Concept Coop
Footballguy
Great #####ing posting.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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.
Dynasty Rankings (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
This is where I differ with SSOG. I would rather have the Green Ahern side. I think it is highly likely that the best statistical season of both Victor Cruz and Gronk have already occurred. Past point production of players produces past championships. I think AJ Green and Ahern can both take another step forward. How much longer will Brady play? Will Dalton further develop? Does Welker depart and if so does Ahern profit the most from that event? Does Cruz's dropsies continue and Eli loses trust in him? To look at past PPG differential means little to me. I would take the future upside and age differences into account as well. I also feel that AJ Green is more likely to remain an elite option for a longer time frame due to position as opposed to Gronk. Elite WR is a safe fantasy asset. Having elite WR's on your team allows you more roster flexibility to concentrate on taking flyers on RB's that could emerge.
There is too much risk here that Hernandez is not available at 3.3. But, if just taking Gronk/Cruz vs. Green/Hernandez, I would jump at Green/Hernandez. But...(1) Im not a big Cruz fan and (2) I love Hernandez, almost as much as Gronk.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
In PPR, the hypothetical where Gronk and Green score the same is less relevant. I realize that's pretty much the case in standard, but in PPR it's not. Also, in PPR the difference between Hernandez and the WR at 3.3 is much smaller. Hernandez's 2011 or 2012 is about 1 ppg less than Cruz's 2012 in that format. In PPR PPG last year Gronk - Hern is 2.1 points and Green - Cruz is 2.8 points. Bloodbath? Eh.Full disclosure I threw out the Hern game where he got hurt in the 1q and had 0 catches. I am pretty sure you did not.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Picking on Cruz is beside the point. Take any WR available at 3.3 based on ADP (Fitz, Nelson, Andre - eh, maybe just say Cruz).
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Well, LOL, I took one of them. Andrew Hawkins, who I think I probably have higher than most, and a 2014 first (should be mid-round I think). I like Miller but I do like Hawkins and an extra 2014 first sounded pretty good.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
The fact that Gronk and Cruz have had monster seasons isn't a negative. Past production is one of the best predictors of future production. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Again, as I said it is close and I am very high on all parts of our hypothetical draft. But, again, all parties have fantastic potential, even from this point on.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Already said it before, but the problem with making conclusive statements about player value using VBD is that it's contingent upon your projections being accurate. And I don't know many people whose projections are very accurate. Things change so fast in FF that a guy you thought you could count on for several more years of solid production could blow up at any time for a variety of reasons. So while you can say that you're getting X value with a particular player going forward, that's all liable to go out the window six weeks into the next season. It's like all the people who spent top 20 dynasty picks on guys like Ryan Mathews, Braylon Edwards, Sidney Rice, and Darren McFadden when those players were in fashion. How much good are their projections doing them now? The Gronk debates are kind of a non-starter for me because:1. I don't think his recent production is a realistic expectation for future seasons.2. I don't think he's likely to stay healthy and remain at his peak for as long as his supporters do.That's a pretty big double whammy for me. I have a lot more faith in AJ Green maintaining (or surpassing) "very good" levels of production than I do in Rob Gronkowski maintaining "best TE ever to play the game by a mile" levels of production, so I'd cast my lot with the Green side without much hesitation.
SSOG
Moderator
Remember, we aren't talking Gronk vs. Green, we're talking a hypothetical WR vs. a hypothetical TE, armed with the foreknowledge that both are going to score identically. So the fact that Gronk is more likely to regress, and Green is more likely to improve (a point I agree with) isn't really applicable in this hypothetical.
It's a hypothetical. It's not "relevant" or "irrelevant", it just is. If a magical genie had told you that TE X and WR Y were being experimented on by astrophysicists and, due to quantum entanglement, would post literally identical stats every single game for the rest of their careers, which would you draft first?You started with pair-wise comparisons. I'm telling you that such comparisons will always favor TE X, because there's no point in the draft where the TEs being drafted are expected to score as many raw points as the WRs being drafted (possible exception: 1.5 or 2 TE ppr leagues- I don't have any experience with what that would do to ADP, though). Pair-wise comparisons are the most simplistic form of VBD analysis, and the VBD will always favor the TE scoring as much as the WR.Now, there are other factors that favor the WR. Trade value, for one. People seem to be slow catching up to the value of the new elite TEs, so the trade value suffers. The problem is that trade value only matters while trading, and I wouldn't be looking to trade either of these players. While trade value lags, I'd imagine after two more years of TE X putting up stud WR numbers, his trade value would catch up to his real value. So trade value, for me, isn't a compelling reason to take the guy who, VBD-wise, is less of a difference maker. The big factor working in the WR's favor is positional requirements. In leagues without a flex, teams can start AT MOST one TE. This can create a huge bottleneck if you happen to land a second stud. I've seen a lot of teams leave a lot of studs on the bench at TE (and also at QB) simply because they couldn't start them. It's much rarer where you'll find a league where a team is leaving a bonafide stud WR on the bench, because if you already have one stud and a second develops, you've got 2+ more starting spots. That's where roster requirements come in for me. First off, in any league where you start TEs at the WR position, the discussion is kind of moot- only TE-mandatory leagues apply. In a league that starts 2 WRs and 1 TE, I think the VBD advantage of the TE just becomes so crushing that he's the only possible choice. In a league that has a flex where you can play either a WR or a TE, I also think the TE becomes the obvious choice (because there's no risk of developing a second stud TE and being forced to watch him ride the pine, or trade him for pennies on the dollar). The comparison is only really interesting, in my mind, in leagues with 3-4 WRs, 1 TE, and no flex. I think with 3 WRs, I'd still prefer the TE, although it'd be close. With 4 WRs, I think I'd prefer the WR. I think that brings the VBD close enough where I'd be less willing to overlook the potential backlog that comes from being completely set at a position where I could never start a backup, should one prove start-worthy. One of my league mates last year owned Gronk, Graham, Gates, AND Hernandez in a league where he could only start 1, and he wasted a ton of points on his bench. If those had all been stud WRs instead of stud TEs, it would have been much less of an issue. So, to recap- leagues with a flex, give me the TE. Leagues with 2 WRs to 1 TE, give me the TE. Leagues with 3 WRs to 1 TE, it's more of a pick 'em, but still give me the TE. Any more WR-skewed than that, and give me the WR.And remember that this is just a hypothetical. An actual analysis of Gronk vs. Green would be even more nuanced, discussing what we anticipate for each player's future (I think Gronk would have more trouble sustaining his production indefinitely). I'm just saying, if we have a TE that we know is going to score like an elite WR... I think that TE has to be more valuable than an elite WR.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I'm glad we could all agree it's just a pick em.
That's an assumption. Graham had a 18 ppg season and his ADP is after Thomas (coming of 18 ppg season) and Jones (coming of 16 ppg season). Hernandez had a 15.5 ppg season and his ADP is after Cobb (coming of 16 ppg season but what do you project). Rudolph and Wright have similar ADP but Rudolph scored more points.Pitta and Sid Rice have similar ADP but Pitta scored more points.Witten scored 232 points in PPR last year. 16 WRs scored more last year. 31 WRs have a higher ADP this year.Tony G for the past 5 years, but perhaps that is now a thing of the past.
SSOG
Moderator
Graham had 18 ppg... two seasons ago. If that's what we're going to hang our hats on, then I'll gladly just point out that Cruz and Nelson both outscored him two years ago, are a similar age, and both are available when he's coming off the board. Hernandez had 15.5 two years ago, Cobb had 16 last year, and again, Cruz/Nelson are still on the table. Witten's past 30, so of course his ADP will be discounted, but you've still got a Marques Colston within 5 slots of his ADP putting up more points a year. Regardless, this whole exercise is a diversion. I never said there aren't any TEs being drafted behind players they outscored last year. I said there are no TEs being drafted behind players they are expected to outscore next year. If someone expected TE X to outscore WR Y straight up, they'd draft TE X well before WR Y. That statement seems fairly self-evident to me.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Was being careful with the straws I pulled. Didn't list Heath Miller or Brandon Myers. I listed guys who are likely to repeat and still have room to grow. On both sides of the coin. Re: Witten, the kneejerk is "ack, age discount" but it's a huge discount. Does Witten have more or less elite years than TY Hilton and Josh Gordon and Denarius Moore because that is the ADP comparable. Or rather, does he have more or less years of expected WR2-level production in raw points. (IMO Hilton has 0 years of expected WR2 production but your opinion may vary.)While I would agree on the surface, Gronk/Graham are undervalued at their current ADP, I think there's also a prevailing wisdom that you have to have one of the top 4 TE to win. Which is a "pretty roster" strategy I'd usually try to avoid. If I look at teams that won last year including my own, just as many Pittas, Rudolphs, Gonzos, and Wittens. (Ok, now that I actually look, more.) Which really just stresses that "it's a pick em" is a valid resolution to any fantasy disagreement.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Can anybody tell me what happened to Vernon Davis?
squistion
Footballguy
I don't agree with you very often, but this is pretty much the reason why I have never taken VBD seriously.
SSOG
Moderator
Following you down the rabbit trail for a second, Witten's discount is too severe in PPR leagues. In non-PPR, though, his name value has been a tier higher than his production for a while now. Only three times in his career has he had production that was substantively different than what Greg Olsen gave last year (substantively different being defined as a 10+ point difference). He had a huge year in 2010 when Romo got hurt and Kitna refused to throw to anyone else in the red zone, but in the other three of the last 4 years, he's finished 5th, 6th, and 8th, and 50th-60th in overall VBD. He's consistent and reliable, but in non-PPR, he doesn't offer much upside over a Pitta or an Olsen or a Miller (and certainly less than a Josh Gordon). Back to the larger point. Last year might not be indicative of much, since Gronk was injured during the playoffs and Graham underperformed expectations by a lot, but in the end, judging value by championships is a dicey thing. In theory, given an infinitely large sample size, if a guy's on just 10% of championship rosters, he was a contributor to the title, and if he was on 17%, his presence alone doubled your chances of winning a title. Obviously that's in a magical fairy-tale world where we have a sample size in the millions and player picks are relatively independent of each other (if pairing Gronk and Brady was the hot strategy, it becomes difficult to tease out how much was Gronk and how much was Brady, for example). And it applies more to redraft than to dynasty, where all studs will be overrepresented in the championship since they're more likely to be paired with other studs on a dominant juggernaut. But it really illustrates the problem of conflating "are Gronk and Graham underrated" with "do you need Gronk or Graham to win". As I said, if I've got just a 17% chance of winning with Gronk, he's more than doubled my odds... and yet there's still an 83% chance that someone other than Gronk wins. He's underrated, but you don't need him to win. I also think of something different than you do when I think of the "pretty roster" guys. In my experience, the two dominant schools of roster construction in dynasty leagues are the "VBD theorists" and the "Pretty Roster theorists" (VBDs and PRTs, for short). The VBDs are all about maximizing the points they put on the scoreboard, while the PRTs are all about maximizing the perceived value of their squad (i.e. making the "prettiest" roster). VBDs view each player as having a specific fixed numerical value representing the advantage he gives, while the PRTs look at players more as stocks, with constantly fluctuating values representing shifts in perception over time. The core philosophy of the VBDs is "identify and acquire", while the core philosophy of the PRTs is "buy low, sell high". I'm not trying to insult either strategy- both can result in ludicrously good teams when executed correctly. Both have pretty glaring faults on their own, too- having the prettiest roster doesn't do any good if nobody is scoring any points (think a few years back of a Bradford/Stewart/Mathews/Fitzgerald/Moss/Britt/VDavis roster- very pretty on paper, very few wins in the intervening seasons, very little trade value left). Likewise, identifying the best players doesn't mean a dang thing if you don't have any trade value to acquire them (Lance Moore or Roeth/Romo are great examples- they put up great production far outstripping their perceived value, but it's pretty much impossible to upgrade from them, since you can't trade them for anything worthwhile). Ideally, you want a roster that puts up big VBD while also being very "pretty", but in truth, you can easily dominate leagues doing just one or the other well (since VBD and perceived value tend to converge over time). For an example of a guy I view as leaning more towards PRT, you've got EBF. For an example of a guy leaning more towards VBD, you've got Coop. Anyway, I talk about all this because, in my experience, the guys looking to build the "prettiest roster" would tend to prefer the WR over the TE, because he carries more trade value (and because it's easier to replace a stud WR in a trade than it is to replace a stud TE- you have more potential partners). At the same time, the VBDs would generally go for Gronk because of his greater dominance over his peers. And, anecdotally, the EBF/Coop example seems to hold- EBF prefers the WR, Coop prefers the TE, and neither of them think it's particularly close
. Again, not meaning this as an insult to either side. I know some people talk about assembling a "pretty roster" very dismissively or disdainfully; I am not one of them. I have a lot of respect for PRT and the results it can provide. I remember The Sporting News used to run a salary cap fantasy football league where you had a certain number of roster spots to fill, a certain number of dollars to spend, and you could add anyone as long as they fit under the cap. If a lot of people added the same player, his cap value went up, and if he was on your roster at the time, your total cap went up as a result. Some owners would add whoever they thought would score the most points, while other owners would "chase last week's points", knowing everyone else would, too, and they'd receive sizeable cap increases as a result (analogous to building a pretty roster high in perceived value). I learned early on that the guys chasing last week's points were almost always the guys that dominated, because by the end of the season their cap could be as much as 33-50% higher than their competitors. Likewise, in dynasty leagues, guys who are constantly buying low and selling high can eventually accrue so much perceived value that it's essentially just like playing with a cap that's 50% higher than everyone else's. when you're starting from that much of an advantage, you can have guys underproduced and still coast to victory. So I'm not hating on "Pretty Roster Theory"- I have a lot of respect for it- I'm just discussing some fundamental philosophical differences in the approach to roster construction between different owners.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
As a big VBD guy, let me share my thoughts on it:In a dynasty setting, you can't project to the yard. But I think it can give you an idea of how valuable positional points are in specific settings. I use it to answer questions like "If Trent Richardson is a top 5 RB for 4 years, how will his value compare to Aaron Rodgers, if he is a top 3 QB for 6 years?" I don't have to do any projecting for Richardson outside of that I think he's a top 5 RB. Then I can look at my leagues history and determine how valuable that is.Everybody has their own ways of using VBD, and I don't think it is needed to win at a very good rate. But I think it has it's place for those who use it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Warrior
Footballguy
Your mistake was ever bringing the names 'Gronk' and 'Green' into the situation in the first place. Many people have trouble dealing with hypotheticals. When you name the hypothetical TE Gronk and name the hypothetical WR Green, everyone gets a picture in their minds of the two players and their preference.Next time, just say TE X and WR Y and you'll probably see a lot less bias and confusion.
SSOG
Moderator
Yeah. One season he caught a lot of TDs. The question isn't "Vernon has always been so great, why is he suddenly so mediocre?", it's "Vernon has always been so mediocre, why was he suddenly so great?" I know comparing TEs to Tony Gonzalez isn't really the fairest thing to do, but Vernon's second best season would finish in a virtual tie with Tony Gonzalez's 9th and 10th best seasons. And Vernon's 3rd best season would be Gonzo's 13th best. Vernon really just had one amazing year, one good year, and has been amazingly mediocre in his other 5. I think we're at the point where we need to seriously consider that Vernon Davis, while an excellent NFL player, was just a fantasy flash in the pan. The Brandon Lloyd of TEs, if you will.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
The larger point is that there are value picks at TE later in the draft, even under the strict requirements you set forth from a raw PPG standpoint. I only have dynasty ADP for PPR. Given Pitta and Rudolph's TD output last year perhaps they are the raw PPG value plays later in the draft for standard leagues. Just giving examples. They are less guaranteed than Gronk but hold a similar advantage over their ADP neighbors at WR.Another issue here and one I didn't really go into, since it didn't fit your hypothetical, is chasing TDs. You value Witten less because the TDs haven't been there. You focus on standard, which is fine, since that's what you play, but it elevates hard to repeat TD totals. We can say Gronk is one of a kind, and his production so far has been (more or less), but harder to say that going forward with the other inevitable changes in NE. Gronk's YPG is not that special. It is on par with Witten, who you just panned for not scoring enough TDs except for when he had a QB who liked to target him in the RZ. Calvin Johnson's TD output.
I realized there was a gotcha there. I think 2011 isn't much different though. A couple Gronk winners, but still a healthy amount of Witten/Gonzo winners and oddball noname TE winners in my PPR leagues. The overriding point is there's TE value all around us. Everything I've said since and including my original 2 player draft was meant to illustrate that. You're saying something controversial by saying "you should take this TE 1.1." Repeating what you felt about Gates years ago, I guess. But you're also saying something else controversial by saying no other TEs have that upside. Bringing up Hernandez at 3.3 is meant to point out his upside is astronomical (top 5 WR/TE). Rudolph's raw point production (both expected and upside) is not much different than Gordon (and his floor is much higher). Pitta vs. Sid Rice, the same.I've done two mocks so far this year (one redraft, one dyn, both ppr), and took Gronk in one and Graham in the other. One thing I noticed though is, you start passing on other TEs. TEs you like and think will do well. TEs that might have been better value than Graham at 2.3.
I am pretty sure EBF just likes Graham better, and Coop had Cruz in the same tier as Green at one point in time. Your analysis of Gronk is totally based on VBD, but you can make both arguments for getting the TE. Targeting next year's Heath Miller is not a pretty roster move.Anyway, I talk about all this because, in my experience, the guys looking to build the "prettiest roster" would tend to prefer the WR over the TE, because he carries more trade value (and because it's easier to replace a stud WR in a trade than it is to replace a stud TE- you have more potential partners). At the same time, the VBDs would generally go for Gronk because of his greater dominance over his peers. And, anecdotally, the EBF/Coop example seems to hold- EBF prefers the WR, Coop prefers the TE, and neither of them think it's particularly close
Rushmore
Footballguy
Kind of agree here. I think he will continue to have games where he scores big points when they connect on a wheel or seam route. I'm just not sure he's very good with body control and route running in comparison to some other upper tier TE's. He is big, ripped and straight line fast, but has some limitations as a receiver imo.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Gronk's YPG for a TE is very special. There have been 18 total 1,100 yard TE seasons ever. Gronks TD totals aren't a fluke. I dont' know if he can keep averaging 1/game. But he's likely the best redzone threat in the NFL right now, and I don't see that changing soon.And if we're talking about TD production, wny not look at Green's, who scored 10 over the first 10 weeks, and 1 over the final 7 (including playoff game).
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I expect the Brady era to last at least another 3 years as well, but the Brady era is not the point. Even in the Brady era, there can be variability, just as Calvin Johnson experienced this year. Did you expect Calvin to put up a 5 TD year with both him and Stafford healthy? I would argue Gronk is more tied to Brady than Calvin to Stafford or Green to Dalton but I'm sure you disagree. He would still be a good TE, but not money in the bank. He would be ...ummm... Vernon Davis?
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
Response to your edit - the whole point is TD production is variable even for the best players.For Gronk to be equal to Green in standard, he better keep that TD rate up.Calvin's 2012 is a vote for the WR right? He had a terrible year in the RZ but won leagues.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I don't know how we got into the blanket points conversation. I don't expect Gronk to be able to keep up with Calvin. But that is why I take the rare, freak Gronk; he won't need to to be as valuable. I'm not worried about Gronk, in the way most of the hobby seems to be. The word TE is really just a word when it comes to Gronk; it doesn't describe his skill-set, utilization, or production. Once you remove the term from Gronk, he is no longer tied historically to the positions past production, so it's not such a stretch to say "Yes. Maybe he can keep this up. Maybe he is no more tied to his QB than the best WRs are to theirs".'thriftyrocker said:
I have a hypothetical ...Say you're drafting in a dynasty startup, 1 PPR, 6 TDs all... and you're around the turn. The settings are 1-4 RB, 1-4 WR, 1-4 TE.How viable would it be to start the draft with Gronk/Graham/Hernandez at the 1.12/2.01/3.12?You'd have TE on lockdown and since it's TE required other people would be starting much worse options. Granted you'd have pretty terrible RB options, but in PPR that can be masked with good receivers.I think I might build some simulations out to test this theory...
Dawg Pound 69
Footballguy
I've seen a few folks do this, and they ended up having to deal a TE for a RB or WR. And in both cases they had to take less than market value for the TE's.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Not viable. With so many flex options, the advantage that Gronk(Graham) offers is hindered. You're basically going for the highest scoring options, and, for the most part, ignoring position. At the very least, much more than you would in a standard format.ETA: This format also moves dynasty value away from RBs. You are required to start comparing across positions, things like career duration and health.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
Not that viable. The advantage of stud TEs is that everyone is forced to start 1, so you're rolling your 1 Gronk out against their 1 Gresham and slaughtering them. In the league you describe, you're only forced to start 1, so suddenly your second TE isn't lining up against another TE, he's going up against a WR, and the WR could easily trump him. I like Hernandez, but if it's a question of starting him or Cruz at the flex, give me Cruz every time. Ideally, you want as many stud TEs as your league has mandatory spots, and then in your flex you want to be getting whoever scores the most, regardless of position. In a 2-TE required league, I could totally see opening Gronk/Graham. In a 1.5 TE ppr with lots of flexes, Gronk/Graham/Hernandez would be an amazing start (not that Hernandez would last to 3.12). In the league you describe, though, I'd grab Gronk and then load up at RB and WR.
Dez
Footballguy
Remember last year when everyon was all over Ryan Mathews who had limited touches and was X years younger than guys like Peterson and Rice. Not saying Martin is going to be Mathews but when people go for the young guy sometimes you get burned. Sometimes it is nice to lock up a stud for the next 3-4 years you can count on that has done it for years already. If you go young and hit then great but when you miss you are kicking yourself for years like everyone who took Mathews in the 1st round of start ups last year over guys like Peterson, Lynch, ect.
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
Exactly.VBD in dynasty is not about specific projections. It is about how to value players against other players, especially between positions.One may think they are not using VBD concepts, but they are. If you make a WR for RB trade, you are evaluating replacement value of what you are giving vs improvement value of what you are getting, especially if you are trading starters. We each make our own judgments about career value vs short term value, but the VBD concept is still underlying the process.'Concept Coop said:
voiceofunreason
Footballguy
My problem with Gronk is that he's had a lot of injuries. Too many to take him 1.01. Secondly, when Brady is done or goes downhill, I don't see much chance of him putting up the same numbers.
EBF
Footballguy
Well, Martin had a better year than Mathews ever has. He had one of the best rookie seasons by a RB in the past 10-15 years. He had more total yards in his debut season than Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Clinton Portis, and LaDainian Tomlinson. You have to go all the way back to Edgerrin James in 1999 to find a back who gained more yards as a rookie than Doug Martin. So I think treating Martin as if he's just some "maybe" or trendy sleeper pick is missing the point. He just had one of the best rookie RB seasons of all time and has already won titles for a bunch of his owners.And for what it's worth, just because Mathews had a bad year in 2012 doesn't mean he couldn't bounce back at some point. The use of Lynch as an example of a safe pick is ironic. That's the same guy who washed out of Buffalo after losing his job to Fred Jackson. He's actually walking proof of why you shouldn't bury a player just because he had a bad year or two. That's how you miss out on the next Lynch, Benson, or Thomas Jones. Last year is important, but ultimately it's just one season, and player values will ebb and flow over the course of their careers. A couple years ago it was Darren McFadden and Chris Johnson tearing it up from the 2008 RB class. Now it's Jamaal Charles and Ray Rice. In another two years it could be Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall. A player can go from bust to hero and back to bust again in the blink of an eye. Or vice versa. Point being, you have to try to gauge a player's quality and then anchor to that value throughout the highs and the lows. If you believe that guys like Mathews and Mendenhall are good players, a down year is just a bump in the road. It's not like it would be terribly surprising to see either of those guys finish top 10 next year. They've done it before. I've told this story before, but a few years back when Lynch was at the low point of his career I had him tabbed as a possible 7th-8th pick in a 14 team startup where I badly needed a RB. I ultimately passed on him several times at really reasonable draft slots even though I had always been a pretty big Lynch fan when he was a draft prospect. Why did I avoid him? Because I had fallen prey to the "what have you done for me lately" mindset instead of trusting my judgment of the player's ability. I had the chance to get a franchise caliber back with tons of tread left on the tire for pennies on the dollar, and I passed. That decision cost me dearly, but I did learn a lesson from it. Fast forward a few years and I'm in another startup where Michael Crabtree is sitting on the board after 44 other WRs have been taken. His stock is ice cold at this point, but it's the 8th round and I've always felt that he was a pretty good prospect. It's Lynch all over again, except this time I made the right decision and picked him. He started slow, but put up silly numbers down the stretch. My team squeaked into the playoffs as a total points wild card and rode a hot streak all the way to the title. If I hadn't made that one pick, I wouldn't have even made the playoffs. The example demonstrates why I don't mind being (wrongly) accused of being rigid or unwilling to change my opinions. You need a little bit of that. You need to have the fortitude to trust your evaluations, even when they aren't necessarily reflected by whatever is happening on the field at any given time. Rankings and perceptions of player values tend to calcify in each offseason, only to be thrown into utter turmoil mere weeks into the next season. It's overreaction to last year's events, followed by over-correction. And it happens every year, which is why I so often play the role of stubborn old man in the debates on these boards.
You probably meant someone other than Ray Rice because (1) he's practically the same age as Mathews (both born in 87) and (2) no one that I know drafted Mathews ahead of Rice. When you go for the young guy, sometimes you get burned. When you go with the "old" stud, sometimes you get burned (remember Larry Johnson and Shaun Alexander). When you go with anyone, you can get burned. It goes with the territory. I prefer the flashy young guy myself, but I recognize there are risks (to go along with the potential massive reward). As for Mathews, personally, I don’t think he is toast just yet, but like many others, choosing to go with him (which I have on a recent trade) is a risky proposition.
I'm gonna completely disagree with you here. There's a lot of WRs that would be average with worse QBs, but Gronk is an absolute freak. If a ball is anywhere in the vicinity he is catching the ball. He's about as QB-proof as anyone out there. I'm not saying he'd be a super VBD king with another QB, but he would absolutely still be top 5 in that type of offense. That's why he's a safe pick. He's averaging 1.0 TDs per game since the start of his career. That is insane. Even with a lesser QB he could get half that if utilized properly. That's still 8 TDs per year! Better than all but 2-3 TEs every year.
Last edited by a moderator:
You just described one of the worst fears with Gronk. "Top 5" for a TE is not good enough if youre considering him at 1.01 against the top WRs. While there are plenty of WRs that would be average with worse QBs as you say, the WRs you would be considering at 1.01 are either "QB proof" or have younger QBs where being QB Proof or not QB Proof is not a serious consideration. If you're not saying that Gronk would be a super VBD king with another QB, then he is also not QB proof as you say and you really didn't completely disagree with voiceofunreason.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
He's the best redzone threat in the NFL and potentially the biggest mismatch. He's as QB proof as anyone. The fact that he's a TE (In name only) doesn't change that.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
If you value player X more in PPR than standard, or more in 1.5 PPR than 1.0 PPR, or more in 2 QB leagues than 1QB leagues - you're exercising the principles of VBD.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
SSOG:Help me put a number on Gronk and Graham being more valuable than their VBD numbers suggest, because the advantage they offer over 3-11 is not measured. VBD assumes that the decline in production from the top scoring player at a position to the baseline player at a position is gradual, or, at least, relatively even between positions. 10 1010 1010 710 710 610 59 58 56 55 5In the above, VBD would suggest that the players at the top of their tiers are equal. Clearly, they are not. The player at the top of the 2nd tier offers much more of an advantage over other owners, and will win more often than the player at the top of the first tier. As an example, the emergence of Kaepernik, RG3, Luck, and Wilson really hurt the value of Newton and Rodgers. Instead of owning 1 of 2-3 elite young dynasty options, you now own 1 of 6. But, in VBD, this loss of value is not measured unless the baseline options increase their production/value.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Double
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
Honestly, that's one of the two reasons I started that WR trivia thread. The first reason was "holy freaking hell, look at all these amazing WRs under 30". The second reason was "holy freaking hell, look at Percy Harvin's numbers".I've never really seen anything like this when it comes to young WR talent. Never. Obviously Calvin is unbelievable, but after that, you've got another 10 guys under age 30 who are essentially putting up 1300+/10+, and that list doesn't even include Andre, Welker, or Roddy (who have the yards, but not the scores), James Jones or Decker (who have the TDs, but not the yards), Fitz (who has the talent, but not the QB), Nicks (health), Cruz or Nelson (slightly down years, talent still there), Cobb (still establishing himself), or incoming guys like Allen, Watkins, or Lee. WR right now is sort of like RB after the 2008 draft- nasty deep. On the one hand, it makes it more necessary than ever that you land one or two of those studs. On the other hand, it makes it a lot easier to do so. Gronk, on the other hand, is a lot harder to replace. The Green, Julio, and Calvin owners in my league were all playing hardball, so instead I traded for Marshall, Harvin, and Demaryius, getting similar production for a fraction of the cost. If the Gronk or Graham owner played hardball, my alternatives would be guys like Olsen or Finley.
Im not saying he isnt QB proof (although I do worry about it at times being so overcommitted to Gronk), but if losing Brady means Gronk becomes merely "top 5" for a TE as the prior poster suggested (because then he does become a mere TE and is no longer a TE in name only), then he wouldnt be QB proof.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I think you could just calculate the mean and stddev of VBD. Gronk should be that much further from the mean.For 2012, mean VBDPPG for top 12 TE is 2.89. The stddev is 2.46. Gronk's VBDPPG at 8 is more than 2 std dev's away from the mean.Mean VBDPPG for top 36 WR is 3.2056. The stddev is 2.4874. Calvin's VBDPPG is 9.2 and Marshall's is 8.7. Pretty similar IMO.PPR stats.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Thanks for this. But again, we are using VBD. If we assume it is flawed, because it doens't measure value over 3-11, why would we use VBDPPG?My question to you: How do you measure how many owners in your league WR11 gives you an advantage over? Should that matter?ETA: Advantage over # of owners has to count for something. I understand why VBD was designed to use lowest scoring starter as baseline, but I think there has to be a better way to calculate it, when talking about the elite players. An owner rolling out WR34,WR35, WR36 is not fielding a baseline WR squad. An owner starting WR12, WR24, WR36 is starting a baseline group of WRs. How do we account for that?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I think it might be a reflection of the increasingly passing-friendly rules, and more passes being thrown generally. QBs with 500/600 attempts by year:2007 - 10/12008 - 10/22009 - 14/02010 - 9/22011 - 16/32012 - 18/6Couple related points...First, IMO a lot of FF players are focusing on the increase in raw totals to overvalue the WR position (particularly WR2s). That's doubly true for 2012 since it was an odd year for RBs even outside the general 'more passing' trend. This is where VBD can be pretty useful - as a reality check across positions.Second, there's a knock on effect in terms of what types of WR are viable FF #2/3s. It's opened the door to relevancy for some guys who wouldn't have been in the past.Also, thanks for the great rundown on FFPC Dynasty back there guys. Really appreciate it. And especially your generous comments Ernol.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I don't know if you understood what I did or not so sorry for the intro to stats info that I will put below. The standard dev of VBD will take into account the VBD of guys 3-12.The VBDPPG for TE is [ 8, 5.8, 4.6, 4.5, 3.5, 3, 1.5, 1.3, 0.6, 0.4, 0]If it's a normal distribution, about 90% of the values should be within 2 standard dev. About 2/3 should be within 1 standard dev. So the standard dev is a measure of how closely together those VBD values fall. If it's narrow, everyone's about the same. If it's wide, it's not. So TE6 is right at the mean VBDPPG for a TE (3 vs. 2.9). TE3 and TE4 are within a standard dev. TE2 is a full standard dev away, and Gronk is another one on top of that.Let's say Gronk had the same VBDPPG of 8, and TEs 2 through 12 had VBD 0. Mean vbd would be 8/12 = .6667. Stddev is 2.3. Gronk is now over 3 standard devs better than the mean.Let's say there's 3 elite TEs who each have VBDPPG of 8 and TEs 2 through 12 had VBD 0. Mean is 2. Standard dev is 3.6. There is less advantage to having Gronk cause there's 2 other guys who are equal.Actually doesn't make a difference if you do this on raw points or vbd, since vbd is just a constant offset from raw points.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I think I understand what you're saying, but could be wrong. But it still brings the baseline into question; changing it would greatly alter our deviation. "An owner rolling out WR34,WR35, WR36 is not fielding a baseline WR squad. An owner starting WR12, WR24, WR36 is starting a baseline group of WRs. How do we account for that?"
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I don't think either baseline is right. A team that drafts TE/QB may not have a WR1 but may have 2 WR2. A team that drafts WR/WR usually still has a TE1. IMO 34/35/36 is closer to right.As I said, mean and stddev will still apply to raw points. The numerical analysis doesn't change much. Stddev(PPG) == Stddev(PPG-100) or any other constant.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
It will apply to raw points, but it would still require a baseline, or certain collection of data. If we restricted it to WR1-12, Gronk's numerical value would skyrocket, in comparision. There are baselines we can use that will suggest WR5-6 is on par with Gronk. But WR 5-6 is simply an average starting WR1, and doesn't offer much advantage over the rest of your league, in that sense. I know we have to account for the fact that WR5-6 can also be started at two more positions, but I don't think it is quite accurate to then compare them to WR36+.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
If we picked a random league and replaced every starting TE with Gronk, every team would win a lot more games than if we went around and replaced every teams WR1 with AJ Green.
SSOG
Moderator
But what if you added Gronk to the team (without removing the current TE) vs. adding Green (without removing the current WR)? Suddenly then Green is replacing the WR3. If you asked people "would your team be better if you traded your best TE for Gronk or your best WR for Green", 90% would probably say Gronk, but that's because losing your best TE is usually much less costly than losing your best WR. If, on the other hand, you said "your QBs are Rodgers and Newton, and you can either trade Newton for Gronk or Green... which would help your team more?", it becomes a much closer call. That's why, in my mind, wr3, (not wr1), is an appropriate baseline against which to compare Green.
