Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

What's your view regarding Cam Cameron's influence on Flacco? Until recently the only OC Flacco has known, and given the documented tension between the two this year, you think there's any merit to the idea that Cameron was inhibiting Flacco's growth and development, where Caldwell apparently has made some progress in a short period of time?

It's a bit of a cop out, but I really don't know. The sample is way too small. I do believe it's possible for a coach to hold a QB back- I'm a Denver fan who lived through the Elway/Reeves era, so I've seen it first-hand. At the same time, I know that random is random. Players have good games and bad games. Those games aren't always evenly spaced- sometimes they cluster together into hot or cold "streaks". That wouldn't be a problem, except that the human mind is built to recognize patterns and assign causes. We often see patterns in what's really just random noise. Baltimore is a great example- when they were busy going 1-4 over 5 games, we were convinced they were done. Or look at Matt Ryan. He had some great games and some terrible games. He actually is tops in NFL history in 4th quarter comeback percentage, so he's clutch. Only he lost his first three games in the playoffs, so he's a choker. Until he led a huge clutch comeback in the playoffs, and now he's clutch. Except then he choked away a game against the Niners the next week. So he's either clutch, or he's a choker, or he's both, or he's neither, or neither clutch nor choker really have any meaning and they just represent us trying to assign adjectives to create a narrative to explain away something that's essentially just random chance. So, rambling aside... It's a bit of a cop out, but I don't know what effect losing Cam will have. Maybe losing Cam set Flacco free. Maybe random chance happened to cause Flacco's good play to correspond to Cam's firing, and the two are unrelated. I can see Cam's dismissal being a reason for optimism, but for now, I'm just operating under the assumption that Flacco is who he has shown himself to be over the large 20-game sample of the season, and the much larger sample of his entire career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12th sounds like average to me. There's 32 starting QBs on any given week. I'd call average 11-20. The middle 3rd or so, if you will. I'd say Eli's average as well. And I think Stafford's overrated. So the fact that those guys are behind him doesn't surprise me :shrug:

12 teams make the playoffs :shrug:
I fail to see the correlation. Are you saying only elite/above average teams make the playoffs? Cuz I'l go to war with that view. It may take me a week or two (I've got the LSAT this Saturday) but it won't take too long, I imagine, to find data that shreds that statement.
I'm sure that would be a very interesting discussion but I'll pass if it's okay with you. Some years there are not 12 good teams. Some years there are not 12 good QBs. This year there were at least 12 good QBs and Flacco was one of them. 12 out of 32 is an arbitrary cutoff but no less so than 10 out of 32 (which you made). He was closer to QB10 in regular season play than he was QB20, both IMO and statistically.

So you're saying Flacco played well enough in the regular season that, if all other talent were equally distributed on all other teams, he would be the worst QB in the playoffs. I don't disagree with this statement- I think Flacco definitely deserves to be ranked in the 10-15 range. I could even see as high as 8, maybe, though I certainly wouldn't put him there. I'm just saying, that's an awfully low bar for "great" or "elite". I'd call Flacco an above-average or even a good QB, but not a great or elite one. Even if he did have arguably the greatest postseason in NFL history.

Statistically he was the 12th best QB in 2012 according to QBR. That's not opinion, just offering evidence to dispel "average" at least by my definition of the word. He is 18th in NFL history in career QBR (granted older players are hugely shortchanged here). If the season ended week 17, he might have been the 9th or 10th best QB of 2012. Hard for me to accept Rivers or Ben had better years. Schaub had a similar regular season (far from elite, but they lose the division to IND if they play Yates all year). One of EBF's retorts was "he still didn't make the pro bowl" but did he really have a worse year than 2 of the 3 that represented the AFC (Schaub and Luck). Similar, as good, didn't get the votes, so what (he will next year).He is not a 1st tier QB in NFL or dynasty terms. He is not elite. He has elite upside but is not there yet and probably won't get there. He is good. He has helped the Ravens win games with regularity both in the regular season and playoffs. He has been great at times. He was undervalued in both NFL and dynasty terms as recently as two weeks ago and maybe still if people view him as the same guy he was as a rookie. From a NFL GM perspective, there are several QB with better QBR I would take him over due to the other guy's 1) age, 2) injury, 3) risk of not repeating one good year, 4) history of falling short in the playoffs and only beating mediocre teams, and/or 5) recent precipitous decline in play and ability to win games. He is not better than Peyton Manning but I would rather start a franchise with him than Manning, and I realize if Raheem Moore didn't fall asleep that statement would be harder to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking about finally putting together my own bare bones FF website with dynasty rankings and prospect evaluations.

I think this is a great idea. At the risk of sounding like a ball washer, I've not seen many other sites with the kind of analysis and passion you put into your evaluations you put on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my first crack at a current set of WR rankings:

Jordy Nelson at 30? I have to ask about this. In his last healthy season he was very close to 100 receptions, 1,200+ yards, and 15 TD. This year, when healthy, he was making plays. What am I missing? Those putting Cobb on another tier are going to be disappointed in their return, in my opinion. Jordy is the better option on a season to season basis, and he'll outscore Cobb by enough to make up for the age difference.I'm with you on Shorts. I am not willing to rank him that high, but he's legit. Thanks for the rankings. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a NFL GM perspective, there are several QB with better QBR I would take him over due to the other guy's 1) age, 2) injury, 3) risk of not repeating one good year, 4) history of falling short in the playoffs and only beating mediocre teams, and/or 5) recent precipitous decline in play and ability to win games. He is not better than Peyton Manning but I would rather start a franchise with him than Manning, and I realize if Raheem Moore didn't fall asleep that statement would be harder to believe.

I feel like Flacco is the anti-Romo. I know Flacco is in the process of getting the Super Bowl MVP treatment right now, but give me Romo. Romo is the better football player and in Flacco's position, would help the Ravens more than Flacco has. Romo is going to get the blame for his teams choking, and yes, Romo has shot himself in the foot a number of times. But Romo was legitimately in the MVP race for a stretch - although it wasn't covered. I am not saying Romo is a top 5 QB, but I don't think there are 5 QBs who could have put that team in position to win even as many games as they did, Flacco included. He's never had the stability around him that Flacco has, never had the running game, or, at the very least, the commitment to it. The Cowboys organization is unstable from the top down and a lot of that is going to be placed on Romo. But Romo helps win football games and his stats support that claim. We are going to look at a very small number of plays and say: Flacco made the plays, Romo didn't. But I think that's wrong. It reminds me of the Kobe v. Lebron argument (when it was still an argument); LeBron's stats showed that he helped win games at a much higher rate, but Kobe was "clutch" and that seemed to be too heavily weighed; as though the first 45 minutes of basketball didn't decide games. Give me the best player and I'll win more than I'll lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,000,000 views :shock::loco::jawdrop:

Not only that, but the over 18K posts blew up the replies counter:

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 33554432 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 76 bytes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a NFL GM perspective, there are several QB with better QBR I would take him over due to the other guy's 1) age, 2) injury, 3) risk of not repeating one good year, 4) history of falling short in the playoffs and only beating mediocre teams, and/or 5) recent precipitous decline in play and ability to win games. He is not better than Peyton Manning but I would rather start a franchise with him than Manning, and I realize if Raheem Moore didn't fall asleep that statement would be harder to believe.

I feel like Flacco is the anti-Romo. I know Flacco is in the process of getting the Super Bowl MVP treatment right now, but give me Romo. Romo is the better football player and in Flacco's position, would help the Ravens more than Flacco has. Romo is going to get the blame for his teams choking, and yes, Romo has shot himself in the foot a number of times. But Romo was legitimately in the MVP race for a stretch - although it wasn't covered. I am not saying Romo is a top 5 QB, but I don't think there are 5 QBs who could have put that team in position to win even as many games as they did, Flacco included. He's never had the stability around him that Flacco has, never had the running game, or, at the very least, the commitment to it. The Cowboys organization is unstable from the top down and a lot of that is going to be placed on Romo. But Romo helps win football games and his stats support that claim. We are going to look at a very small number of plays and say: Flacco made the plays, Romo didn't. But I think that's wrong. It reminds me of the Kobe v. Lebron argument (when it was still an argument); LeBron's stats showed that he helped win games at a much higher rate, but Kobe was "clutch" and that seemed to be too heavily weighed; as though the first 45 minutes of basketball didn't decide games. Give me the best player and I'll win more than I'll lose.
Is there a :badposting: ? Yikes.I think it's ridiculous for you to crap on anyone that performed the way Flacco has done this postseason. That Ravens defense has been below average the entire season. Flacco put this team on his back and carried them through four tough, tough matchups and won them a Super Bowl. Saying Romo would have done better when Romo has done virtually nothing in the playoffs for the past 8 years is a bit of a joke.QBs can single-handedly take teams to the playoffs. Look at what Luck did this season. Look at what Rodgers has done for multiple seasons. That Indy team is nearly devoid of talent at all positions, yet somehow they made the playoffs, mostly thankful to many, many late game heroics by Luck. 2-14 to 11-5 after dumping virtually all their veterans? That's insane. The Dallas team has WAY more talent than the Colts yet Romo couldn't get them to the postseason. At this point I would take Flacco as my QB over Romo any day, and twice on Sunday. Edited by meyerj31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Flacco is the anti-Romo.

If you want to be a Romo apologist just as hard as I am a Flacco apologist at the moment, that's fine. The problem with the Kobe comparison is that here the non-clutch guy is a few years older. And he hasn't had a winning season since 2009. (And neither guy is a generational talent.) Romo doesn't have 10-15 years to figure it out. He's at the age now (about a year) where McNabb was after PHI decided Kolb gives them a better chance to win. I don't think we know what Romo is like in a ball control offense because he's rarely been asked to do it. There was a time a couple years ago when they asked him to reduce turnovers and he played more conservative for a few games, but IMO it didn't stick very long. Late era Favre is a similarity. Put him on Minn, give him the best RB in a generation; he was very efficient in regular season play, but winning time he still tries to put the ball a place where it can't go. It's a stretch to ask him to play a different style and still be the best player on the field.And if Romo gets a pass for his RBs being hurt, Flacco gets a pass for having at best below average receivers. The sum of the talent at skill positions is about the same. (As far as stability, he's essentially had the same OC since - what - 2007.)Romo is a good NFL QB. He's undervalued in dynasty as well. Put under 30 yo Romo on 00s Ravens teams over a young Flacco; yeah, it is a better team. Put 32 yo Romo on the 2011/2012 Ravens teams, I'm not sure your conclusion is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a :badposting: ? Yikes.I think it's ridiculous for you to crap on anyone that performed the way Flacco has done this postseason. That Ravens defense has been below average the entire season. Flacco put this team on his back and carried them through four tough, tough matchups and won them a Super Bowl. Saying Romo would have done better when Romo has done virtually nothing in the playoffs for the past 8 years is a bit of a joke.QBs can single-handedly take teams to the playoffs. Look at what Luck did this season. Look at what Rodgers has done for multiple seasons. That Indy team is nearly devoid of talent at all positions, yet somehow they made the playoffs, mostly thankful to many, many late game heroics by Luck. 2-14 to 11-5 after dumping virtually all their veterans? That's insane. The Dallas team has WAY more talent than the Colts yet Romo couldn't get them to the postseason. At this point I would take Flacco as my QB over Romo any day, and twice on Sunday.

Flacco had a great playoff run. Nobody is "crapping on him". The NFL is a team sport. As much as we all want to use championships and select data points to crown and discredit, it comes down to more than that; we have to look deeper. Look at their career stats and it's not close. Romo is the more productive football player that better helps his team win football games. We can't take ALL of the instability of Romo's franchise and place it on his shoulders. As easy as it is to say: "The Ravens defense wasn't great, therefore, Flacco is" - it's not productive. We have to look at everything. The Ravens defense stepped up, just as Flacco did. Their coaching staff was brilliant during said stretch. Boldin played at another level. It wasn't just Flacco, although he did play great. Romo led the league in 4th Qtr comebacks, the Cowboys led the league in 4th QTR +/-. Romo is asked to do more than Flacco ever has been. And the Luck comment is moot. The Cowboys were a better team that the Colts by a wide margin; the Colts, as solid as Luck was for a rookie, got major breaks in the schedule department. Is Luck better than Brees? Is Flacco?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordy Nelson at 30? I have to ask about this.

I'm gonna take a crack at this.

I disagree with EBF on a lot of players, and I think he undervalues established vets as a rule. But with those caveats I think we approach the game the same way: talent exists independent of situation and you'll do better in the long run if you stay away from marginally talented guys in great situations. First, they're expensive to acquire. Second, situations change.

IMO Nelson's a nice WR. On a team with a great QB and other receiving threats he's going to thrive. But absent those things he'd struggle to be FF relevant. That's my take on his talent level and I'm guessing it's EBF's too. Without looking I'll wager that EBF has Decker in the same neighborhood?

The downside and danger to the talent-first approach is that it's tough to tell when you're wrong on a player if he's in a great situation. Is he better than you thought? Or just taking advantage of something that's very likely to change in the near- or medium-term. Like EBF I've decided to stick to my initial valuation and take my lumps when I'm wrong about a guy. It's too late to buy for value in those cases in any event.

I've seen two ways to build good teams built for the long-run. Trade trade trade, constantly gaining incremental market value along the way until you acquire enough of it to land studs.

Or be good enough at IDing talent independent of situation that you can take advantage of market inefficiencies to buy low on prospects or out of favor vets and hold them until they come good. There's always a Lynch or VJax or Garcon or Shorts available for far less than his true value.

I'm pretty sure EBF's in the second camp, and so am I.

So a low rating on someone like Nelson might not be intended to reflect his market value. For me that low ranking would reflect what I believe about his talent in a vacuum. I think Nelson is about 75% situation and at his current price there's no way I'd ever own him as a result. So he's just not that valuable to me given my approach. Unlike EBF I don't even bother to rank the guys I'll literally never own.

Edited by wdcrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to be a Romo apologist just as hard as I am a Flacco apologist at the moment, that's fine. The problem with the Kobe comparison is that here the non-clutch guy is a few years older. And he hasn't had a winning season since 2009. (And neither guy is a generational talent.)

In this context, it stands: One produces more, and better helps his team win, if we measure by any objective, individual stat. If we looked at the stats and removed the names, nobody would suggest Flacco is better. Tony Romo is one of the best QBs of his generation, stat wise. His QBR is up there with Brady/Manning. But, we are going to look at 3-5 games and say "he just doesn't have it; he's not clutch". Flacco is asked to do much less and isn't nearly as productive, so we are going to look at 3-5 games and say: "He's clutch, therefore he's great."

Romo doesn't have 10-15 years to figure it out. He's at the age now (about a year) where McNabb was after PHI decided Kolb gives them a better chance to win.

Romo doesn't need figuring out. He needs a running game and an offensive line. He's got it figured out and is a damn good NFL QB. He just has more baggage in the form of the situaion around him than most.

I don't think we know what Romo is like in a ball control offense because he's rarely been asked to do it. There was a time a couple years ago when they asked him to reduce turnovers and he played more conservative for a few games, but IMO it didn't stick very long. Late era Favre is a similarity. Put him on Minn, give him the best RB in a generation; he was very efficient in regular season play, but winning time he still tries to put the ball a place where it can't go. It's a stretch to ask him to play a different style and still be the best player on the field.

We doing the same thing to Brett Favre, here. Adrian Peterson holds on to the ball, and the Vikes are the favorites in that Super Bowl and who knows what would have happened. Yes, Favre made mistakes and is prone to gamble. But he's still one of the best ever. Give me Favre and his warts over Flacco or any game manager.

And if Romo gets a pass for his RBs being hurt, Flacco gets a pass for having at best below average receivers. The sum of the talent at skill positions is about the same. (As far as stability, he's essentially had the same OC since - what - 2007.)

Romo needs a pass for his offensive line. He would have won plenty of games doing his best Drew Brees, if he had the time to do it.

Romo is a good NFL QB. He's undervalued in dynasty as well. Put under 30 yo Romo on 00s Ravens teams over a young Flacco; yeah, it is a better team. Put 32 yo Romo on the 2011/2012 Ravens teams, I'm not sure your conclusion is right.

We'll never know, but it is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flacco gets a pass for having at best below average receivers.

I've seen this quite a bit this year and completely disagree. Boldin is an elite receiver. He was an elite receiver in Arizona before going to Baltimore, and he's showed lately when Flacco's finally decided to give him a chance that he's still a monster.The guy didn't suddenly lose it at the age of 29. He lost it because he went and played with a QB who couldn't get him the ball. Baltimore's receivers are easily in the top half of the league.I've said this before and I still contend it. If you swapped out the teams of Anquan Boldin with Roddy White then Flacco apologists would have spent the last 3 years bemoaning how Flacco got stuck with a mediocre White while Matt Ryan got to play with the elite Boldin.Or, to make a better comparison, if you swapped the teams of Romo and Flacco we'd likely still consider Boldin one of the league's best and no one would ever have heard of Miles Austin. Edited by FreeBaGeL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take a crack at this.

I disagree with EBF on a lot of players, and I think he undervalues established vets as a rule. But with those caveats I think we approach the game the same way: talent exists independent of situation and you'll do better in the long run if you stay away from marginally talented guys in great situations. First, they're expensive to acquire. Second, situations change.

IMO Nelson's a nice WR. On a team with a great QB and other receiving threats he's going to thrive. But absent those things he'd struggle to be FF relevant. That's my take on his talent level and I'm guessing it's EBF's too. Without looking I'll wager that EBF has Decker in the same neighborhood?

The downside and danger to the talent-first approach is that it's tough to tell when you're wrong on a player if he's in a great situation. Is he better than you thought? Or just taking advantage of something that's very likely to change in the near- or medium-term. Like EBF I've decided to stick to my initial valuation and take my lumps when I'm wrong about a guy. It's too late to buy for value in those cases in any event.

I've seen two ways to build good teams built for the long-run. Trade trade trade, constantly gaining incremental market value along the way until you acquire enough of it to land studs.

Or be good enough at IDing talent independent of situation that you can take advantage of market inefficiencies to buy low on prospects or out of favor vets and hold them until they come good. There's always a Lynch or VJax or Garcon or Shorts available for far less than his true value.

I'm pretty sure EBF's in the second camp, and so am I.

So a low rating on someone like Nelson might not be intended to reflect his market value. For me that low ranking would reflect what I believe about his talent in a vacuum. I think Nelson is about 75% situation and at his current price there's no way I'd ever own him as a result. So he's just not that valuable to me given my approach. Unlike EBF I don't even bother to rank the guys I'll literally never own.

At what point do we say that we were wrong on our initial talent evaluation, though? Nelson had 96/1,1200/15. James Jones played almost full-time as a starter for GB and didn't go near that.

Jordy was a 2nd or 3rd round pick by an orginization that has done pretty well drafting WRs. Why is Cobb/Jennings talented and Jordy is not? Jordy went near or much higher than they did, and produced as much, or much more than they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take a crack at this.

I disagree with EBF on a lot of players, and I think he undervalues established vets as a rule. But with those caveats I think we approach the game the same way: talent exists independent of situation and you'll do better in the long run if you stay away from marginally talented guys in great situations. First, they're expensive to acquire. Second, situations change.

IMO Nelson's a nice WR. On a team with a great QB and other receiving threats he's going to thrive. But absent those things he'd struggle to be FF relevant. That's my take on his talent level and I'm guessing it's EBF's too. Without looking I'll wager that EBF has Decker in the same neighborhood?

The downside and danger to the talent-first approach is that it's tough to tell when you're wrong on a player if he's in a great situation. Is he better than you thought? Or just taking advantage of something that's very likely to change in the near- or medium-term. Like EBF I've decided to stick to my initial valuation and take my lumps when I'm wrong about a guy. It's too late to buy for value in those cases in any event.

I've seen two ways to build good teams built for the long-run. Trade trade trade, constantly gaining incremental market value along the way until you acquire enough of it to land studs.

Or be good enough at IDing talent independent of situation that you can take advantage of market inefficiencies to buy low on prospects or out of favor vets and hold them until they come good. There's always a Lynch or VJax or Garcon or Shorts available for far less than his true value.

I'm pretty sure EBF's in the second camp, and so am I.

So a low rating on someone like Nelson might not be intended to reflect his market value. For me that low ranking would reflect what I believe about his talent in a vacuum. I think Nelson is about 75% situation and at his current price there's no way I'd ever own him as a result. So he's just not that valuable to me given my approach. Unlike EBF I don't even bother to rank the guys I'll literally never own.

At what point do we say that we were wrong on our initial talent evaluation, though? Nelson had 96/1,1200/15. James Jones played almost full-time as a starter for GB and didn't go near that.

Jordy was a 2nd or 3rd round pick by an orginization that has done pretty well drafting WRs. Why is Cobb/Jennings talented and Jordy is not? Jordy went near or much higher than they did, and produced as much, or much more than they did.

people dont think he's talented bacause he's white, same with decker. they are good players in their own right. Ill let you guys keep de-valuing them based on "talent" or lack there of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people dont think he's talented bacause he's white, same with decker.

:rolleyes: Short, sharp and wrong -- at least you're consistent!
wrong about what? there is a bias against jordy, its evident. why is it? I consistently win too btw, as you know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a bias against jordy, its evident. why is it?

Abnormally high catch:TD ratio in his one good season out of 5 yrs in the NFL (Robert Meachem rule). Offense is plug-n-play so James Jones or someone else can be plugged in just as easily. (I would still side with the ranking being way too low, though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a bias against jordy, its evident. why is it?

Abnormally high catch:TD ratio in his one good season out of 5 yrs in the NFL (Robert Meachem rule). Offense is plug-n-play so James Jones or someone else can be plugged in just as easily. (I would still side with the ranking being way too low, though.)
2/5 years. His per/target numbers were great this year. He was just hurt. And he sat behind some good WRs, and earned his job. I see no reason why he is any riskier than anyone else in his tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flacco had a great playoff run. Nobody is "crapping on him".

I think some are calling it a fluke. Everyone admits he played great in the playoffs; some are only giving him credit for that.

In this context, it stands: One produces more, and better helps his team win, if we measure by any objective, individual stat.

You mean like, except TD:INT?

But, we are going to look at 3-5 games and say "he just doesn't have it; he's not clutch".

It's not just because he dropped the snap against SEA. It's his play over multiple years.

We doing the same thing to Brett Favre, here.

Specifically late era Favre. Too cold to be outside Brett.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a bias against jordy, its evident. why is it?

Abnormally high catch:TD ratio in his one good season out of 5 yrs in the NFL (Robert Meachem rule). Offense is plug-n-play so James Jones or someone else can be plugged in just as easily. (I would still side with the ranking being way too low, though.)
Prior to his injury in week 8 Jordy was averaging 5.7 catches for 76 yards and .7 TDs per game. That hamstring robbed him of his explosive play the rest of the year. His PPG clip was on pace for another top 10 finish. Perhaps aided by a few of those games without Jennings ... but I would still consider him top 20 WR dynasty option easily.I remember the pre-season play this year where he burned Joe Haden 1:1 on a double move for a 40-yard TD on the opening drive. That was beast. I say let him be underrated ... I'm happy to get him in the 4th round. I don't really think he's underrated, though. Recent dynasty ADP data shows him going on average at WR12 in start-ups. That seems pretty spot on to me, given that Jordy is locked up for another two years with Rodgers. Edited by meyerj31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a bias against jordy, its evident. why is it?

Abnormally high catch:TD ratio in his one good season out of 5 yrs in the NFL (Robert Meachem rule). Offense is plug-n-play so James Jones or someone else can be plugged in just as easily. (I would still side with the ranking being way too low, though.)
2/5 years. His per/target numbers were great this year. He was just hurt. And he sat behind some good WRs, and earned his job. I see no reason why he is any riskier than anyone else in his tier.
Granted. But if we're arguing, it's really about whether he belongs in the next tier up. Is he riskier than Dwayne Bowe Mike Wallace Vincent Jackson Roddy White Andre Johnson Greg Jennings Wes Welker. Pretty much universally yes pending situation for the FAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take a crack at this.

I disagree with EBF on a lot of players, and I think he undervalues established vets as a rule. But with those caveats I think we approach the game the same way: talent exists independent of situation and you'll do better in the long run if you stay away from marginally talented guys in great situations. First, they're expensive to acquire. Second, situations change.

IMO Nelson's a nice WR. On a team with a great QB and other receiving threats he's going to thrive. But absent those things he'd struggle to be FF relevant. That's my take on his talent level and I'm guessing it's EBF's too. Without looking I'll wager that EBF has Decker in the same neighborhood?

The downside and danger to the talent-first approach is that it's tough to tell when you're wrong on a player if he's in a great situation. Is he better than you thought? Or just taking advantage of something that's very likely to change in the near- or medium-term. Like EBF I've decided to stick to my initial valuation and take my lumps when I'm wrong about a guy. It's too late to buy for value in those cases in any event.

I've seen two ways to build good teams built for the long-run. Trade trade trade, constantly gaining incremental market value along the way until you acquire enough of it to land studs.

Or be good enough at IDing talent independent of situation that you can take advantage of market inefficiencies to buy low on prospects or out of favor vets and hold them until they come good. There's always a Lynch or VJax or Garcon or Shorts available for far less than his true value.

I'm pretty sure EBF's in the second camp, and so am I.

So a low rating on someone like Nelson might not be intended to reflect his market value. For me that low ranking would reflect what I believe about his talent in a vacuum. I think Nelson is about 75% situation and at his current price there's no way I'd ever own him as a result. So he's just not that valuable to me given my approach. Unlike EBF I don't even bother to rank the guys I'll literally never own.

At what point do we say that we were wrong on our initial talent evaluation, though? Nelson had 96/1,1200/15. James Jones played almost full-time as a starter for GB and didn't go near that.

Jordy was a 2nd or 3rd round pick by an orginization that has done pretty well drafting WRs. Why is Cobb/Jennings talented and Jordy is not? Jordy went near or much higher than they did, and produced as much, or much more than they did.

Just a few points of clarification:

1- Jordy's big year in 2011 he only had 68 receptions, not 96. He was, however, on pace for 90+ receptions this year prior to his injury.

2- This will be taboo to point out, but being white absolutely makes people view him differently. Much of it is probably unconscious, and I'm sure I've done the same. This guy was very, very highly regarded coming out of K ST, so he has the pedigree.

3- I don't understand an argument against Nelson that basically boils down to "he relies on his situation", because Rodgers is going to be his QB likely for the rest of his career, barring a large decline in Nelson's abilities. I think it is a very safe bet that Rodgers/Nelson are connected for the next 3 years, and we really can't predict much more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few points of clarification: 1- Jordy's big year in 2011 he only had 68 receptions, not 96. He was, however, on pace for 90+ receptions this year prior to his injury.2- This will be taboo to point out, but being white absolutely makes people view him differently. Much of it is probably unconscious, and I'm sure I've done the same. This guy was very, very highly regarded coming out of K ST, so he has the pedigree.3- I don't understand an argument against Nelson that basically boils down to "he relies on his situation", because Rodgers is going to be his QB likely for the rest of his career, barring a large decline in Nelson's abilities. I think it is a very safe bet that Rodgers/Nelson are connected for the next 3 years, and we really can't predict much more than that.

1- Thanks. I mistook targets for receptions when looking at the stats.2-Agree.3-Agree. It doesn't seem equally applied to Cobb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a bias against jordy, its evident. why is it?

Abnormally high catch:TD ratio in his one good season out of 5 yrs in the NFL (Robert Meachem rule). Offense is plug-n-play so James Jones or someone else can be plugged in just as easily. (I would still side with the ranking being way too low, though.)
2/5 years. His per/target numbers were great this year. He was just hurt. And he sat behind some good WRs, and earned his job. I see no reason why he is any riskier than anyone else in his tier.
Granted. But if we're arguing, it's really about whether he belongs in the next tier up. Is he riskier than Dwayne Bowe Mike Wallace Vincent Jackson Roddy White Andre Johnson Greg Jennings Wes Welker. Pretty much universally yes pending situation for the FAs.
Bowe - much riskier due to FA statusWallace - is the same as Bowe, I want to know who is throwing him the ballVJax - bumped down due to ageRoddy - bumped down due to ageAndre - bumped down due to ageJennings - riskier due to FA statusWelker - bumped down due to age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted. But if we're arguing, it's really about whether he belongs in the next tier up. Is he riskier than Dwayne Bowe Mike Wallace Vincent Jackson Roddy White Andre Johnson Greg Jennings Wes Welker. Pretty much universally yes pending situation for the FAs.

He is safer than most of those guys. He's younger, in a better situation, and has been equally, or more productive than the group, when healthy.For the record, Jordy graded out at the bottom of tier two (well, tier 3 if I treat Calvin/Green as their own), when I did rankings for a PPR startup. Ahead of Bowe, Wallace, White, Andre, Jennings, and right next to Jackson/Welker. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much universally yes pending situation for the FAs.

Bowe - much riskier due to FA statusWallace - is the same as Bowe, I want to know who is throwing him the ballVJax - bumped down due to ageRoddy - bumped down due to ageAndre - bumped down due to ageJennings - riskier due to FA statusWelker - bumped down due to age
Right, pending situation. I'm assuming I'm not drafting until after that risk is resolved.A lot of those age bumps are not relevant IMO. I am not here to disrespect Nelson's talent level, but White, VJax, and Andre are on a different level, and I would rather have their talent at 33/34 than Nelson at 30 if we're looking ahead 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flacco gets a pass for having at best below average receivers.

I've seen this quite a bit this year and completely disagree. Boldin is an elite receiver. He was an elite receiver in Arizona before going to Baltimore, and he's showed lately when Flacco's finally decided to give him a chance that he's still a monster.

The guy didn't suddenly lose it at the age of 29. He lost it because he went and played with a QB who couldn't get him the ball.

Baltimore's receivers are easily in the top half of the league.

I've said this before and I still contend it. If you swapped out the teams of Anquan Boldin with Roddy White then Flacco apologists would have spent the last 3 years bemoaning how Flacco got stuck with a mediocre White while Matt Ryan got to play with the elite Boldin.

Or, to make a better comparison, if you swapped the teams of Romo and Flacco we'd likely still consider Boldin one of the league's best and no one would ever have heard of Miles Austin.

Hey, I'm a huge Boldin fan and have been ever since first seeing him play. But sorry, he is not an elite receiver anymore. Elite receivers are able to gain separation -- and Boldin cannot reliably do that now. Does he do a good veteran job of gaining last-minute separation through gut and brute force? Yup. Through quickness and athleticism? Not anymore.

So no, he's not elite. Not even remotely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like, except TD:INT?

Uh...did you look at it?
28/19 < 22/10. Feel free to move the goalposts to career if that makes you feel better about your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to BALBetter WR/TE (18)NEP, PIT, CIN, HOU, TEN, JAC, DEN, NYG, DAL, PHI, GBP, CHI, DET, ATL, NO, TB, SF, ARIMore or less as good WR/TE (7)BUF, IND, OAK, KC, WAS, MIN, CARWorse WR/TE (6)MIA, NYJ, CLE, SD, SEA, STL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like, except TD:INT?

Uh...did you look at it?
28/19 < 22/10. Feel free to move the goalposts to career if that makes you feel better about your choice.
Move the goalposts? So I have to ignore everything Romo has done in his career, and use a year in which 4/5 of his offensive line couldn't start for the Crimson Tide? And the one that could was injured?Anyone going by his stats this year - while I can't expect you to watch every game - I can't really have this conversation. What he did this year was a lot more impressive than his stats indicate. He had a top 5 WR and a top 3-4 TE, I don't want to downplay that. But he had pressure right in his face, at an alarming rate. What Romo, Witten, and Bryant were able to do, dispite the situation around them, was pretty special. Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take a crack at this.

I disagree with EBF on a lot of players, and I think he undervalues established vets as a rule. But with those caveats I think we approach the game the same way: talent exists independent of situation and you'll do better in the long run if you stay away from marginally talented guys in great situations. First, they're expensive to acquire. Second, situations change.

IMO Nelson's a nice WR. On a team with a great QB and other receiving threats he's going to thrive. But absent those things he'd struggle to be FF relevant. That's my take on his talent level and I'm guessing it's EBF's too. Without looking I'll wager that EBF has Decker in the same neighborhood?

The downside and danger to the talent-first approach is that it's tough to tell when you're wrong on a player if he's in a great situation. Is he better than you thought? Or just taking advantage of something that's very likely to change in the near- or medium-term. Like EBF I've decided to stick to my initial valuation and take my lumps when I'm wrong about a guy. It's too late to buy for value in those cases in any event.

I've seen two ways to build good teams built for the long-run. Trade trade trade, constantly gaining incremental market value along the way until you acquire enough of it to land studs.

Or be good enough at IDing talent independent of situation that you can take advantage of market inefficiencies to buy low on prospects or out of favor vets and hold them until they come good. There's always a Lynch or VJax or Garcon or Shorts available for far less than his true value.

I'm pretty sure EBF's in the second camp, and so am I.

So a low rating on someone like Nelson might not be intended to reflect his market value. For me that low ranking would reflect what I believe about his talent in a vacuum. I think Nelson is about 75% situation and at his current price there's no way I'd ever own him as a result. So he's just not that valuable to me given my approach. Unlike EBF I don't even bother to rank the guys I'll literally never own.

At what point do we say that we were wrong on our initial talent evaluation, though? Nelson had 96/1,1200/15. James Jones played almost full-time as a starter for GB and didn't go near that.

Jordy was a 2nd or 3rd round pick by an orginization that has done pretty well drafting WRs. Why is Cobb/Jennings talented and Jordy is not? Jordy went near or much higher than they did, and produced as much, or much more than they did.

I'd have to ask those that questions Nelson's talent what deficiencies they see when the watch him play. He has a great frame, very good speed, attacks the ball in the air with sure hands and runs proper routes. He's as good with the ball in his hands as say Dwayne Bowe - who is generally considered well above average in that respect.

What talent does he lack? If he was situation dependant (and let's face it to a large extent every WR is to some degree) he should be in that situation for quite some time anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordy Nelson at 30? I have to ask about this. In his last healthy season he was very close to 100 receptions, 1,200+ yards, and 15 TD. This year, when healthy, he was making plays. What am I missing? Those putting Cobb on another tier are going to be disappointed in their return, in my opinion. Jordy is the better option on a season to season basis, and he'll outscore Cobb by enough to make up for the age difference.

I agree that Cobb might be a bit overrated, but he's definitely a solid player and his youth is a big plus. He's going to be around for a long time. Maybe he drops down to a FF WR2-WR3 in future seasons. That's pretty likely. 7-8 years of that kind of production could be very valuable though. Maybe he doesn't belong ahead of a guy like Nicks, but I don't see myself taking an aging star like AJ or VJax ahead of him. As for Jordy, keep in mind how huge that fifth tier is. On some teams I'd definitely take him over a guy like Gordon or Wright. He's much more likely to be useful. But the flipside is that he's quite a bit older. And his game is very reliant on speed. Not many sprinters remain world class after they hit that 30-31 range. With Jordy turning 28 in just a few months, I think you're looking at a pretty small window of peak years. Thinking about it more, he might be a good candidate for the fourth tier though. I don't think his FF outlook is all that different from a guy like Bowe or Roddy. A 1200+ yard 15 TD season is something that guys like Torrey Smith and Mike Williams will probably never achieve. So maybe it's a little unfair to lump Jordy in with the guys who are good enough to be solid #2 receivers, but not good enough to be legitimate #1 receivers, which is how I would describe Decker, Torrey, Williams, and Brown. Ability-wise, he's probably in the middle of the gap between those guys and the real star caliber guys like Roddy, VJax, Wayne, etc. Edited by EBF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Romo, Witten, and Bryant were able to do, dispite the situation around them, was pretty special.

TBH, that smells of homerism. Rivers had a similar year, in a worse situation, but I'm fully willing to say "hey, wha happened" and cast him aside. Giving Romo the same benefit of the doubt I'm giving Ben (there's a lot of bad OL in the league). The original statement was "better helps his team win, if we measure by any objective, individual stat" which I still contend is too strong even if you accept TD:INT are similar within margin of error (throw out Rookie year, and Flacco's is 2). If in your view Romo doesn't cause an abnormal amount of TOs, that's fine. The larger point is the notion that Flacco doesn't help his team win, which of course I strongly disagree with. If it is too subjective for you - and I agree most of the good arguments are subjective, like difficulty game planning - I am fine with that and let's move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordy Nelson at 30? I have to ask about this. In his last healthy season he was very close to 100 receptions, 1,200+ yards, and 15 TD. This year, when healthy, he was making plays. What am I missing? Those putting Cobb on another tier are going to be disappointed in their return, in my opinion. Jordy is the better option on a season to season basis, and he'll outscore Cobb by enough to make up for the age difference.

I agree that Cobb might be a bit overrated, but he's definitely a solid player and his youth is a big plus. He's going to be around for a long time. Maybe he drops down to a FF WR2-WR3 in future seasons. That's pretty likely. 7-8 years of that kind of production could be very valuable though. Maybe he doesn't belong ahead of a guy like Nicks, but I don't see myself taking an aging star like AJ or VJax ahead of him. As for Jordy, keep in mind how huge that fifth tier is. On some teams I'd definitely take him over a guy like Gordon or Wright. He's much more likely to be useful. But the flipside is that he's quite a bit older. And his game is very reliant on speed. Not many sprinters remain world class after they hit that 30-31 range. With Jordy turning 28 in just a few months, I think you're looking at a pretty small window of peak years. Thinking about it more, he might be a good candidate for the fourth tier though. I don't think his FF outlook is all that different from a guy like Bowe or Roddy. A 1200+ yard 15 TD season is something that guys like Torrey Smith and Mike Williams will probably never achieve. So maybe it's a little unfair to lump Jordy in with the guys who are good enough to be solid #2 receivers, but not good enough to be legitimate #1 receivers, which is how I would describe Decker, Torrey, Williams, and Brown. Ability-wise, he's probably in the middle of the gap between those guys and the real star caliber guys like Roddy, VJax, Wayne, etc.
While Jordy Nelson is a good athlete, I agree with EBF in that he's a speed guy. He's getting older and his value won't be sky high forever. When his contract comes up GB may let him walk just like Jennings. I also saw a mock draft recently where Keenan Allen went to GB in round one. If that happens, i'm sure the rankings of Cobb/Jones/Nelson look very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Romo, Witten, and Bryant were able to do, dispite the situation around them, was pretty special.

TBH, that smells of homerism. Rivers had a similar year, in a worse situation, but I'm fully willing to say "hey, wha happened" and cast him aside. Giving Romo the same benefit of the doubt I'm giving Ben (there's a lot of bad OL in the league). The original statement was "better helps his team win, if we measure by any objective, individual stat" which I still contend is too strong even if you accept TD:INT are similar within margin of error (throw out Rookie year, and Flacco's is 2). If in your view Romo doesn't cause an abnormal amount of TOs, that's fine. The larger point is the notion that Flacco doesn't help his team win, which of course I strongly disagree with. If it is too subjective for you - and I agree most of the good arguments are subjective, like difficulty game planning - I am fine with that and let's move on.
Homerism? Perhaps some, but lets treat the arguments as individual claims and dispute those, if they warrant it. Romo does turn the ball over more, but he handles it more; 40/20 <> 20/10, in terms of helping a team win. And a lot of Romo's interceptions were due to pressure that Flacco didn't face as often. I understand some are going to point to Flacco's brand of play as a model, now that he won the Super Bowl. But he is largely the exception to that rule, if we look at SB winning QBs over the last decade. I don't think that argument is too valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he is largely the exception to that rule, if we look at SB winning QBs over the last decade. I don't think that argument is too valid.

I think game managers win SBs pretty regularly. Flacco is unique amongst game managers, if that's your implication EliRodgersBreesBen (similar)Eli (similar)PeytonBen (similar)Brady (similar)Brady (similar)Johnson (similar)Brady (similar)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think game managers win SBs pretty regularly. Flacco is unique amongst game managers, if that's your implication EliRodgersBreesBen (similar)Eli (similar)PeytonBen (similar)Brady (similar)Brady (similar)Johnson (similar)Brady (similar)

After looking up the stats of some of these guys during their Super Bowl runs - you make a good point. I don't think anyone would call Ben/Brady/Eli a game manager now, but, a fair argument could be made that they were at the time. But look at the names on the list: Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, Eli, Brees - In general, we are talking about 5 of the best QBs of their time, based on their entire careers. Perhaps Flacco is taking the steps that the others did and will soon join them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Jordy Nelson is a good athlete, I agree with EBF in that he's a speed guy. He's getting older and his value won't be sky high forever. When his contract comes up GB may let him walk just like Jennings. I also saw a mock draft recently where Keenan Allen went to GB in round one. If that happens, i'm sure the rankings of Cobb/Jones/Nelson look very different.

He is only 27; too early to project loss of speed, in my opinion.And the Packer offense will feed it's top 2 options, which will certainly include Nelson, even if they were to draft a WR in the first round. The guy losing his job in that scenario would be Jones. I would imagine Cobb is pretty safe in his role. Nelson has 2 more years until his contract is an issue, and GB has two franchise tags it could use on him, if they wanted to. Again, I think it is a bit much to be worrrying about his contract right now. I also think he is a talented WR and would put up numbers in many situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Jordy Nelson is a good athlete, I agree with EBF in that he's a speed guy. He's getting older and his value won't be sky high forever. When his contract comes up GB may let him walk just like Jennings. I also saw a mock draft recently where Keenan Allen went to GB in round one. If that happens, i'm sure the rankings of Cobb/Jones/Nelson look very different.

He is only 27; too early to project loss of speed, in my opinion.And the Packer offense will feed it's top 2 options, which will certainly include Nelson, even if they were to draft a WR in the first round. The guy losing his job in that scenario would be Jones. I would imagine Cobb is pretty safe in his role. Nelson has 2 more years until his contract is an issue, and GB has two franchise tags it could use on him, if they wanted to. Again, I think it is a bit much to be worrrying about his contract right now. I also think he is a talented WR and would put up numbers in many situations.
He turns 28 this summer and has battled injuries lately(sounds like Jennings). If Nelson was that talented he would've showed up in one of this other 4 seasons in the NFL. He also won't be franchise tagged.You may be right, i'm just not a huge believer in Nelson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He turns 28 this summer and has battled injuries lately(sounds like Jennings). If Nelson was that talented he would've showed up in one of this other 4 seasons in the NFL. He also won't be franchise tagged.You may be right, i'm just not a huge believer in Nelson.

The reason he didn't produce more in his first 3 seasons is Donald Driver/Greg Jennings, not his talent. As far as battling injuries - it was only one injury(hamstring). They can suck, and CAN be a long-term issue, but they are pretty common and usually not. I think we have a pretty good sample size of Jordy's production and play; we should be able to use that and not depend on trying to determine why he didn't breakout until year 4, or at what age he'll start losing his speed. But, you're right, just opinions and we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Jordy Nelson is a good athlete, I agree with EBF in that he's a speed guy. He's getting older and his value won't be sky high forever. When his contract comes up GB may let him walk just like Jennings. I also saw a mock draft recently where Keenan Allen went to GB in round one. If that happens, i'm sure the rankings of Cobb/Jones/Nelson look very different.

He is only 27; too early to project loss of speed, in my opinion.And the Packer offense will feed it's top 2 options, which will certainly include Nelson, even if they were to draft a WR in the first round. The guy losing his job in that scenario would be Jones. I would imagine Cobb is pretty safe in his role. Nelson has 2 more years until his contract is an issue, and GB has two franchise tags it could use on him, if they wanted to. Again, I think it is a bit much to be worrrying about his contract right now. I also think he is a talented WR and would put up numbers in many situations.
He turns 28 this summer and has battled injuries lately(sounds like Jennings). If Nelson was that talented he would've showed up in one of this other 4 seasons in the NFL. He also won't be franchise tagged.You may be right, i'm just not a huge believer in Nelson.
Devil's Advocate...1. Prior to 2010, Jennings and Driver were in their prime, and there is no shame in a young guy being behind them.2. In 2010, his third year, he started to get more playing time, and putting up 21-286-2 in the playoffs, including 9-140-1 in the Superbowl. This talent showed up in his 3rd season for sure.3. He followed that up with an incredible 2011, and was on pace for 90-1200-11 prior to injuries this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Jordy Nelson is a good athlete, I agree with EBF in that he's a speed guy. He's getting older and his value won't be sky high forever. When his contract comes up GB may let him walk just like Jennings. I also saw a mock draft recently where Keenan Allen went to GB in round one. If that happens, i'm sure the rankings of Cobb/Jones/Nelson look very different.

He is only 27; too early to project loss of speed, in my opinion.And the Packer offense will feed it's top 2 options, which will certainly include Nelson, even if they were to draft a WR in the first round. The guy losing his job in that scenario would be Jones. I would imagine Cobb is pretty safe in his role. Nelson has 2 more years until his contract is an issue, and GB has two franchise tags it could use on him, if they wanted to. Again, I think it is a bit much to be worrrying about his contract right now. I also think he is a talented WR and would put up numbers in many situations.
He turns 28 this summer and has battled injuries lately(sounds like Jennings). If Nelson was that talented he would've showed up in one of this other 4 seasons in the NFL. He also won't be franchise tagged.You may be right, i'm just not a huge believer in Nelson.
Devil's Advocate...1. Prior to 2010, Jennings and Driver were in their prime, and there is no shame in a young guy being behind them.2. In 2010, his third year, he started to get more playing time, and putting up 21-286-2 in the playoffs, including 9-140-1 in the Superbowl. This talent showed up in his 3rd season for sure.3. He followed that up with an incredible 2011, and was on pace for 90-1200-11 prior to injuries this year.
Fair enough, you guys may be changing my tune on him. Which is why I enjoy discussion in the SP and not the "I have to be right" fights.Rodgers favorite pass play is a backshoulder throw to Nelson on the sidelines. Rodgers is very accurate and Nelson has the size to catch it. Almost unstoppable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistically he was the 12th best QB in 2012 according to QBR. That's not opinion, just offering evidence to dispel "average" at least by my definition of the word. He is 18th in NFL history in career QBR (granted older players are hugely shortchanged here).

Several comments here.1. This is where your passionate arguing in favor of Flacco officially jumped the shark for me.2. Are we legitimizing QBR now for ranking QBs? I don't buy QBR as a useful metric.3. Older players are much more than short-changed by your post. I went looking for all-time QBR stats when I saw this post and found only ESPN stats that go back only to 2008. So he has the 18th best qualified QBR since 2008? Is that good?4. Speaking of which, where is the all-time QBR ranking you are citing? I don't find it at ESPN or PFR. But ESPN does have a listing of all-time best QBR seasons and games... where all-time means since 2008. Is that what you mean by NFL history?5. Flacco's 5 seasons rank as #63 (2010), #66 (2011), #78 (2009), #110 (2012), and #124 (2008) since 2008. Again, is that supposed to be impressive? Here is a PFR post that shows at least 40 all-time QBs with much higher QBR than Flacco's, which makes it appear he might not even be in the top 75-100 all-time. :penalty: Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take a crack at this.

I disagree with EBF on a lot of players, and I think he undervalues established vets as a rule. But with those caveats I think we approach the game the same way: talent exists independent of situation and you'll do better in the long run if you stay away from marginally talented guys in great situations. First, they're expensive to acquire. Second, situations change.

IMO Nelson's a nice WR. On a team with a great QB and other receiving threats he's going to thrive. But absent those things he'd struggle to be FF relevant. That's my take on his talent level and I'm guessing it's EBF's too. Without looking I'll wager that EBF has Decker in the same neighborhood?

The downside and danger to the talent-first approach is that it's tough to tell when you're wrong on a player if he's in a great situation. Is he better than you thought? Or just taking advantage of something that's very likely to change in the near- or medium-term. Like EBF I've decided to stick to my initial valuation and take my lumps when I'm wrong about a guy. It's too late to buy for value in those cases in any event.

I've seen two ways to build good teams built for the long-run. Trade trade trade, constantly gaining incremental market value along the way until you acquire enough of it to land studs.

Or be good enough at IDing talent independent of situation that you can take advantage of market inefficiencies to buy low on prospects or out of favor vets and hold them until they come good. There's always a Lynch or VJax or Garcon or Shorts available for far less than his true value.

I'm pretty sure EBF's in the second camp, and so am I.

So a low rating on someone like Nelson might not be intended to reflect his market value. For me that low ranking would reflect what I believe about his talent in a vacuum. I think Nelson is about 75% situation and at his current price there's no way I'd ever own him as a result. So he's just not that valuable to me given my approach. Unlike EBF I don't even bother to rank the guys I'll literally never own.

At what point do we say that we were wrong on our initial talent evaluation, though? Nelson had 96/1,1200/15. James Jones played almost full-time as a starter for GB and didn't go near that.

Jordy was a 2nd or 3rd round pick by an orginization that has done pretty well drafting WRs. Why is Cobb/Jennings talented and Jordy is not? Jordy went near or much higher than they did, and produced as much, or much more than they did.

I've got a lot of respect for EBF and wdcrob. Both are among the best posters around here. But I think this is their blind spot. A few pages ago, EBF mentioned how valuable a guy like Derrick Mason was. Lots of seasons of 1000-1100 with 6 or so TDs. WR2 territory for a long time. Yet he ranks guys like Decker, Jordy, Mike Williams, (and presumably Stevie Johnson, assuming he was omitted by mistake) between WR25-30. All four of those guys have put up WR1 seasons recently, proving they can do it. They are all reasonably young (25-27), have solidified their roles on their teams, and seem like they have solid floors going forward.

The difference between Decker and Demaryius Thomas was 1ppg this year. Nelson and Cobb were nearly identical. Mike Williams and Stevie Johnson were 2ppg less than VJax.

I'd rather have any of those four guys, than just about anybody in the tier ahead of them. Roddy, Andre and Welker are all going to be 32 or 33 next season. Traditionally the end of the line for many WRs. Jennings is coming off back to back injury plagued seasons, and will be 30 himself. I fully understand the talent vs situation debate. However, I think its fairly likely that three years from now those guys will still be churning out quality fantasy seasons while many of the guys in tier 4 will be long gone. Just as importantly, the difference in scoring between now and then is likely to be minimal.

I realize its hard to place those older guys in dynasty rankings as well. They are all likely to have one or two more WR1-WR2 seasons. That has value. I just wouldn't place that value over the four players I've been discussing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a lot of respect for EBF and wdcrob. Both are among the best posters around here. But I think this is their blind spot.

Thanks KT.

If I've got a blind spot there's no doubt this is it: if I don't understand why a good player is good I tend to just stay away.

I want guys I'm confident can withstand a situation change or who will continue to get opportunities if they have a down period. VJax left Rivers and went to Freeman and didn't miss a beat. Garcon had a bad year with the drek of the QB world throwing to him, but still landed a big contract with the Redskins and if he and RGIII are both healthy I think top 10-15 is in the cards.

Based on my own estimation of their talent I felt strongly that both of those guys would land on their feet and had both of them 'ranked' highly as a result. Not surprisingly, considering how cheaply you could get these guys in 2008/9/10, I own both of them in eight or nine of my dynasty leagues. Likewise, I've got Mendenhall in 10 of them.

Second chances and the ability to withstand a moderately poor situation is worth a ton to me, and I value the players I feel confident will survive those kinds of situations above those I'm not sure about.

I don't believe Decker or Nelson are that resilient. And if they are I don't see it (could easily be a blind spot). But the end result is the same either way -- they just aren't guys I'm going to invest in. I don't have to be right about every player, I just have to be right about the players I actually invest in more often than I'm wrong. I find that easier if I trim the player pool down the ones I'm most confident in.

Different strokes. Many ways to skin a cat. YMMV. Etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking about finally putting together my own bare bones FF website with dynasty rankings and prospect evaluations.

I think this is a great idea. At the risk of sounding like a ball washer, I've not seen many other sites with the kind of analysis and passion you put into your evaluations you put on here.
:goodposting: I may not always agree--hell, I disagree very often--but that makes it even better. I'd visit this site if it was updated reasonably often. Hell EBF, you could do what Couch Potato and wisc (?) did here and just start your own thread with the most updated rankings in the OP. That way there's room for discussion, and it can evolve over time. Great resource either way. Edited by ConnSKINS26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better.
It seems the only player you are abnormally high on is Shorts (and looking deeper Floyd and Givens). There are more players you are abnormally low on, like Nelson, Britt, Garcon, Decker, Jeffery, could go on. Do you think that's accurate?
And no Stevie Johnson on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several comments here.1. This is where your passionate arguing in favor of Flacco officially jumped the shark for me.2. Are we legitimizing QBR now for ranking QBs? I don't buy QBR as a useful metric.3. Older players are much more than short-changed by your post. I went looking for all-time QBR stats when I saw this post and found only ESPN stats that go back only to 2008. So he has the 18th best qualified QBR since 2008? Is that good?4. Speaking of which, where is the all-time QBR ranking you are citing? I don't find it at ESPN or PFR. But ESPN does have a listing of all-time best QBR seasons and games... where all-time means since 2008. Is that what you mean by NFL history?5. Flacco's 5 seasons rank as #63 (2010), #66 (2011), #78 (2009), #110 (2012), and #124 (2008) since 2008. Again, is that supposed to be impressive? Here is a PFR post that shows at least 40 all-time QBs with much higher QBR than Flacco's, which makes it appear he might not even be in the top 75-100 all-time. :penalty:

Pretty sure #1 happened much earlier. I'm referring to the traditional QBR that tops off at 159, not ESPN's new one out of 100. Don't trust either/any QBR as end all be all of anything. The only point is if Flacco has been terrible for so long why is this overall metric so good. It is not an acceptable proof he is a good QB, it is just evidence he is not an average one.All time QBR is available at Pro Football Reference. Otto Graham, Dan Mario, Joe Flacco. I accept the ridiculousness of that list; my only point is that Joe is better than the haters give him credit.

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.