid 90's. Two things happened: 1) The NFL was sitting there, basically waiting for MLB to screw up so it could move in as the primary sport - which it did (it might have done so anyway - but the work stoppage certainly expedited the process) 2) MLB owners underestimated how many casual baseball fans would jump ship following the strike.IMHO, the NBA is to the NFL now what the NFL was to baseball in 90's - the up and coming sport, that will move in, in terms of marketing if the NFL drops the ball with a work stoppage. As I said, sadly, if the NFL owners feel as you do (that the NFL is bulletproof) they are doomed to repeat the same history. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to not kill the golden goose, just as she is laying the most eggs.I don't want this thread to vere off too much, so if we want to talk about this issue more, we should probably start a new thread. Just wanted to toss out my 2 cents.
:goodposting: I was going to write something similar Double G but just didn't feel like explaining. And the popularity of fantasy football has propelled football, but when all those fantasy leagues disappear, how many will reform? I think there is a good chance my dynasty league will fold and if it does I may give this game up and spend my time on studying the stock market so I can really make some money. Our society is so rife with entertainment opportunities that people will find other things and some won't come back. Some will be mad at owners and players--and I will be one of them. It's time to do something for fans and make the games more affordable--instead they just fleece fans and there is no loyalty to fans or community by owners or players. They will move your team faster than you can blink: just ask Cleveland or Houston.
We'll see I suppose, I just see a few things that can be fixed in the NFL and I doubt all of us will be pissed at the league if it does something positive even after a lockout. I can certainly see some leagues folding but this market is too huge to disappear. I did stop watching baseball after their lockout many years ago but I was never a huge fan of watching games on TV anyway and I still attend a live game or two each year, usually minor leagues. Football is just the perfect combination of games played per week, anticipation, and fun. If they played every day I'd probably lose some love for it just because it's harder to keep up with more than a game per team each week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation... I think Orton should be above Kolb due to McNabb's stellar play and I don't Kolb getting a chance ANY time soon. Also, over Henne as I just think Orton is playing good and I don't feel Henne deserves a higher rank until he does something. Finally, I feel Orton is playing good enough and developing pretty nice to be ranked over Leinart who hasn't shown much of anything.I don't think Orton is some incredible awesome player, but he is showing that he is improving and not just managing the game, but actually throwing well. I saw a couple Bears games and was actually impressed with his throws.... I just feel he is more than a stop gap right now. I have no proof, but since we're trying to get ahead of the curve, I feel in my eyes he is worth a higher rank than those other guys even in a Dynasty format.

I agree. Orton is making some real PRO throws these days and he's posting 60% completion and 7 ypa with absolute dreck at WR. That's a far cry from the 56.5% we saw from Derrick Anderson, who constantly needed Edwards and Winslow to bail him out with sick adjustments on his inaccurate passes. I see Orton as a clear long term answer for a team that has a habit of not bringing in competition at QB. If Davis or Olsen develops, he's only going to get better.
Sell high!
:wall: Certainly I didn't think he'd become McDaniels' new Tom Brady, but the indications were there two years ago that Kyle Orton was here to stay as an NFL quarterback. He was making pinpoint throws to garbage WRs at 60% completion and 7 ypa clips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you guys feel about McCoy now? I picked him up in a trade steal during the offseason but never really believed in him, must say he looked very good on Sunday vs the Redskins. Two weeks ago I offered McCoy & H. Ward for R. Rice (PPR Dynasty) and was turned down. I'm thinking the value shift has swayed even more after two weeks.I'm tied at the top of the league this year and also built for the future will a young nucleus. Would you move McCoy for Rice straight up?

I would move him for Rice, but it is close (I never though I would be saying that). The Ravens haven't had the easiest schedule and Rice has been hurt. When he turns it around, I think he is the better player. If you were to trade, you would be selling high and buying low. The other owner could be scared off by the rib injury though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you guys feel about McCoy now? I picked him up in a trade steal during the offseason but never really believed in him, must say he looked very good on Sunday vs the Redskins. Two weeks ago I offered McCoy & H. Ward for R. Rice (PPR Dynasty) and was turned down. I'm thinking the value shift has swayed even more after two weeks.I'm tied at the top of the league this year and also built for the future will a young nucleus. Would you move McCoy for Rice straight up?

I'd move 2 McCoy's for Rice in a dynasty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Foster was a good find. On the other hand, Steve Slaton and Derrick Ward both averaged well over 6 YPC in yesterday's game for Houston.Pretty much any back can look decent in Houston's system. Even Ron Dayne and Ryan Moats had their moments.

Still trotting out this line, eh? Foster is the real deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation... I think Orton should be above Kolb due to McNabb's stellar play and I don't Kolb getting a chance ANY time soon. Also, over Henne as I just think Orton is playing good and I don't feel Henne deserves a higher rank until he does something. Finally, I feel Orton is playing good enough and developing pretty nice to be ranked over Leinart who hasn't shown much of anything.I don't think Orton is some incredible awesome player, but he is showing that he is improving and not just managing the game, but actually throwing well. I saw a couple Bears games and was actually impressed with his throws.... I just feel he is more than a stop gap right now. I have no proof, but since we're trying to get ahead of the curve, I feel in my eyes he is worth a higher rank than those other guys even in a Dynasty format.

I agree. Orton is making some real PRO throws these days and he's posting 60% completion and 7 ypa with absolute dreck at WR. That's a far cry from the 56.5% we saw from Derrick Anderson, who constantly needed Edwards and Winslow to bail him out with sick adjustments on his inaccurate passes. I see Orton as a clear long term answer for a team that has a habit of not bringing in competition at QB. If Davis or Olsen develops, he's only going to get better.
Sell high!
:excited: Certainly I didn't think he'd become McDaniels' new Tom Brady, but the indications were there two years ago that Kyle Orton was here to stay as an NFL quarterback. He was making pinpoint throws to garbage WRs at 60% completion and 7 ypa clips.
Good call.Orton has been a stud so far. If you look at his numbers for the first half of the season compared to the second half of the season, though, you have to figure a major correction is on the way once November rolls around. He started out on fire in 2008 and 2009, too, and no team in the NFL wanted him this offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had offers of VJax+2nd for Rivers+1st (likely late) and of VJax/2nd/Naanee for Brees. Both owners offered the trade because they were thrilled with their depth at the QB position. I wound up doing the VJax/2nd/Nanee for Brees trade.

Ahhh, so you play with retaards. THAT explains a LOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Foster was a good find. On the other hand, Steve Slaton and Derrick Ward both averaged well over 6 YPC in yesterday's game for Houston.Pretty much any back can look decent in Houston's system. Even Ron Dayne and Ryan Moats had their moments.

Still trotting out this line, eh? Foster is the real deal.
What part of EBF's statement do you disagree with? Heaven forbid someone has a different opinion than yours. Foster may end up being the man in Houston for years to come, but it is far from a sure thing.As long as Kubiak is in Houston, two things are likely to be the case. Houston will have a good running game, and no RB's job is safe.

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.