Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

Edited by ghostguy123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 6 of my 7 running backs on week 4 bye.

CJ Anderson, Crowell, Jeremy Hill, Marshawn, Christine, Turbin all have a bye week. I would only have Lesean McCoy to go that week. Would you make a move or just eat the bye week? We do all-play so it will definitely hurt me. I didn't plan it that way obviously, but that's what I am staring down right now.

12 team superflex PPR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

He looks better, but not a lot better. People weren't paying attention last year. He got a lot of yards that shouldn't have been there for him despite the low ypc last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

He looks better, but not a lot better. People weren't paying attention last year. He got a lot of yards that shouldn't have been there for him despite the low ypc last year.

Agree to disagree I guess. I think he looks like he improved more from year 1 to year 2 than any RB I can ever remember.

I dont mean stats, I just mean the way he looks. He does not look like the same player from 2013. He looks like the 23 year old version of himself right now while last year looked like the 30 year old version of himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

He looks better, but not a lot better. People weren't paying attention last year. He got a lot of yards that shouldn't have been there for him despite the low ypc last year.

Agree to disagree I guess. I think he looks like he improved more from year 1 to year 2 than any RB I can ever remember.

I dont mean stats, I just mean the way he looks. He does not look like the same player from 2013. He looks like the 23 year old version of himself right now while last year looked like the 30 year old version of himself.

Yeah, he looked really good last night. Very different than last year. Night and day. Impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said last night that he's lost 20 lbs, which explains the greatly improved quickness, etc. Looks really good right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a dynasty league (PPR) going forward, would you rather have Zac Stacy or Bernard Pierce? I own Forsett and Stacy and another team owns Pierce and Cunningham, so I am contemplating offering Stacy for Pierce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said, Michael is not a guy that I would expect the "look backward to look forward" crowd to appreciate. People wired to think like that aren't going to "get" him until he's succeeded beyond a reasonable doubt.

Different strokes for different folks, but I like the "look forward to look backward" mindset myself and that's why most of my analysis is based on what's going to happen and not what already did.

I'm likely the first person to ever select LeSean McCoy 1st overall in a startup. You claimed that Dion Lewis could do the same in his shoes, at the time (Feb, 2011).

I valued Cam Newton over Aaron Rodgers 4 weeks into his rookie season. RG3 too, in 4pt passing leagues.

I was yapping about Jordan Reed before he was even a full-time starter at TE, at Florida.

I'd take Kelvin over Sammy today.

I called Hernandez > Finley in the un-ironic "Bump Finley" days.

I drafted Eddie Lacy in a Devy league when he was Trent's--according to you--"BJGE-esque" backup, and predicted he'd be a 2nd round pick while doing so.

All of this can be verified by the forum's handy search tool, if you'd like. We can disagree, but save the passive agressive, dishonest comments and labels. If your'e confident in your opinion, you shoudln't need them.

ETA: I've made plenty of awful calls too, of course (not that all of those worked out for me). Just pointing out that I am pretty impulsive in my dynasty actions--right or wrong--but certainly not the "look backward to look forward" variety.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a dynasty league (PPR) going forward, would you rather have Zac Stacy or Bernard Pierce? I own Forsett and Stacy and another team owns Pierce and Cunningham, so I am contemplating offering Stacy for Pierce.

Stacy for me. If you like what you saw from Pierce--I'd ask for another piece with him, for Stacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranking elite NFL draft prospects as good dynasty bets doesn't exactly qualify as going out on a limb. Tavon, Watkins, Manziel, Bortles, and Bridgewater were all first round draft picks. Anyone who values upside will likely have some interest in those guys solely by virtue of the price their NFL teams paid to acquire them. Likewise, where you have Watkins is basically where most reasonable people have him and is right in line with his ADP. In general I think of you as a guy who spends most of his posting energy hyping proven commodities like Gronk and Harvin rather than making judgment calls on "will he or won't he" prospects.

If it doesn't qualify as going out on a limb, then how come I'm the only person way out here? I've got Austin a dozen spots higher than consensus in my WR rankings, and two full arounds ahead of his ADP. I'm literally the only person I've been able to find on the entire internet with Harvin in his top 6 WRs or top 10 players overall. This certainly FEELS like a limb, but maybe I'm mistaken. I thought "going out on a limb" was "ranking a player dramatically outside of where everyone else has him". But obviously you have a different definition of "going out on a limb", where ranking Christine Michael exactly where everyone else has him qualifies but ranking Harvin or Austin miles ahead of consensus doesn't, because that would be devastating to the narrative.

I spend most of my time hyping guys who I think are dramatically underrated by the consensus. If those guys usually wind up being proven commodities like Gronk or Harvin, that's because the consensus underrates proven commodities. (Actually, those guys usually wind up being the injury-report All Stars, and we all know why that is- I believe the consensus dramatically underrates players who have suffered injuries). But I'm happy to make judgment calls on "will he or won't he" prospects. Again, find me anyone who had Jordan Reed ranked higher than I did last offseason. Find me anyone else on the internet who had Devin Hester ranked higher than I did. Maybe I don't do it as much as some others (Kremenull springs immediately to mind), but that's not because I'm averse to doing it, it's because in most cases I don't think it's warranted.

As for the rest of it... I'm not saying that with enough historical modeling we can accurately describe the shape of Michael's career. I'm saying that historical modeling provides us with a range of possible outcomes for Michael's career, and we have to account for that full range. Lots of other RBs have seemed as promising as Michael seems at this point, and then gone on to bust colossally (hey there, Kevan Barlow!) We have to take into account that possibility. Christine Michael's current price doesn't. You are fond of saying that people are "pricing someone at his upside". Well, that's what I think some of the Christine Michael fans are doing. When valuing a player, you have to account for the entire range of possible outcomes. You have admitted that you are not doing that, but instead valuing him solely on the single outcome you think is most likely. That results in a mispriced asset.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

I disagree. He looks faster and more explosive (shedding that weight helped, because he never played like a big back), but otherwise he's doing exactly the same things this year that he was doing last year. I was praising his vision and anticipation up and down last year, but nobody would hear anything of it because "YPC". I had him as my #3 dynasty RB before the season started, partly because he's so young and partly because Le'Veon Bell really did look good last year. Not quite this good, but I would say this qualifies as normal year 1 to year 2 improvement and not being a different RB entirely. I wrote in his player spotlight how high-workload, low-efficiency RBs have historically turned into major studs a surprisingly high percentage of the time (Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson, Ricky Williams, Walter Payton, etc).

As I'm fond of saying, coaches are smart. The reason Le'Veon Bell got such a massive workload last season is because his coaches knew he was legit, whether his numbers showed it or not. It's becoming more obvious that his coaches were right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 6 of my 7 running backs on week 4 bye.

CJ Anderson, Crowell, Jeremy Hill, Marshawn, Christine, Turbin all have a bye week. I would only have Lesean McCoy to go that week. Would you make a move or just eat the bye week? We do all-play so it will definitely hurt me. I didn't plan it that way obviously, but that's what I am staring down right now.

12 team superflex PPR

I'd make a move as long as I could get fair-market value (something like Turbin for Starks, or Anderson for Davis), but if the only option was overpaying or eating a zero, I'd eat a zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why has this thread turned into a "battle of egos" with people needing to defend how forward looking they are?

There's plenty of knowledgeable and keen dynasty minds in this thread - it really doesn't matter, who the prettiest girl at the dance is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

He's noticeably slimmer and quicker, but he was a very good back last year as well. People forget he was a 21 year old RB (youngest in the league) that missed all of preseason and the first three regular season games with injury. He looked much better as the season went on. He showed great vision and quick feet last season - but the Pitts line was god awful. Now, with less weight to carry his whole body is matching his quick feet and he's able to get outside and by defenders quicker for bigger gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does Bell fall in RB rankings today? I'm not personally willing to buy any RB at RB1 (overall) prices right now, but if I could add a single RB to my roster(s)--I think he's the guy right now, in PPR leagues.

ETA: Wrote Ball, meant Bell.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

He looks better, but not a lot better. People weren't paying attention last year. He got a lot of yards that shouldn't have been there for him despite the low ypc last year.

Agree to disagree I guess. I think he looks like he improved more from year 1 to year 2 than any RB I can ever remember.

I dont mean stats, I just mean the way he looks. He does not look like the same player from 2013. He looks like the 23 year old version of himself right now while last year looked like the 30 year old version of himself.

Like I said, a little quicker, but that's all IMO. His vision is superb. Last year he was one of those guys who's ability was masked by numbers. He reminded me of a young Ronnie Brown, a guy who was always getting 0 yards when he should have lost 2, getting 2 yards when he should have gotten 0, and getting 5 yards when he should have gotten 2. Unfortunately Ronnie Brown had a devastating injury right as the line was starting to shore up enough for that latter category to be more abundant than the first two.

I'm not the least bit surprised what Bell is doing so far this year and he's really separated himself from Blount with the ability to find the right hole and make things happen when not already at full speed.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does Bell fall in RB rankings today? I'm not personally willing to buy any RB at RB1 prices right now, but if I could add a single RB to my roster(s)--I think he's the guy right now, in PPR leagues.

ETA: Wrote Ball, meant Bell.

I had him at RB3 before the season. I'll be doing a rankings update for next week, and there's not really all that much room for him to rise in the positional rankings. I'm leaning towards bumping him ahead of Jamaal Charles. I don't think there's any realistic chance he unseats McCoy at #1.

The bigger potential rise is in the overall rankings. He may have been RB3 for me, but that only translated to 15th overall as the top of my rankings was very WR-heavy. At a quick glance, I'm thinking Bell will probably wind up at 12th, post-update. He'll jump ahead of Antonio and Jordy, but I don't think he's passing Percy or Alshon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

I was shocked by how quick he looked on his long screen pass in week one. This is a guy who has a poor record of making explosive plays, both in the NFL and in college. In 2012 he had 382 carries at Michigan State (1st in the nation), but just thirteen 20+ yard runs (tied for 14th in the nation). That's good for a "long run %" of just 3.4%, which is pretty bad for an elite college prospect. Last year in the NFL he had 244 carries (12th in the league), but just four 20+ yard runs (tied for 24th with guys like Lamar Miller, Gerhart, McFadden, and D Brown). That's an anemic 1.6% long run percentage.

This season he already has two runs of 20+ yards on just 32 carries. My first reaction to seeing him is that he looks a lot leaner, so I'm thinking that's probably responsible for the transformation. Looks like a different guy right now.

Edited by EBF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any realistic chance he unseats McCoy at #1.

I can resepct that call, but I think I'm ready to make the leap, personally.

Any PPG advantage McCoy offers will be small, in my opinion, based on the targets Bell is also getting. I'll trade a bit of security and a PPG or 2 for an extra 3 years. 4 years with Charles.

I put him over Lacy due to the receptions and, now, health concerns (head; not worried about foot).

I love Gio, but will side with the workhorse and the extra production the extra touches afford.

Aside from those 4, it's not close for me right now.

I'd likely go:

Bell

McCoy

Gio/Lacy/Charles

Gurley*

with a clear tier break after that.

Edited by Concept Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it doesn't qualify as going out on a limb, then how come I'm the only person way out here? I've got Austin a dozen spots higher than consensus in my WR rankings, and two full arounds ahead of his ADP. I'm literally the only person I've been able to find on the entire internet with Harvin in his top 6 WRs or top 10 players overall. This certainly FEELS like a limb, but maybe I'm mistaken. I thought "going out on a limb" was "ranking a player dramatically outside of where everyone else has him". But obviously you have a different definition of "going out on a limb", where ranking Christine Michael exactly where everyone else has him qualifies but ranking Harvin or Austin miles ahead of consensus doesn't, because that would be devastating to the narrative.

You're comparing yourself to FBG staffers, whose dynasty rankings tend to be a little quaint and behind the times for the most part. If you look at DLF, which is dedicated exclusively to dynasty, you'll see that virtually everyone has Sammy Watkins right around 17th overall. The Bills traded a top 10 pick and another first round pick (which could end up being another top 10 pick) for Sammy Watkins. There's a pretty good argument that, based on the price of acquisition, Sammy Watkins is one of the most highly-touted WR prospects of all-time. With that in mind, trying to trumpet the fact that you rank him 17th overall before he played a snap like it's some kind of bold call is pretty silly. Your ranking is appropriate (or maybe even a little cautious) relative to the hype and expectations associated with a player who was treated as a super elite asset by the NFL draft process. Likewise, Tavon Austin was a top 10 pick. Ranking him where you do is based solely on how the NFL valued him. It's not a bold call. It's merely an appropriate ranking based on one particular surface trait.

My recollection of your posting style is that you rank rookies and unproven young prospects according to their generic traits (i.e. NFL draft slot/situation) and then only really become a vocal proponent once the player has already established his level (i.e. Harvin, Gronk). It's a really good way to avoid looking silly because you rarely end up taking a bold "will he or won't he" stance on a marginal 2nd-3rd round prospect. If you rarely have opinions on players that differ from the consensus then there are no bad calls in your history for anyone to remember. However, that type of analysis is almost functionally useless in a competitive league where people are always going to gamble on rookies and prospects ahead of where their generic traits dictate. It's somewhat useful to know what a generic 2nd round RB or WR is worth just in case one of those guys falls well below that level, but it would be more useful to know which 2nd round WR/WR are more likely to succeed/fail and why. The type of analysis that I appreciate and seek out is based less on what's already known and based more on quality speculation.

As for the rest of it... I'm not saying that with enough historical modeling we can accurately describe the shape of Michael's career. I'm saying that historical modeling provides us with a range of possible outcomes for Michael's career, and we have to account for that full range. Lots of other RBs have seemed as promising as Michael seems at this point, and then gone on to bust colossally (hey there, Kevan Barlow!) We have to take into account that possibility. Christine Michael's current price doesn't. You are fond of saying that people are "pricing someone at his upside". Well, that's what I think some of the Christine Michael fans are doing. When valuing a player, you have to account for the entire range of possible outcomes. You have admitted that you are not doing that, but instead valuing him solely on the single outcome you think is most likely. That results in a mispriced asset.

It's telling that you would cite Barlow. Michael critics tend to fall back on lazy comparisons that serve their pre-held opinion. For example, if you want a "hyped up backup RB with a decent NCAA/draft background who flopped miserably after being touted as the next big star" then you can pull out the Kevan Barlow card. Are they really that similar though? Barlow ran a 4.56 40 with a 1.61 10 yard split and a 32" vertical leap. Michael ran a 4.43 40 with a 1.49 split (fastest at the combine) and a 43" vertical (highest of any RB prospect I can remember). Was Barlow an elite workout freak at RB? No. Then why are you comparing him to Michael when elite athleticism is one of Michael's hallmark traits? It's a lazy and bad comparison.

Likewise, when people want to devalue Michael's workout numbers and draft slot then they will often turn to Titans bust Chris Henry to fill their "high pick RB with great measurables who sucked in the NFL" need. Once again, it's a poor comparison. Chris Henry was an outright terrible college football player. He had a 3.3 career YPC at Arizona with a 3.5 season best. Christine Michael has bad volume stats due to his injuries, but solid efficiency stats with a 5.3 career YPC with a 6.0 season best. He was also a 5 star high school prospect and Big 12 Offensive Freshman of the Year. All of those things point towards him not only being a workout freak, but also a good football player (a huge distinction between him and Chris Henry).

Michael critics love to latch onto one aspect of his background and pigeonhole him based on that. They rarely seem to make an attempt to understand him in terms of his uniqueness though. It's very rare to hear them offer detailed, skill set-specific explanations for why they think he's overrated. What qualities does he lack in order to be successful? He is strong and agile with freakish fast-twitch explosiveness. He can run inside or outside and catch the ball. He is not track star fast, but he has great initial speed and decent long speed. Apart from his tendency to get injured, I can't think of too many things missing from his actual tool kit. It seems to me that most of the negativity is based on generic traits (i.e. "he's a backup with massive hype therefore he's Barlow" or "he's a 2nd round pick with great measurables and below average net production therefore he's Chris Henry"). Even the more current criticisms like "he's behind Robert Turbin on the depth chart" are based on (dubious) signs of his ability and offer zero analysis of his actual skill set.

If you want to talk about signs, I trust Pete Carroll and his crew exponentially more than a herd of FF message board posters. They deemed Michael worthy of a 2nd round pick. Four RBs picked in that round (Bernard, Lacy, Bell, and Ball) are currently rated as top 10 consensus dynasty RBs. My most recent dynasty RB list had Michael at RB11. Is it really that outrageous to think that Seattle's hand-picked RB of the future is likely to achieve the same level of hype and success attained by all of the other players picked in that range? Subjectively, I actually think Michael might be the most talented player from that cluster. He also plays for the best organization of the group with an awesome infrastructure. All it really takes to think he'll get into the top 10 someday is that he'll eventually receive a comparable opportunity and achieve comparable (or greater) success. I'm confident on both of those points, so for me this isn't a case where I'm being reckless, but rather a case where others are being excessively cautious based on bad (or nonexistent) subjective evaluations combined with misinterpretation of the available signs (i.e. his draft slot, his college career, his NFL performance to date, the depth chart situation).

We can all point to hits/misses in our background, but I think what's undeniably true is that if you went back in a time machine and hyped up any random non-mega elite prospect who actually went on to become a mega elite NFL player (i.e. Charles, McCoy, Graham, Jeffery, Marshall, Gore) then you would've faced a lot of pushback from skeptics. Even if you knew 100% that your player was going to pan out, there would still be fierce resistance. So while I'm not assuming that Michael is headed for a HoF career like Marshall or Gore, my point is that the pushback itself is entirely to be expected and totally distinct from the outcome itself. I'm not going to dig up every old Ray Rice or LeSean McCoy thread, but there were plenty of people calling those guys average prospects or worse back in the day when that opinion was still viable. What ultimately matters is making the right assessment, not convincing everyone else that you're right (even IF you are right, you're never going to get everyone on board until it's undeniable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're...

The conversation has moved from Michael to questioning the personal risk tolerance of others. We should all likely drop that part of the convo.

Michael critics love to latch onto one aspect of his background and pigeonhole him based on that. They rarely seem to make an attempt to understand him in terms of his uniqueness though. It's very rare to hear them offer detailed, skill set-specific explanations for why they think he's overrated. What qualities does he lack in order to be successful? He is strong and agile with freakish fast-twitch explosiveness. He can run inside or outside and catch the ball. He is not track star fast, but he has great initial speed and decent long speed. Apart from his tendency to get injured, I can't think of too many things missing from his actual tool kit. It seems to me that most of the negativity is based on generic traits (i.e. "he's a backup with massive hype therefore he's Barlow" or "he's a 2nd round pick with great measurables and below average net production therefore he's Chris Henry"). Even the more current criticisms like "he's behind Robert Turbin on the depth chart" are based on (dubious) signs of his ability and offer zero analysis of his actual skill set.

I think you're putting more stock in combine numbers than I am willing to. That's going to be a disconnect in the conversation. Especially at RB--I think so much of what makes a player successful is not measurable in track and field drills. He's a great athlete, but great athletes don't always become great NFL players. I don't think we need to cherry pick past examples, on either side of the argument, to acknowledge that.

I aslo don't feel like I need to tear Michael apart to make a point. I think he is a physically gifted athlete who has shown some very solid flashes at a college and pre-season level. I think most people agree with your pro-Michael points. The disconnect is what we do with that information.

A lot of people were very high on Lamar Miller and David Wilson last season, using the same logic calculation that you seem to be. They took the physical profile, put it in a starting job, and assumed success. Never mind how anyone feels Michael compares to the two--that's irrelevant in it's subjectivity. But they serve as examples of physical talent and starting opportunity not translating to production.

Beyond this, we now have to weigh his situation. I do think his being behind Turbin is a red flag. Mabye it proves to be nothing, but it's at least worthy of the conversation and investigation. It's worthy of being considered. I don't think it's a given that Marshawn is gone next year. He looks great and has been the engine of the offense of the best team in the league. I don't think it's a given the two sides can't meet in the middle, contract wise.

I don't think it's a given that SEA is a "+" situation. It has been for Lynch, but that's not always universal. Michael could be part of a RBBC. The offensive line could deteriorate for a number of reasons. He could give up passing down work and the limited number of RB targets going around in the offense.

He's shown reason to at least question his ability to stay healthy. He has character concerns. Pass protection concerns.

I understand that you're high on him--and I think you have to get your guy when you feel that way about a player. But I don't understand how someone could be baffled by a more conservative take on his chances. The questions are there, and clear, to me.

Edited by Concept Coop
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it doesn't qualify as going out on a limb, then how come I'm the only person way out here? I've got Austin a dozen spots higher than consensus in my WR rankings, and two full arounds ahead of his ADP. I'm literally the only person I've been able to find on the entire internet with Harvin in his top 6 WRs or top 10 players overall. This certainly FEELS like a limb, but maybe I'm mistaken. I thought "going out on a limb" was "ranking a player dramatically outside of where everyone else has him". But obviously you have a different definition of "going out on a limb", where ranking Christine Michael exactly where everyone else has him qualifies but ranking Harvin or Austin miles ahead of consensus doesn't, because that would be devastating to the narrative.

You're comparing yourself to FBG staffers, whose dynasty rankings tend to be a little quaint and behind the times for the most part. If you look at DLF, which is dedicated exclusively to dynasty, you'll see that virtually everyone has Sammy Watkins right around 17th overall. The Bills traded a top 10 pick and another first round pick (which could end up being another top 10 pick) for Sammy Watkins. There's a pretty good argument that, based on the price of acquisition, Sammy Watkins is one of the most highly-touted WR prospects of all-time. With that in mind, trying to trumpet the fact that you rank him 17th overall before he played a snap like it's some kind of bold call is pretty silly. Your ranking is appropriate (or maybe even a little cautious) relative to the hype and expectations associated with a player who was treated as a super elite asset by the NFL draft process. Likewise, Tavon Austin was a top 10 pick. Ranking him where you do is based solely on how the NFL valued him. It's not a bold call. It's merely an appropriate ranking based on one particular surface trait.

Look, you and I obviously have a different definition of "going out on a limb" or what constitutes a "bold call". Personally, I think that if I have a player ranked higher than any other public ranker on a major fantasy site on the entire internet, that qualifies as a "bold call". So if you think that my process leads to me avoiding any "bold calls", I think you're demonstrably wrong. You know that "merely appropriate" Tavon Austin ranking you're dismissing? Fantasypros has 33 sets of dynasty rankings right now, and not one of them has Austin higher than I do. Only one other guy has him ranked as a dynasty WR2. That "merely appropriate" call seems relatively bold to me.

Edit: 6 of the 33 rankers have Christine Michael ranked 13th or higher. I would say that my Tavon Austin ranking is a lot bolder than your Christine Michael ranking, at least in terms of how many people are standing with me on that one.

It's telling that you would cite Barlow. Michael critics tend to fall back on lazy comparisons that serve their pre-held opinion. For example, if you want a "hyped up backup RB with a decent NCAA/draft background who flopped miserably after being touted as the next big star" then you can pull out the Kevan Barlow card. Are they really that similar though? Barlow ran a 4.56 40 with a 1.61 10 yard split and a 32" vertical leap. Michael ran a 4.43 40 with a 1.49 split (fastest at the combine) and a 43" vertical (highest of any RB prospect I can remember). Was Barlow an elite workout freak at RB? No. Then why are you comparing him to Michael when elite athleticism is one of Michael's hallmark traits? It's a lazy and bad comparison.

I was unaware that players had to be identical in order to be similar. Here I thought "similar" meant something wholly different from "identical". Christine Michael and Kevan Barlow share some similarities. They have some differences, too, because they're not in fact the same person. There are lots of other guys that Christine Michael has been similar to in one aspect or another. If I sat here and said "Christine Michael is Kevan Barlow", that would be lazy and irresponsible of me. But I'm not. I'm saying that Christine Michael shares a lot of similarities with a lot of previous backs, Kevan Barlow among them, and as a broad class that group of similar backs has produced a very wide range of outcomes, so I would estimate Christine Michael's range of outcomes to likely fall somewhere in there, (although I cannot entirely rule out the very small possibility that Michael will fall outside of that range, either on the high end or the low end).

You might disparage my process. That's great. If everyone used my process, it'd be hard for me make any trades. You probably would have disparaged my process when I compared Le'Veon Bell to every rookie RB who had posted a low YPC over a high workload in their rookie years. "But Adam," you might have said, "Le'Veon Bell is a completely different type of back than Ricky Williams!", and I would have agreed. But Ricky Williams represented a point in the range of possible outcomes, and that range of possible outcomes suggested that low-efficiency workhorses tended to have very good careers (basically, that their efficiency was more likely to increase than their workload was to decrease). That list of comps led to me ranking Bell as my RB3 before the season. I'm pretty happy with the results.

You don't like historical comparisons. That doesn't mean they don't work, or that the people who use them are somehow risk-averse, concerned about saving face, or lazy. And besides, you use it yourself. When you talk about Michael Dyer and how #1 prospects coming out of high school often turn it around, isn't that an example of using historical comps? Is Michael Dyer identical to every other #1 prospect coming out of high school, and if not, how do you justify using them as comparisons when discussing Dyer's value? When you were high on Bryce Brown because of his high school recruiting ranking, how is that not a perfect example of using historical comps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you're high on him--and I think you have to get your guy when you feel that way about a player. But I don't understand how someone could be baffled by a more conservative take on his chances. The questions are there, and clear, to me.

It's not baffling at all. I just don't agree with it.

I'm not really here to try to convince people of Christine Michael's worth. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not sweating your opinion on Michael. Frankly, I don't care at all what you think of him. It's immaterial to me. I just wanted to articulate my own personal reasons for being high on him specifically (as opposed to other random "similar" prospects that I don't hype to the same extent). The skeptics don't see any difference between him and any number of random promising backups, and what I'm saying is that there are reasons why some people think he's more than just another typical middling prospect. You might not agree with those reasons, but they're there. It isn't like people just woke up one morning and decided that Christine Michael is a better than average gamble without having reasons for thinking that. I think I've outlined my reasons pretty well here and elsewhere. I'm not looking for converts. Just trying to explain why some people like him a lot more than others. It doesn't have to be irrational or a "mispricing" just because some people happen to disagree with it. The consensus is always going to disagree with the most optimistic believers regarding any particular developing player, so that alone says nothing about his chances of eventual success/failure.

FWIW, I never owned Miller or Wilson in any of my leagues. It's another example where surface similarities (i.e. high draft picks with good speed) don't necessarily ensure that the players are equivalent or even similar. For one thing, Michael is a different type of back physically. Much bigger and more powerful. I don't think what happened to those guys says anything at all about his outlook.

Edited by EBF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be irrational or a "mispricing" just because some people happen to disagree with it.

I don't think it's mispricing because I disagree with it. I think it's mispricing because, as I understand it, you are ranking him exclusively based off of the single most likely outcome (in your mind) while completely ignoring all other possibilities, and that strategy results in mispriced players. Every player should be priced based on the entire range of possible outcomes. Or, as you're fond of saying, "you shouldn't buy players at their ceiling because it leaves little room for profit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really here to try to convince people of Christine Michael's worth. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me.

If anybody believes that, I got some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be irrational or a "mispricing" just because some people happen to disagree with it.

I don't think it's mispricing because I disagree with it. I think it's mispricing because, as I understand it, you are ranking him exclusively based off of the single most likely outcome (in your mind) while completely ignoring all other possibilities, and that strategy results in mispriced players. Every player should be priced based on the entire range of possible outcomes. Or, as you're fond of saying, "you shouldn't buy players at their ceiling because it leaves little room for profit".

Everyone is making a EV calculation whether its implicit or explicit. Michael's ADP brothers this year are Foster and Lynch (and others). If both of those established guys have 1.5 expected RB1 seasons left, what is the acceptable bust rate for Michael, given he is 5 years younger? It's pretty high. If you did 20% RB1, 60% bust and 20% inbetween, which I think is much lower than anyone supporting Michael would believe, it's still a worthy gamble. If powerball odds dropped to 1 in a million, you are likely still throwing money away buying tickets, but it's money well destroyed. I don't think Michael supporters in this thread are being irrational. Everyone has the same information in front of them. They just have applied the odds differently based on their own interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be irrational or a "mispricing" just because some people happen to disagree with it.

I don't think it's mispricing because I disagree with it. I think it's mispricing because, as I understand it, you are ranking him exclusively based off of the single most likely outcome (in your mind) while completely ignoring all other possibilities, and that strategy results in mispriced players. Every player should be priced based on the entire range of possible outcomes. Or, as you're fond of saying, "you shouldn't buy players at their ceiling because it leaves little room for profit".

Everyone is making a EV calculation whether its implicit or explicit. Michael's ADP brothers this year are Foster and Lynch (and others). If both of those established guys have 1.5 expected RB1 seasons left, what is the acceptable bust rate for Michael, given he is 5 years younger? It's pretty high. If you did 20% RB1, 60% bust and 20% inbetween, which I think is much lower than anyone supporting Michael would believe, it's still a worthy gamble. If powerball odds dropped to 1 in a million, you are likely still throwing money away buying tickets, but it's money well destroyed. I don't think Michael supporters in this thread are being irrational. Everyone has the same information in front of them. They just have applied the odds differently based on their own interpretation.

I don't think they're being irrational, either. I totally get why they have him where they do, even if I disagree. I don't question their methods or their motives. I was merely responding directly to this quote from EBF (in response to me saying it seemed like he was ranking based on a singular expectation instead of an EV range):

So while I recognize that Michael's draft position and college career likely say something about his pro outlook, you're right that my assessment of his chances is based solely on my expectation because that's ultimately the only thing that I have to go by.

If I take that quote at face value, I think he's mispricing Christine Michael. Even if the outcome winds up being right (and it very well might), I think the process is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

This. I sold him in the off-season and regretted it immensely by halftime. Was like watching a completely different player. Last year he looked like a career backup, this year he looks like a complete stud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell looked great last night. Would have been nice to see him get more carries. I think he's been underrated as a runner around here.

Probably cause he doesnt look like the same guy we saw last year. And no i am not just saying that because the announcers were saying it. Watching the game last week against my browns i immediately saw a totally different and much better player. Really as much of a night and day difference as there can be for a RB from one year to the next.

He is so much quicker than last year. Plus he seems like his vision and intangibles are way better. Whatever this dude did in the offseason, it worked.

I think when more people get a look at him his ranking will jump, and rightfully so.

This. I sold him in the off-season and regretted it immensely by halftime. Was like watching a completely different player. Last year he looked like a career backup, this year he looks like a complete stud.
He does look muck leaner. Like he lost 10-15 lbs. I guess all that body mass wasn't a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why has this thread turned into a "battle of egos" with people needing to defend how forward looking they are?

There's plenty of knowledgeable and keen dynasty minds in this thread - it really doesn't matter, who the prettiest girl at the dance is.

Oh yes it does!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is McKinnon's dynasty value right now. Is he about a late 2015 1st?

Imo, Peterson is probably done for the Vikings, but I'd rather not argue about that if someone thinks differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't like historical comparisons. That doesn't mean they don't work, or that the people who use them are somehow risk-averse, concerned about saving face, or lazy. And besides, you use it yourself. When you talk about Michael Dyer and how #1 prospects coming out of high school often turn it around, isn't that an example of using historical comps? Is Michael Dyer identical to every other #1 prospect coming out of high school, and if not, how do you justify using them as comparisons when discussing Dyer's value? When you were high on Bryce Brown because of his high school recruiting ranking, how is that not a perfect example of using historical comps?

I believe in using all of the information available when making decisions. I use historical comparisons all the time.

What are you trying to determine when you're assessing an unproven young player for the purpose of gauging his expected remaining dynasty value? Obviously the situation is a factor, but in general I think you're trying to figure out exactly how good that player is. There are lots of signs that can help you reach an accurate assessment. Going back to my "where there's smoke, there's fire" terminology, the fire refers to the player's actual value and the smoke refers to the signs of that value. For example, the fact that a rookie RB was a 1st round pick, a dominant college player, and a workout monster are signs of a high value. Likewise, if a second year WR gets benched for two rookie UDFAs and doesn't catch a pass all season then these are signs that indicate low value.

That's all straightforward enough, but I also think it's important to recognize that smoke and fire ultimately aren't the same thing. When Marshawn Lynch was benched in Buffalo and traded for a modest price to the Seahawks, people like you looked at that smoke and determined that he was an average back. Hindsight tells us that those particular warning signs weren't actually indicative of his real talent level though. In other words, the smoke did not match the fire. Certain signs might be correlated with a player's actual value, but signs and actual value are two different things. You can be really good at reading the smoke and trying to predict what kind of fire is hiding behind it, but ultimately the smoke is just a means towards the higher end of determining the fire's nature.

I think if you look at the different ways FF owners go about trying to gauge the value of developing assets, you'll find that different people naturally gravitate towards different ends of the scale. Armchair scouts will often ignore a lot of the concrete objective signs because they think they can assess the fire without having to look at the smoke. So for example you get people thinking that guys like Isaiah Crowell are strong prospects despite a lot of smoke that indicates otherwise (i.e. Crowell was a UDFA and UDFAs rarely amount to anything). Some people do a little bit of both. This is where I would place myself. Part of the reason why I like Michael Dyer is because of the smoke (a 5 star HS recruit who put up strong numbers in his first two seasons at Auburn), but part of it is based on looking at the player himself and making an assessment of his skills. I have watched him extensively. I can explain in detail what I like about his skill set, physical tools, and running style beyond just citing surface characteristics. In the last group you have people who deny all armchair scouting (i.e. "if anyone could scout talent well then they'd be working for an NFL team") and make their assessments almost entirely on signs instead. I would put you in this category. I think you are a guy who basically looks at draft pedigree and situation, puts players in a box based on that, and then latches onto high ppg players after they have already revealed themselves as such.

That's not necessarily a terrible thing. I think sometimes it's useful to hear a reminder like: "Hey btw guys Percy Harvin is a ppg monster when healthy and you probably shouldn't forget that." Likewise, treating players like generic commodities can serve you really well in cases such as Kelvin Benjamin and Cam Newton where the FF community ranks a player far lower than where his draft slot and position alone would dictate. I remember years and years ago grabbing Larry Johnson (before his breakout) in the 7th round of a startup without ever having seen him play for the simple reason that he was a first round pick and thus might be pretty talented. That turned out to be one of my best picks in that draft. On the other hand, someone using this approach isn't actually evaluating players. He's just reading signs that may or may not be indicative of the player's true nature and banking entirely on that. When the signs don't match the talent, you're in for a rough ride.

I hate the "you disagree with me therefore you don't watch the games" arguments that armchair scouts throw out, but at the same time I strongly suspect that you haven't even seen more than 10 carries of Christine Michael in the NFL (including preseason) and that your opinion is based entirely on signs like his draft slot and Seattle's current depth chart. I've yet to hear anything specifically related to his skill set that makes you think he isn't a good prospect. Often times you'll be able to get away with that kind of analysis. In fact, I still think the best way to rank rookies is to sort them by draft order and positional importance with only minor adjustments made for subjective assessments of talent. On the other hand, if I turn on a game tomorrow and see some 7th round no-name rookie who looks like a complete animal, I'm not going to refrain from moving him up in my estimation just because the concrete signs might not yet dictate that behavior. Likewise, if I see a guy like Bishop Sankey looking like crap in the preseason, I'm going to run with that subjective assessment even if there are lots of objective signs indicating that he's a quality prospect.

I think this is where a lot of the disagreement about Michael comes from. One side says, "He looks like a beast every time he touches the ball." The other side does not believe in the value of subjective armchair scouting by amateurs and thus puts zero stock in anything related to it. Beyond that, I think there are different competencies in reading the signs, both in general and in specific cases. Some people are going to look at Christine Michael and say, "He didn't have great stats in college therefore he isn't that good." Others will look at the facts and say, "He didn't have good stats in college because he suffered two season-ending injuries." One group might say, "Christine Michael cannot beat out Robert Turbin on the depth chart. Therefore he must not be a great talent." The other might say, "Turbin didn't even get a single series to himself with the starters in the regular season tune-up. Michael played more with the starting offense and had more touches. Therefore Turbin is the backup in name only and Michael would play more if Lynch were to get injured."

Whether I'm right or wrong, if I think someone is doing a poor job of reading the smoke and that they have no ability or willingness to assess the fire itself then of course I'm not going to agree with their take on that particular player. This doesn't mean that I don't value signs. It means that they have to be used well and even then aren't necessarily a substitute for evaluating the player. When someone pulls out random comparisons like Chris Henry and Kevan Barlow to describe a player like Christine Michael who has massive differences in terms of production and/or physical tools, it tells me that they're likely just making a lazy comparison in order to serve their desired conclusion rather than approaching it from the perspective of, "What are Christine Michael's essential traits and which prospects from the past 10-15 years are most similar?" I give wdcrob some stick about his metrics-heavy approach, but the truth is that even if I don't agree with all of what he says, I appreciate the fact that he's at least casting a wide net and incorporating a lot of different criteria into what constitutes a "historical comparison." What I hear from the Michael skeptic crowd is typically very lazy stuff that doesn't go beyond the surface for maybe one or two traits. It's like putting up a neon sign that says, "Don't take my opinion on this player seriously." If you ask someone for a map of the city and they hand you a child's crumpled up crayon drawing, you're probably not going to trust that map. Not because you don't believe in maps, but because it's just a ####ty map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is McKinnon's dynasty value right now. Is he about a late 2015 1st?

Imo, Peterson is probably done for the Vikings, but I'd rather not argue about that if someone thinks differently.

He's likely not to be a consistent player this year. And even if AP is as cooked as Rice, a lot can change by 2015. His situation is pretty similar to Crowell's. So it should be hard to get anything that rhymes with first. Really the biggest positive is that Patterson should provide consistent FP.

I do think this is a great opportunity to sell to the Peterson owner. He was perhaps banking on this year, so I think Foster, Moreno, etc. would be better moves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry EBF, but all that big post tells me is you don't really understand my process. To briefly address your concerns in order:

1) I was one of the highest rankers around on Lynch when he got traded to Seattle. I had him at RB25. FBGs' rankings were behind a paywall, so they didn't get archived, but the wayback machine tells me DLF had him at RB48. My reasons for being high on Lynch? Because history had told me that highly-pedigreed backs often benefited from a change of scenery. Guys like Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson had done well for themselves on a different team after being left for dead. Of course, you probably would have told me that judging Lynch's value based on Thomas Jones was a "lazy comparison" because Jones' measurables and running style were just totally different from Lynch's. Never mind that the comparison actually wound up providing value in the end and led me in the right direction or anything...

2) I have nothing but respect for armchair scouts. I think a lot of them are incredibly good at what they do. I think guys like Matt Waldman or Ryan McDowell or Jurb could probably work for NFL franchises if they really wanted to. My point has always been that the professional scouts are just as good, much more numerous, and have dramatically more time and resources to devote. The armchair scouts can win some disagreements, just like I could sit down at the table with a professional poker player and win some hands. I think the NFL scouting departments are going to win more of them in the long run, just like I think that professional poker player will wind up cleaning me out before the night is over.

3) You keep insisting that because of my process I can't possibly be higher than consensus on a player until after he's already shown something, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary. I'm sick of arguing it.

4) I promise I do watch the games. I really do. I've seen all 18 of Christine Michael's regular-season carries, as well as however many carries he's gotten in the last two preseasons against the Denver Broncos. I've actually seen his preseason carries against the Broncos at least three times each, though I'll admit I was focused more on the defensive play at the time.

5) To reiterate: I put a lot of stock into the opinions of armchair scouts. I wrote a weekly column last week that devoted an entire section to republishing the tweets of armchair scouts while they were watching the games. I think there's a ton of value in those subjective judgments that "so-and-so looks like a beast, so-and-so looks like a dud, so-and-so just made amazing play X". I follow lots of scouting-types of twitter and think they are tremendous value-adds. I just don't think their opinions are automatically dispositive. I've seen those armchair scouts tweet out plenty of stuff like "Donald Brown finally looks like the back we thought he could become when the #Colts took him in first round. Very similar to Ryan Mathews", or "Keenum looks more and more like a young Romo every week", or "Oh man Christine Michael is siiiick." (just to grab three tweets from a week I chose completely at random). Yeah, that's a good thing when the armchair scouts fall in love with a player, but I'm not going to automatically stop hedging against the possibility they are wrong. Because sometimes they give us Case Keenum or Donald Brown.

6) You keep calling my comparisons lazy. If we weren't such old friends, I would probably start to get offended by now. I never said "Christine Michael is Kevan Barlow". I pointed out that Kevan Barlow was once valued comparably to Christine Michael and helps illustrate one end of the range of possibilities that highly-anticipated prospects can find himself at. That's it. They're different backs. Thomas Jones and Marshawn Lynch are radically different backs, too. But Thomas Jones still shared similarities with Lynch, and those similarities wound up providing us with useful information about the range of possibilities Lynch might be facing. Every player is a unique snowflake, and what happened to some complete stranger 20 years ago will ultimately have no impact on what happens to some particular player today... but the truth is that history tends to repeat itself. We see patterns and trends emerge over and over again in fantasy football, and by looking at historical values, we can anticipate future trends. The goal is not to be exactly right on every call. The goal is to be as close to right as is possible as often as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is McKinnon's dynasty value right now. Is he about a late 2015 1st?

Imo, Peterson is probably done for the Vikings, but I'd rather not argue about that if someone thinks differently.

He's likely not to be a consistent player this year. And even if AP is as cooked as Rice, a lot can change by 2015. His situation is pretty similar to Crowell's. So it should be hard to get anything that rhymes with first. Really the biggest positive is that Patterson should provide consistent FP.

I do think this is a great opportunity to sell to the Peterson owner. He was perhaps banking on this year, so I think Foster, Moreno, etc. would be better moves.

I'm waiting to see how things play out, but I'm skeptical that things are going to go as south for Adrian Peterson as they did for Ray Rice. Not meaning to get political and offering absolutely no value judgments about this one way or the other, but I think there's a good possibility that conservative Christian groups will rally to Peterson and the right to discipline their children as they see fit. I think he could become a flashpoint in a much larger culture war. I don't think he's going to engender the universal loathing that Rice drew, and I don't think the NFL is basically going to banish him as a result.

I could very easily be wrong. Roger Goodell was hard enough to predict when it was just a matter of predicting Roger Goodell. Now that we have to predict Roger Goodell reacting to the public at large, I'm very much at a loss. I don't have the faintest clue how the public at large is going to react to this situation after they've been given a week to think about it. I'm just guessing at one possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry EBF, but all that big post tells me is you don't really understand my process. To briefly address your concerns in order:

1) I was one of the highest rankers around on Lynch when he got traded to Seattle. I had him at RB25. FBGs' rankings were behind a paywall, so they didn't get archived, but the wayback machine tells me DLF had him at RB48. My reasons for being high on Lynch? Because history had told me that highly-pedigreed backs often benefited from a change of scenery. Guys like Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson had done well for themselves on a different team after being left for dead. Of course, you probably would have told me that judging Lynch's value based on Thomas Jones was a "lazy comparison" because Jones' measurables and running style were just totally different from Lynch's. Never mind that the comparison actually wound up providing value in the end and led me in the right direction or anything...

Didn't know you were a fan of Lynch during the Buffalo swoon. I could've sworn you made a habit of calling him an average player at one point, but maybe I'm mistaken. Unlike some of the stalkers on here, I don't keep a running file on who everybody liked or didn't like for future reference, so it's all kind of hazy for me apart from a few memorable calls. My recollection is that you've generally been a "flow with the current" type of guy, but maybe that's also mistaken. I really don't invest a lot of energy consciously tracking how other people operate. Especially if I don't play against them anywhere.

On your point about comparisons, Lynch and Jones were both high picks. That's a strong sign of talent. In that sense, they're both similar. William Green was also a high pick. He sucked ###. I'm not saying surface characteristics have no value, but ultimately they're just signs that are correlated with what you're actually trying to measure (talent). If you can bypass the sign and obtain the actual measurement, well then obviously that's ideal. Maybe that's possible. Maybe not. I know there have been times when I've felt comfortable paying above the odds and my sense is that I've fared pretty well in those unique cases for the most part.

Either way, I don't find the Barlow comparison very appropriate. I think you wanted an example of a guy who was a decent prospect, had a lot of hype, and ultimately failed. The two backs have vastly different skill sets though. And since it's skills that ultimately determine success or failure (along with a little bit of hard work and sanity), I'd find a comparison more compelling if the players discussed more closely resembled one another.

Putting all that aside, it's not really a complicated discussion when you get down to the heart of it. I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark. I arrived at that conclusion by carefully weighing a lot of information. Others have looked at the same points and reached very different verdicts. That's all well and fine. As I've repeated, I'm not here to convince them. I merely wanted to articulate where I was coming from and to say that the idea that people moved Michael up for no good reason isn't necessarily true. I feel like what he showed last fall (and has continued to show) is very significant and that underselling those data points is where the skeptics are (IMO) totally missing the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is McKinnon's dynasty value right now. Is he about a late 2015 1st?

Imo, Peterson is probably done for the Vikings, but I'd rather not argue about that if someone thinks differently.

He's likely not to be a consistent player this year. And even if AP is as cooked as Rice, a lot can change by 2015. His situation is pretty similar to Crowell's. So it should be hard to get anything that rhymes with first. Really the biggest positive is that Patterson should provide consistent FP.

I do think this is a great opportunity to sell to the Peterson owner. He was perhaps banking on this year, so I think Foster, Moreno, etc. would be better moves.

Crowell was undrafted but McKinnon was actually a fairly early pick by rb standards these days so I think he'll be given a change at some point. And Asiata is totally JAG and not likely to last more than a few games as the starter. He may not do a ton this year but with a year of experience and another offseason, next year could be interesting for him.

I'd like to buy now, before things change. Even a couple of big plays from him as well as AP getting suspended for the year and/or cut and his price will go through the roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crowell was undrafted but McKinnon was actually a fairly early pick by rb standards these days so I think he'll be given a change at some point. And Asiata is totally JAG and not likely to last more than a few games as the starter. He may not do a ton this year but with a year of experience and another offseason, next year could be interesting for him.

I agree he'll get a chance to contribute eventually, even if AP is back after a short suspension. One of the reasons I think a first is too much is that Asiata is JAG. If we go down the path where AP is cut sometime between now and free agency, they have to upgrade from Asiata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark.

This is a pretty good distillation of the issue I take with so many of your positions. You make huge bold calls on players as "can't miss" and then go on to value them accordingly. Literally no player's success is inevitable. If you believe that Michael (or Richardson, or insert any other dude here) has a chance to be great, then fantastic. That's totally reasonable. It's saying "Michael has zero chance to be anything other than great" that is completely off the charts foolish.

We can reasonably disagree on Michael as an individual prospect -- but pricing this or any player without factoring in any bust risk is a definite mistake.

Edited by Coeur de Lion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark.

This is a pretty good distillation of the issue I take with so many of your positions. You make huge bold calls on players as "can't miss" and then go on to value them accordingly. Literally no player's success is inevitable. If you believe that Michael (or Richardson, or insert any other dude here) has a chance to be great, then fantastic. That's totally reasonable. It's saying "Michael has zero chance to be anything other than great" that is completely off the charts foolish.

We can reasonably disagree on Michael as an individual prospect -- but pricing this or any player without factoring in any bust risk is a definite mistake.

I have been saying the same thing about EBF for years. Good to see some other people have noticed that he keeps making these over-the-top predictions of 100% success or failure, which would be fine if could predict the future, but he has proven on numerous occasions that he can't.

It is absurd for anyone who holds themselves out as an expert (like EBF) to say that success for Michael (or any player) is inevitable. One would think that he might have learned his lesson after some of his bad calls, but every year he continues to predict that certain players are "can't miss" or "must fail" prospects.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark.

This is a pretty good distillation of the issue I take with so many of your positions. You make huge bold calls on players as "can't miss" and then go on to value them accordingly. Literally no player's success is inevitable. If you believe that Michael (or Richardson, or insert any other dude here) has a chance to be great, then fantastic. That's totally reasonable. It's saying "Michael has zero chance to be anything other than great" that is completely off the charts foolish.We can reasonably disagree on Michael as an individual prospect -- but pricing this or any player without factoring in any bust risk is a definite mistake.
I have been saying the same thing about EBF for years. Good to see some other people have noticed that he keeps making these over-the-top predictions of 100% success or failure, which would be fine if could predict the future, but he has proven on numerous occasions that he can't.It is absurd for anyone who holds themselves out as expert (like EBF) to say that success for Michael (or any player) is inevitable. One would think that he might have learned his lesson after his calls on Forte and Richardson (among others) but every year he continues to predict players are "can't miss" or "must fail" prospects.

That and of course if you don't agree it's because you haven't carefully considered the data like he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark.

This is a pretty good distillation of the issue I take with so many of your positions. You make huge bold calls on players as "can't miss" and then go on to value them accordingly. Literally no player's success is inevitable. If you believe that Michael (or Richardson, or insert any other dude here) has a chance to be great, then fantastic. That's totally reasonable. It's saying "Michael has zero chance to be anything other than great" that is completely off the charts foolish.We can reasonably disagree on Michael as an individual prospect -- but pricing this or any player without factoring in any bust risk is a definite mistake.
I have been saying the same thing about EBF for years. Good to see some other people have noticed that he keeps making these over-the-top predictions of 100% success or failure, which would be fine if could predict the future, but he has proven on numerous occasions that he can't.It is absurd for anyone who holds themselves out as expert (like EBF) to say that success for Michael (or any player) is inevitable. One would think that he might have learned his lesson after his calls on Forte and Richardson (among others) but every year he continues to predict players are "can't miss" or "must fail" prospects.
That and of course if you don't agree it's because you haven't carefully considered the data like he has.

No one can reasonably project more than a pretty wide range of possible outcomes for relatively unknown players. And I do mean no one. Ozzie Newsome drafts players that bust. So does John Schneider. Unanimously elite prospects bust every single year -- in fact roughly half of even the players taken in the first round by NFL teams every spring end up disapppinting. The only way to appropriately value players is to try to average the range of potential outcomes and establish a baseline value from there.

It's even worse in FF too -- an NFL team can be happy spending a non-premium pick on a "good" RB -- but in FF, that 1000 YFS / year non-workhorse isn't worth even close to as much. If you invest RB1 resources in a Christine Michael, and Turbin stays as the guy on 3rd down, then you're taking a significant loss. If you invest 1.01 startup resources in a Trent Richardson and he busts, you've probably crippled your team for years, literally. There's just no reason to go out on those shaky limbs either when we're talking about values that can net players with the same upside and a fraction of the risk. Gamble with mid round startup value, not as cornerstone-of-a-whole-team value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone is making a EV calculation whether its implicit or explicit. Michael's ADP brothers this year are Foster and Lynch (and others). If both of those established guys have 1.5 expected RB1 seasons left, what is the acceptable bust rate for Michael, given he is 5 years younger? It's pretty high. If you did 20% RB1, 60% bust and 20% inbetween, which I think is much lower than anyone supporting Michael would believe, it's still a worthy gamble. If powerball odds dropped to 1 in a million, you are likely still throwing money away buying tickets, but it's money well destroyed. I don't think Michael supporters in this thread are being irrational. Everyone has the same information in front of them. They just have applied the odds differently based on their own interpretation.

This is a timely post given some of the recent comments. I have Christine Michael at RB11 in my latest dynasty rankings. His August ADP is 48th overall. If I felt like he was a total lock for an elite career then I'd have him ranked higher. Likewise, the 48th overall pick IMO isn't one that's going to completely cripple your draft if you miss. The Michael skeptics might not be satisfied with the amount of risk reflected in his current market value, but to act like people aren't factoring in any bust risk isn't very accurate. Given that he's a 23 year old RB with 5-6 years of his athletic prime left, people would be rating him a lot higher if they knew he was going to become the starter, succeed, and stay healthy. You need only look at the ADP of guys like Lacy, Bernard, and Bell to see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark.

This is a pretty good distillation of the issue I take with so many of your positions. You make huge bold calls on players as "can't miss" and then go on to value them accordingly. Literally no player's success is inevitable. If you believe that Michael (or Richardson, or insert any other dude here) has a chance to be great, then fantastic. That's totally reasonable. It's saying "Michael has zero chance to be anything other than great" that is completely off the charts foolish.

We can reasonably disagree on Michael as an individual prospect -- but pricing this or any player without factoring in any bust risk is a definite mistake.

I have been saying the same thing about EBF for years. Good to see some other people have noticed that he keeps making these over-the-top predictions of 100% success or failure, which would be fine if could predict the future, but he has proven on numerous occasions that he can't.

It is absurd for anyone who holds themselves out as an expert (like EBF) to say that success for Michael (or any player) is inevitable. One would think that he might have learned his lesson after some of his bad calls, but every year he continues to predict that certain players are "can't miss" or "must fail" prospects.

He didn't say Michael's success is inevitable though, he said he "thinks" it is. Kind of an important distinction when you're implying someone is trying to be Nostradamus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael is a strong prospect whose opportunity and success are inevitable, and for whom injury is the only legitimate question mark.

This is a pretty good distillation of the issue I take with so many of your positions. You make huge bold calls on players as "can't miss" and then go on to value them accordingly. Literally no player's success is inevitable. If you believe that Michael (or Richardson, or insert any other dude here) has a chance to be great, then fantastic. That's totally reasonable. It's saying "Michael has zero chance to be anything other than great" that is completely off the charts foolish.

We can reasonably disagree on Michael as an individual prospect -- but pricing this or any player without factoring in any bust risk is a definite mistake.

I have been saying the same thing about EBF for years. Good to see some other people have noticed that he keeps making these over-the-top predictions of 100% success or failure, which would be fine if could predict the future, but he has proven on numerous occasions that he can't.

It is absurd for anyone who holds themselves out as an expert (like EBF) to say that success for Michael (or any player) is inevitable. One would think that he might have learned his lesson after some of his bad calls, but every year he continues to predict that certain players are "can't miss" or "must fail" prospects.

He didn't say Michael's success is inevitable though, he said he "thinks" it is. Kind of an important distinction when you're implying someone is trying to be Nostradamus.

A distinction without a difference in my mind. If someone says they think that something has a 100% likelihood of happening, I see it also as a future prediction. For instance if I said that I think it is inevitable that the world will end tomorrow, yes it is couched as my opinion but it also a prediction (100% likelihood does leave much wiggle room).

We will have to agree to disagree on this, rather than continue to argue semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is making a EV calculation whether its implicit or explicit. Michael's ADP brothers this year are Foster and Lynch (and others). If both of those established guys have 1.5 expected RB1 seasons left, what is the acceptable bust rate for Michael, given he is 5 years younger? It's pretty high. If you did 20% RB1, 60% bust and 20% inbetween, which I think is much lower than anyone supporting Michael would believe, it's still a worthy gamble. If powerball odds dropped to 1 in a million, you are likely still throwing money away buying tickets, but it's money well destroyed. I don't think Michael supporters in this thread are being irrational. Everyone has the same information in front of them. They just have applied the odds differently based on their own interpretation.

This is a timely post given some of the recent comments. I have Christine Michael at RB11 in my latest dynasty rankings. His August ADP is 48th overall. If I felt like he was a total lock for an elite career then I'd have him ranked higher. Likewise, the 48th overall pick IMO isn't one that's going to completely cripple your draft if you miss. The Michael skeptics might not be satisfied with the amount of risk reflected in his current market value, but to act like people aren't factoring in any bust risk isn't very accurate. Given that he's a 23 year old RB with 5-6 years of his athletic prime left, people would be rating him a lot higher if they knew he was going to become the starter, succeed, and stay healthy. You need only look at the ADP of guys like Lacy, Bernard, and Bell to see that.

I'd like to see your math on Michael if you don't mind. You've stated time and again that he's worth more than a Matt Forte or a Jamaal Charles. I'd like to see the projection of value over baseline attached to percentages that make that so. Because without him becoming a 2000 YFS monster, it's not happening -- unless of course, you're attaching a near 100% likelihood of Michael putting up a 5+ year string of low end RB1 production.

The math doesn't add up here at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is making a EV calculation whether its implicit or explicit. Michael's ADP brothers this year are Foster and Lynch (and others). If both of those established guys have 1.5 expected RB1 seasons left, what is the acceptable bust rate for Michael, given he is 5 years younger? It's pretty high. If you did 20% RB1, 60% bust and 20% inbetween, which I think is much lower than anyone supporting Michael would believe, it's still a worthy gamble. If powerball odds dropped to 1 in a million, you are likely still throwing money away buying tickets, but it's money well destroyed. I don't think Michael supporters in this thread are being irrational. Everyone has the same information in front of them. They just have applied the odds differently based on their own interpretation.

This is a timely post given some of the recent comments. I have Christine Michael at RB11 in my latest dynasty rankings. His August ADP is 48th overall. If I felt like he was a total lock for an elite career then I'd have him ranked higher. Likewise, the 48th overall pick IMO isn't one that's going to completely cripple your draft if you miss. The Michael skeptics might not be satisfied with the amount of risk reflected in his current market value, but to act like people aren't factoring in any bust risk isn't very accurate. Given that he's a 23 year old RB with 5-6 years of his athletic prime left, people would be rating him a lot higher if they knew he was going to become the starter, succeed, and stay healthy. You need only look at the ADP of guys like Lacy, Bernard, and Bell to see that.

I'd like to see your math on Michael if you don't mind. You've stated time and again that he's worth more than a...Jamaal Charles.

:link:

I think if you're a rebuilding team and you have no use for the 2014 numbers then he might be preferable to some of the older guys like Lynch and Forte who likely don't have much left in the tank. The value of those players is all front-loaded and if you're not in the running this year then Michael might be preferable option not only due to having a (much) greater potential long term value, but also due to providing favorable trade windows regardless of eventual outcome (see: Montee Ball). My most recent dynasty rankings from August 5th had him behind Charles, Peterson, Forte, and Lynch though.

I look at ppg and scoring system/starting requirements when I'm trying to assess a player's value in a FF league, but I don't do projections. I have an idea of the player's skill set in my head and a pretty good sense for what his numbers might look like based on that and his opportunity. As far as Michael goes, he's a 220+ pound back with good speed, otherworldly fast-twitch explosiveness, and solid open field capabilities as a receiver. He can potentially not only be a steady grinder ala 2013 Eddie Lacy, but also add plus plays with his explosiveness. Not many backs offer both of those skills. Usually you pick one (explosive big plays with a smaller, lighter back or gritty inside running with a big back). Add in receiving ability and he's the total package. I believe his skill set is on par with players like Doug Martin and Marshawn Lynch. I'd expect him to be that type of scorer when healthy. Likely in the 14-18 ppg range.

What stops me from putting him in the top 5-6 dynasty RBs right now is that I don't know if he can stay healthy on a high workload. He never did in college. Doesn't mean he can't do it, but I think he might be a higher than average risk for lower body injuries. I'm totally on board with the talent and opportunity though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know you were a fan of Lynch during the Buffalo swoon. I could've sworn you made a habit of calling him an average player at one point, but maybe I'm mistaken. Unlike some of the stalkers on here, I don't keep a running file on who everybody liked or didn't like for future reference, so it's all kind of hazy for me apart from a few memorable calls. My recollection is that you've generally been a "flow with the current" type of guy, but maybe that's also mistaken. I really don't invest a lot of energy consciously tracking how other people operate. Especially if I don't play against them anywhere.

Oh, you are not mistaken. I called him average a bunch of times. I thought he was a decent, NFL-caliber starting tailback, but nothing special. I still had him higher than most other rankers I knew of, because even unspecial workhorses are still quality fantasy assets.

There are superficial similarities to Rashard Mendenhall (who I was much lower than you on), but I never thought Mendy was anywhere near as good of an RB as Lynch.

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.