Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Anyone who analyzes RG3 and sees Cam Newton needs to re-visit their thought process. As a pure thrower and from the neck up RG3 is and was in a completely different level than Cam. With Cam you hope those last two items develop, you don't need to with RG3 - it's already there. Just imagine how much more productive he could be with real play makers around him.
I think the skepticism is based on a few things. 1. There is no NFL precedent of a QB who has had sustained success because of his running alone. Obviously there have been good runners before like Mike Vick who have had big seasons, but when you look at the list of all-time greats in the NFL and FF there isn't a single guy who's there because of his running ability. So while I think it's nice that guys like Newton and Griffin can run the ball extremely well, I think their futures primarily hinge on their passing ability. Fortunately, they are both much better passers than the likes of Vick or Vince Young. 2. The legs are the first thing to go when a player starts to age, so while RG3 and Cam still have several years of their prime left, this aspect of their game won't have the same longevity as the pure passing stuff. Vick has remained a dynamic runner into his 30s, but other players like McNabb saw their rushing attempts decrease dramatically as they got older and became more effective passing the ball. Something to consider is that a good passing QB will average more yards per attempt passing the ball than a great running QB will average running the ball. So if you have a guy who can hit 7.5 or 8.0 YPA as a passer, you are basically losing yards when you rush with him, even if he averages 7 YPC. Of course it's not quite that simple, but I think this partially explains why rushing QBs haven't come to dominate the NFL so far. If you look at the elite QBs in FF and the NFL, the one thing they have in common is great passing ability. Guys like Warner, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, and Brady are not all great runners, but it doesn't matter because that's an unnecessary skill for success at their position. Long term dominance at QB is about passing the ball. I think Luck has all of the physical and mental tools to become this type of player and that's why I rate him so highly. I like Griffin and Cam too, but I'm not yet convinced that either can equal Luck as a pure passer.
I think the answer is somewhere between the two poles of "he's a top 3 QB" and "he's barely a top 10 QB." I've already talked at length about Ryan, so I'll just summarize some of the reasons why he's having a dream season:- The run game has slipped a little, causing the Falcons to pass more. Last I checked Ryan was on pace for a career high in pass attempts. I don't think you can expect him to throw it this much every season going forward, though it's certainly possible. - The Falcons have one of the best supporting casts in the NFL. Julio and Roddy are both top 15 NFL WRs. Gonzalez is the best TE to ever play the game. The problem here is that Gonzalez will retire eventually (and take a lot of TDs with him) and Roddy will start to slide within a couple years. Basically, this is the best Ryan's situation will ever be. It will only get worse from here. The team could compensate for the impending losses by drafting replacements or maybe adding a more dynamic receiving RB or second TE, but they are not going to easily find players of the Pro Bowl (White) or HOF (Gonzo) caliber. Ultimately, I just don't think Matt Ryan is quite at that elite level as an NFL QB. I think he's a good QB benefiting from a great situation. A guy that I would be happy to take as middle-of-the-road QB1, but not someone who deserves anything higher yet.
There's a young guy in Green Bay I kind of like, and think will turn out pretty good. I largely agree, though. You've got Rodgers, Brees, Griffin, Luck, Newton, Stafford, and Ryan. These are your top 7 dynasty QBs, in one order or another. I can understand some people are really high on someone else (maybe Dalton, Tannehill, or Flacco), while others might be really low on one of those guys (Newton, Stafford, Brees), but if you don't have at least 6 of those names in your top 7, you're probably doing it wrong.
I agree with most of this. A few issues:1. We are not looking at HOF probability; we are looking at, and projecting, fantasy points. As an NFL player - I like all 3 - give me Luck over Cam and RG3. But, again, not what we're looking at here. 2. There isn't a very good sample size of players like RG3 and Newton. But that's where football is headed: mobile QBs whose mobility is not a gimmick. Vince and Vick were very flawed as prospects. Take away their running ability and neither of the two were draft worthy, and that is assuming they would have ever been lined up at QB, going back, even to HS. Vick and Vince were "figured out" because their mobility was a gimmick that allowed them to produce at pre-NFL levels of play. Both won games at an NFL level, because of the gimmicky nature of their talents. But, it was figured out. If you could make either of them beat you with their arm/head, they didn't stand much of a chance, long-term. But that's really all a defense can do: force you to beat them with your arm/head. In doing so, they even open things up to you, in terms of passing windows. Again, they can spy, play zone, disguise blitzes - but if Cam and RG3 are good enough to, and I think they both are, it won't matter. Vick and Vince weren't. 3. As for rushing totals taking a dip - I think that is valid. But I think Newton and RG3 are different animals in that aspect, too. Newton is truck, to be cliché, and is a runner. Other QBs can run, but Newton is an NFL level runner, in close space, even if we ignore his position. As for RG3, he could lost 2 steps, and still run a 4.5 and be plenty fast enough to carve defenses up on the ground.
Don't be so sure. The Skins are only missing firsts the next two years. They have every single other pick, and more actually. And this is a deep WR class. There's a pretty good chance that a WR is the BPA in the 2nd or 3rd when the Skins pick, and that could give a dangerous weapon to RG3.
I wouldn't classify Geno Smith as a mobile QB. Pretty sure he averages roughly 1 yard a carry over his career.
Geno isn't much of a runner, Driskell is not much different right now than several other QB's over the last decade plus (potential, no production - yet anyway), and Logan Thomas has been awful.Manziel and Mariota? They're interesting, from both a run/pass perspective anyway.
I expect the Skins to nab a WR day 2 to put opposite Garcon, a Ryan Swope type would fit in very nicely imho.
The stats are due to sack yardage. His not running is due to system. He is a very mobile QB, by NFL standards. But I wouldn't blame anyone for not including him on the list.
Geno is very mobile. Driskel is a true Sophmore getting his first chance to start, and the staff hasn't let him show much. Not that I blame them, but the potential is there. And these are just names with potential - there are others, and each class is offering more. But the number of mobile QBs who have NFL POTENTIAL is clearly growing at a fast pace.
Mobility is a nice trait to have in case you're not A+ upstairs. To be successful in the NFL without mobility you have to be a special kind of talent upstairs, you don't have to be perfect mentally if you have wheels though. Allows you to have some more development time.
It should be mentioned that Fred Davis is a UFA after the season and that the Redskins will be without ~$18 million in cap space in 2013 due to the league-imposed penalty.
His injury may be a blessing in disguise for the Skins, sign him back on the cheap.
Davis didn't earn a big contract, and is coming off of a horrible injury. He may re-sign cheaply for a year. If not...he's honestly not a huge part of our offense, although his role was growing. He's a good TE, a decent blocker....but not an essential piece. It will be interesting to see what happens and how his rehab goes.
Did you intentionally omit Rodgers? If you want to put Luck, Newton, RGIII, and Brees ahead of Ryan, then he isn't top 5, because he's definitely behind Rodgers.
There's already cracks. The Shanahans have a relatively short leash. It was supposed to be a rebuilding year, but win a few games early and fans (and bad owners) are quick to look past that even when basically every good defensive player is hurt. He won't be allowed to start 3-6 next year. There are worse spots, but Washington is still a broken organization that doesn't know how to win until proven otherwise.
I hate the injury excuse and am really trying hard not to make it, but it's a valid case for the Redskins.
I love what they Shanahans have done with RG3, personally. I have to think that is appreciated by even Washington's ownership. Even if it's only one more season, at the very least, I don't project RG3 to be put in the situation Cam is in now.
I loved what the Panthers did with Cam last year, too. No training wheels. But there has to be a step 2. There's risk as to whether the Shanahans a) know what step 2 is already, and b) will get enough time to do it (or tweak it if it doesn't work the first time). The Panthers failed miserably with step 2. Same number of pass TDs, less pass yards, and 1 more win than Cam YTD. RG3 averages 4.2 points per game more than Newton - half of that is rushing (Cam's rushing TD production will swing the other way), and half of that is turnovers. Cam averaged 2 ppg more last year than RG3 does this year. My only point is both guys are works in progress as passers. RG3 has a nice QBR and completion percentage, but so does Russell Wilson. His fantasy production can't cloud the fact that he's a mediocre NFL QB right now. If you had to win 1 NFL game this week, would you take RG3 over Luck? I wouldn't.
I would take Luck over RG3 as an NFL QB, today, and for the future. But that is not what I am trying to measure. The staff has put RG3 in a position to do well, and that is the most important factor in the Skins' future: RG3 doing well. They bet the farm on him, and I don't blame them. He has looked really good, kept his team in games, made big plays, and hasn't turned the ball over. As for step 2 - I don't think the Panthers needed a special or fancy step two, in terms of Newton's progression. They simply couldn't have everything around him take major steps back, and become very unstable. He's not good enough to win games, when the teams he is playing are more talented and better prepared. Put a young QB in 3rd and 2, often, and he can do well. When that 2 yards turns into 7, he is not going to do nearly as well. That is the biggest change in the Panthers this season: their running game doesn't allow 3rd and short as often as it did last year. That's really it - it wasn't some new scheme defenses are throwing at Cam, it wasn't a blanket regression - it was the failure of the running game. I don't think we should look at the step back that Carolina took, and act as though the same will happen to Washington, simply because he and Newton are running QBs.
I'm curious your thoughts about Braxton Miller. As a big Buckeye fan, I have a hard time deciding about his NFL potential. He has improved immensely as a passer and is only a true sophomore. Also seems to be a good kid with a solid work ethic. He is (in my opinion) in a league of his own as a runner compared to the other guys on your list. In fact if QB doesn't work out, I think he could end up as an NFL RB.He should be a 4 year guy, so he still has plenty of time to improve and is far from a finished product, but I think he could end up being a high pick if he continues to improve. His negatives at this point are that he is a little short (6'2ish), doesn't always show great touch, and doesn't play in an NFL style offense. Positives would be his arm strength, running ability and production at a young age.
I haven't watched much OSU this year, to be honest. He is a very good athlete and a play-maker. I'd have to agree that he is a better runner than the others on the list. Maziel is up there, though. As far as NFL potential, I'd like to hear what others who have seen more think.
Well, I believe its essential to QB dynasty value. A QB who wins games can grow into fantasy stats. A QB who has fantasy stats but can't win games will disappear. To bring up your Dalton post from a while ago, it's why I'd strongly favor Flacco over Dalton or Roethlisberger over Romo. And why I tweaked you a lot over Rodgers vs. Cam last year.
That's a legitimate reason for why many people have soured on Cam or why they didn't value him highly to begin with. It is part of the QB's responsibility to prepare the offense. It may be Chud's job description but ultimately a QB has to pick up the pieces and make the machine run. Luck is doing that right now with Vick Ballard and Donnie Avery. When we think of "game manager" we want to think of Dilfer or other boring QBs who don't do anything, but if Cam can't lead an offense he is a game manager right now and failing in that regard.
I don't think we should believe that just because RG3 has a slightly better completion percentage than Cam Newton he will avoid the growing pains many QBs have. Ryan and Bradford also came out weak their 2nd season. Had worse statistical years. Won fewer games.
excellent post.
Dalton had a better W/L record as a rookie, than Rodgers did as a first year starter, after years behind Farve. At what point do we start taking W/L into consideration? And there was a time when Romo was winning regular season games on par with Big Ben. Did you predict his W/L record to slide, or are you using hindsight?
Rodgers record as a first year starter: 6-10Newton record as a first year starter: 6-10Again, you're using hindsite here. It's far too early these guys' careers to start talking W/Ls.
he has a critical offseason ahead to develop as a passer, good head and has the physical tools but needs to show it on the field
It's a fair point that the run game has struggled, but that is not "your wins and losses" because they weren't winning last year either. That doesn't explain why he has more TOs than TDs this year (35/21 last year, 12/13 now). We can't blame everyone but the QB. This is America. You blame the coach, then the QB, then the coach again for picking the QB. That is how it works.
No. You stated really early on last year you'd rather have Newton than Rodgers going forward due to age and likelihood of continued rush TD success. At this point Rodgers' ancient history means nothing, just that he is a guaranteed elite QB going forward like Brees, Brady, etc. Newton had proved nothing at an NFL level so the risk is much higher. He was not an elite NFL QB even though he was an elite fantasy QB.This is not about hindsight. It is about avoiding bias applied to foresight. I don't know what Newton will be so there is more risk. I know what Rodgers is.
When they are elite and we don't have to worry anymore. It is about avoiding guessing and risk. QBs are large cap. Other positions are allowed to live and die with stats. AJ Green is an elite WR even if the Bengals are 3-13. But Newton is not an elite NFL QB if they go 6-10.
- no, actually I was just posting off the top of my head and in a hurry. I knew I would leave someone out. Yes, definately Rodgers as well. So top 6 - not just top 5.
I think your main fault is that you're associating QB play 100% with wins, which is far from how the NFL works in reality. In the case of Flacco, if the Ravens had a bottom 5 defense these past 5 years instead of a top 5 defense, then I think it's fair to suggest he'd have far victories under his belt. That wouldn't mean he was any worse of a quarterback, it just means he's on a team that puts him in a good position to rack up wins.
Agreed - to use a fairly popular debate, it's like saying Brady is a better QB than Manning because he's won more Super Bowls. Brady may very well be better, but that's not the proof. A QB may have a disproportionate impact on the team's success, but he is not the end-all, be-all of a win or loss.That said - I do like Thrifty's larger point: a QB who is conducive to a team winning games is better than a QB conducive to putting up large FP totals. Guys like Kordell Stewart could put up the FPs, but how great of a dynasty pick was he, really? Not so much. Career longevity plays a part in dynasty value, and career longevity is affected by "real life" NFL use, not by FP scored.
As I mentioned, Stafford has to be in the mix, too. Say what you want, but he's a 24 year old #1 overall pick with a 5000 yard season under his belt who will be throwing to arguably the best receiver in the league for the better part of the next decade. He very much belongs in the mix. I think those 7 guys, in one order or another, have to be the clear-cut, consensus top 7 dynasty QBs, though. Maybe there's one of those guys you hate, or one of the other guys you love, but if your top 7 doesn't contain at least 6 of those names, you're probably doing it wrong.
The NFL is worse at this than I'm proposing. They chase wins to a fault. They stick with guys years after they stop winning games because "he gives us the best chance to win." I am watching one right now pass it to a LB in overtime to seal the loss.Joe Flacco makes the Ravens a better team. They won more games (and more playoff games) because of him. They are still an elite team this year even though the D has fallen off markedly. You're free to feel differently, but IMO he is an underrated asset just like Matt Ryan and Eli Manning were previously because he is good enough winning games that the rest can come.We do face choices like this a lot. Cam vs. Rodgers was a legitimate choice 1 year ago. Vick vs. Brady was a legitimate choice 2 years ago. Peyton vs. Palmer and Peyton vs. Culpepper were legitimate choices in the past. I haven't always sided with the guy I felt would do better winning NFL games, but in every case I think I should have.'Time Kibitzer said:
I'm not suggesting that there isn't a correlation between NFL success and QB ability, but to think NFL success is a clear sign of QB ability and an assured predecessor of excellent fantasy seasons is erroneous. Take a look at Mark Sanchez for example, despite putting up poor statistical seasons he "led" his team to 4 playoff victories in 2 seasons; those victories early in his career certainly haven't proven to be a very good indicator of his QB ability. Again, Flacco could be "helping his team win" if he was on the Browns or Chiefs too, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have way less wins under his belt.As for your examples, the times where Palmer and Culpepper were rivaling Manning in dynasty league rankings both occurred very early in their careers directly after a season where their teams went 11-5; so they each had a lot of winning experience at the time for such young QBs.
Who is Kordell Stewart in this conversation? The notion that any of these gusy aren't conducive to winning games is a stretch, so early in their careers. Again, Aaron Rodgers went 6-10; do people not remember the GB fanbase begging for Favre back, even though Rodgers was putting up points? Carson Palmer has a starting gig in the NFL, and his team gave up more than a 1st rounder to get him. Think about that. Thrifty mentioned Romo (who actually has a solid W/L record) when will Romo lose his job? And when that happens, when will there no longer be a market for his talents? Jay Cutler is winning games now; do we ignore the times where he wasn't? And Schaub is winning games. Who do we take him over? And Alex Smith?'Instinctive said:
Cam vs. Rodgers isn't done; not by a long shot. Cam has a decade's worth of VBD to compile left, and a top 10 ever season under his belt (same number as Aaron Rodgers). Culpupper tore two major ligaments in one knee. And he was winning at the time. Tony Romo has more Ints than TDs. His team isn't winning. He has one playoff victory under his belt. Again, when will his market dry up? There would be teams lining up at the door to trade for Romo. Add 9 points a game on the ground, which Cam has done, and Romo is the #1 scoring option by good amount. So, in that hypothetical situation, why does it matter that his team is not winning games?
Joe Flacco has 7 VBD ever. He wins NFL games, maybe. But not fantasy games. That is what I am trying to win.ETA: Carson Palmer has 189, including 10 this year alone.
Ivory is a RFA at the end of this year. If he keeps up this level of play, I can't imagine some team not looking to give him a shot at a starting job. And I don't think the Saints can afford to keep him.Morris - depends on the situation of the owner in your league, but people aren't sold on him as a dynasty asset. His production this year speaks for itself... he's a beast between the tackles, and does everything Shanahan wants him to do. I personally don't see that changing heading into next season, barring injury. And to me, he's shown enough blocking prowess and decent enough hands to eventually work himself into an occassional 3rd down situation, and end up with 20-30 catches annually, only being replaced in obvious comeback mode by a passing-down specialist. Owners looking to cash in on his success may be willing to take less than he's actually worth - as mentioned a few pages ago, only a handful of top-30 RBs under 25. Morris is one of them, and I don't think he's going anywhere.
I think you're misinterpreting what he is saying. What I take from it is that QBs that win games remain employed and will/can grow into putting up numbers while QBs that don't help their NFL team win are more in jeopardy of eventually losing thier job (even if they are putting up stats that help your fantasy team win games).All of that is true - although it's really not all that useful in that no one really knows if Carolina will start winning games or that Baltimore would be a winning team year in and year out when Flacco was just getting started.'Time Kibitzer said:
It is useful in identifying players that are undervalued (due to low VBD to date) or overvalued (due to future risk). I'm arguing Flacco is still undervalued now because he's a QB2 in fantasy but better in real life. I'm arguing Ryan was undervalued before this year and Eli was undervalued before last year. If a QB has a positive effect on a team winning games, there's probably something there that will develop. If a QB doesn't seem to have a positive effect on a team winning games, there is much more risk. The Panthers could be 8-17 with a replacement-level player like Matt Moore at QB. The Redskins started last year 3-7 with Rex Grossman and John Beck. This is also part of the story of Daunte Culpepper. He did tear ligaments in his knee, but what happened? Brad Johnson came in and the team did better. During Daunte's dream season when he had 4700 yards, the team was 8-8. Daunte was a good NFL QB (worse than Peyton, Brady, and even McNabb, but better than many), but if the choice is between an elite NFL QB and a good NFL QB, you take the elite one even if the fantasy stats lag behind. Another example is Tom Brady; he has had several dips in value over the past 10 years where he could have been bought for a much worse QB, even some already out of the league. When he got hurt, when Moss left, when he started 2010 slow. I understand swinging for the fences, but QB is one position where going large cap rarely hurts you. If its large cap, any dip in value is temporary. I bring this up because it applies to the discussion on Luck vs. RG3 to some degree. If someone who values RG3 higher admits that Luck will do a better job winning games now and in the future, it seems counterintuitive to me.
Sold Brown with Bradshaw to a contender. Sold Jennings to MJD owner.Holding Tate.Bought Ingram for an average LB and a draft pick downgrade (3 to 5).Doubt Wilson (Hillman, Miller, etc. too) will be cheap to acquire, no interest in Pead and Vereen. If very cheap I'd trade for Hunter and Ivory, but their owners seem to like them.I am a little concerned that I've stretched my RB's too thin behind Richardson (Ingram-Tate-Taiwan-LMJ), but I have 5 #1's in the next two years so if I don't strike a RB in the offseason I should be able to using draft picks if I don't like the options available in the draft.
I think the RG3/Luck is a reasonable example, if you think we should take their projected W/L potential from here on out. But tell me why I should value Luck more, if I think he scores fewer points and has a lower ceiling. I don't think winning is going to be an issue with RG3; he'll win games. He is smart, accurate, competative, hard-working, and very talented and I see that translating into wins. Vince Young won games. Michael Vick won games. Why do we, after the fact, decide to apply hindsite to their situations and not include them in your W/L argument? Would you take Flacco over Newton? RG3? Stafford?
