Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Couch Potato

Couch Potato 2012 Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

I was looking forward to it CP! Glad you're feeling better. Thanks for this. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in how you rank TEs. How much is talent vs. situation?I ask because I thought Fleener might be higher after his pro day. He is basically Gronk's size (about 10 pounds lighter, same height), but he is considerably faster than Gronk (4.45-4.51 for Fleener vs. 4.65 for Gronk). He also had WR level vertical and horizontal jumps, presumably better than Gronk. He is coming out of a pro-style offense. So I'm trying to reconcile his 13.1 (14th) ranking.I'm not saying I think he should necessarily be higher. I haven't done much research on him yet. Just trying to figure out why you rank guys like Gresham, Cook, Keller, etc. higher.Note I am not saying he should be ranked where Gronk is ranked, just using him as a comparable since he is elite.

Hey there JWB. Slow to reply to this, I know. Sick, but also wanted to have another look at Fleener. You know I'm a Bay Area guy and sometimes have to be careful not to be too much of a homer for the local guys. I think I may have been trying to overcompensate some, ranking him lower than his prospects deserved. Also there was the concern that maybe Luck makes those around him look better than they are. So I reviewed things and did more research, and Fleener definitely has the measurables and hands to be an elite fantasy TE. I don't think I was giving him his due. To answer your specific question on talent vs. situation, talent is always more than havf the battle no matter the position, but TEs are generally more system-dependent than other skill players -- just ask owners of V Davis or Olsen when Martz was around -- so it makes some sense to be a bit cautious ranking them too high before we know where they end up. But Fleener is likely to be drafted into a good situation since he's projected to go in the latter part of round one or at the top of round 2, to a team looking for an impact receiving TE.I've moved him up my rankings from 13.1 to 7.1 (8th) just after Gresham. Gresham may be a little higher than most would put him but I see him doing great things in the coming years so we'll see. I'm comfortable with Fleener at 7.1 pending (hopefully) an advantageous landing spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job on the rankings CP. I love that you have original thought and understand that youth matters....that said you may be under estimating the risk of rookie busts by a little.....this coming from someone that values youth

I look at your rankings from a rebuild perspective and they make more sense, but they still have a heavy bias towards rookies that you may want to rethink...just a little.

Of course this is just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job on the rankings CP. I love that you have original thought and understand that youth matters....that said you may be under estimating the risk of rookie busts by a little.....this coming from someone that values youthI look at your rankings from a rebuild perspective and they make more sense, but they still have a heavy bias towards rookies that you may want to rethink...just a little.Of course this is just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

That hasn't always been the case and this is actually a little scary for me to be thinking this way this year. I'm definitely higher on the two QBs, Richardson, and Blackmon than I've been with rookies in most other years. I think all four are legit NFL stars and will be very difficult to obtain in two years in fantasy leagues. If I'm too cautious and rank them too low, I end up missing out.Or maybe I'm just getting old and senile. It could definitely be that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job on the rankings CP. I love that you have original thought and understand that youth matters....that said you may be under estimating the risk of rookie busts by a little.....this coming from someone that values youthI look at your rankings from a rebuild perspective and they make more sense, but they still have a heavy bias towards rookies that you may want to rethink...just a little.Of course this is just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

That hasn't always been the case and this is actually a little scary for me to be thinking this way this year. I'm definitely higher on the two QBs, Richardson, and Blackmon than I've been with rookies in most other years. I think all four are legit NFL stars and will be very difficult to obtain in two years in fantasy leagues. If I'm too cautious and rank them too low, I end up missing out.Or maybe I'm just getting old and senile. It could definitely be that.
I'm with you on those guys. It is the other rookies I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

I've listed 490 players, and they're all just opinions. No worries. I'll tell you what though, if last year I listed Newton at 2.1 what if someone said to me:

"Not sure how anyone could rank Cam Newton, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Player X who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Player X is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Newton could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion."

Fast forward a year and you can't trade for Newton without it costing an arm and a leg. Had I listed him at 2.1 would I have been wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

I've listed 490 players, and they're all just opinions. No worries. I'll tell you what though, if last year I listed Newton at 2.1 what if someone said to me:

"Not sure how anyone could rank Cam Newton, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Player X who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Player X is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Newton could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion."

Fast forward a year and you can't trade for Newton without it costing an arm and a leg. Had I listed him at 2.1 would I have been wrong?

Ah got ya, makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

I've listed 490 players, and they're all just opinions. No worries. I'll tell you what though, if last year I listed Newton at 2.1 what if someone said to me:

"Not sure how anyone could rank Cam Newton, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Player X who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Player X is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Newton could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion."

Fast forward a year and you can't trade for Newton without it costing an arm and a leg. Had I listed him at 2.1 would I have been wrong?

Let's call Player X Sam Bradford just to drive the point home even more :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

I have Cam ranked #2 behind only Rodgers (and still think CP doesn't fully appreciate rushing yards/overestimates the number of pass attempts Stafford threw). But it's not as though CP has him ranked out of the top 10. Seems like just a small difference of opinion. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

I've listed 490 players, and they're all just opinions. No worries. I'll tell you what though, if last year I listed Newton at 2.1 what if someone said to me:

"Not sure how anyone could rank Cam Newton, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Player X who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Player X is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Newton could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion."

Fast forward a year and you can't trade for Newton without it costing an arm and a leg. Had I listed him at 2.1 would I have been wrong?

FCP, we agree on most things; However, I think you have Antonio Brown criminally under rated. He will be a top 25 WR easily. My guess is in the 15-20 range. On a similar note, Mike Wallace is over rated. I think DHB and Desean Jackson will outperform a number of players ahead of them as well. Jackson in a joke of a year (worst case scenario) ended up right where you have him and DHB was top 30 with a string of weird games as well. Are you docking them that much for the knucklehead factor of Jackson and possibly DHB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa dude this is aweosme yuo are really cool for sharing this thank you brohan with a plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how anyone could rank Andrew Luck, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Cam Newton who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Newton is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Luck could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion.

I've listed 490 players, and they're all just opinions. No worries. I'll tell you what though, if last year I listed Newton at 2.1 what if someone said to me:

"Not sure how anyone could rank Cam Newton, who has never thrown a pass in the NFL, over a guy like Player X who has proven that he can play in the NFL and at a high level. Player X is young and dynamic and should continue to improve at the NFL level. Newton could be great but he could also be the next Ryan Leaf. I mean no offense, just one mans opinion."

Fast forward a year and you can't trade for Newton without it costing an arm and a leg. Had I listed him at 2.1 would I have been wrong?

CP, I get this, and I like your rankings and ranking style overall. However, this reads to me like it might lead you to overrank rookies a bit because their value will go up so quickly *if* they perform well. As if you might be ranking them higher than where you think they should be ranked based on their actual value (where value normally accounts for talent, situation, age, etc.)... perhaps ranking them based on ceiling value rather than expected value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the others but the QB rankings seem odd. Cant imagine any scenario where id take Luck over Cam or Brees. Or guys like Romo or Vick over Brady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the others but the QB rankings seem odd. Cant imagine any scenario where id take Luck over Cam or Brees. Or guys like Romo or Vick over Brady

yeah too often people look at just pure age, shelf lives of QBs are long. That being said if Luck is the next best thing since sliced bread your like at 12 years of studly performance, Im just not sure he will be worth it early on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the others but the QB rankings seem odd. Cant imagine any scenario where id take Luck over Cam or Brees. Or guys like Romo or Vick over Brady

The answer to the first comment is simply that I think Luck will have a better career than Cam. Maybe significantly better. People see that as so odd, but he is twice the passer Cam is. Cam's fantastic year rushing and setting TD scoring records brought his fantasy scoring into the stratosphere, but it was ONE year. Just like Manning's 49 TD passes, Brady's 50 TD passes, and Moss's 23 TD catches, I think it will be viewed in retrospect as an amazing but aberrant accomplishment. If they plan on using him all his career as the main ball carrier at the goal line he'll spend lots of time on th injured list. He's not a great passer, and his best WR is 33 and the rest of them are pretty average. So, I make no apologies for believing Luck will have a better career than Newton, his great rookie season notwithstanding.As for Brees and especially Brady, what continues to amaze me year after year with dynasty rankings that I see all over the Internet, and with dynasty owners, is how age gets pretty much ignored when it comes to a truly stud player until it's too late. People seem to be in denial that these Supermen can ever become old and ineffective. Brady is already old for a QB and is having shoulder issues, and Brees will be 35 in 1 1/2 years. Yes these guys have been studs but they are not magical. Father time gets them all. And when it does, owners everywhere usually are shocked and left saying 'Wow, what happened? I didn't see THAT coming!" Well, I see it coming. And I'd rather be a year early than a year late, because once everyone figures out that 'Wow, what happened?' isn't a fluke, it's permanent age-related decline and he has no value, those owning them are stuck.These aren't "look at last year and pretty much project the same for next year" rankings. And they are not intended to be my guess at consensus rankings so I can have everyone's approval, so I don't mind at all not being in line with what others are expecting all the time. I'm frankly glad for the disagreement because it challenges both you and me to think it through a little more rather than just trust the consensus rankings we see (which IMO usually suck badly because they are more backward looking than forward thinking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the others but the QB rankings seem odd. Cant imagine any scenario where id take Luck over Cam or Brees. Or guys like Romo or Vick over Brady

The answer to the first comment is simply that I think Luck will have a better career than Cam. Maybe significantly better. People see that as so odd, but he is twice the passer Cam is. Cam's fantastic year rushing and setting TD scoring records brought his fantasy scoring into the stratosphere, but it was ONE year. Just like Manning's 49 TD passes, Brady's 50 TD passes, and Moss's 23 TD catches, I think it will be viewed in retrospect as an amazing but aberrant accomplishment. If they plan on using him all his career as the main ball carrier at the goal line he'll spend lots of time on th injured list. He's not a great passer, and his best WR is 33 and the rest of them are pretty average. So, I make no apologies for believing Luck will have a better career than Newton, his great rookie season notwithstanding.As for Brees and especially Brady, what continues to amaze me year after year with dynasty rankings that I see all over the Internet, and with dynasty owners, is how age gets pretty much ignored when it comes to a truly stud player until it's too late. People seem to be in denial that these Supermen can ever become old and ineffective. Brady is already old for a QB and is having shoulder issues, and Brees will be 35 in 1 1/2 years. Yes these guys have been studs but they are not magical. Father time gets them all. And when it does, owners everywhere usually are shocked and left saying 'Wow, what happened? I didn't see THAT coming!" Well, I see it coming. And I'd rather be a year early than a year late, because once everyone figures out that 'Wow, what happened?' isn't a fluke, it's permanent age-related decline and he has no value, those owning them are stuck.These aren't "look at last year and pretty much project the same for next year" rankings. And they are not intended to be my guess at consensus rankings so I can have everyone's approval, so I don't mind at all not being in line with what others are expecting all the time. I'm frankly glad for the disagreement because it challenges both you and me to think it through a little more rather than just trust the consensus rankings we see (which IMO usually suck badly because they are more backward looking than forward thinking).
:goodposting:I agree about not ignoring age. I agree about not seeking consensus, thinking outside the box, etc.I think part of the issue with some established players is that different dynasty owners tend to evaluate players based on different windows. Some use 3 years, some use 5 years, some use "rest of career." That would influence quite a bit of difference in how one ranks someone like Brees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about not ignoring age. I agree about not seeking consensus, thinking outside the box, etc.I think part of the issue with some established players is that different dynasty owners tend to evaluate players based on different windows. Some use 3 years, some use 5 years, some use "rest of career." That would influence quite a bit of difference in how one ranks someone like Brees.

To be completely honest, choosing and sticking with an evaluation window is something I've never forced myself to really take a stand on, and I know I've sort of dodged this question from you before. I'm still unclear whether it's a big weakness of mine not to choose and stick with 3 years, 5 years, rest of career etc., or if it's better to be more flexible and circumstantial. If I'm building a rocket to the moon I do things precisely by the book or people die. But, if I'm admiring paintings at the Louvre I know paint-by-number stuff this ain't. So, my answer is sort of "it depends." I know "it depends" isn't much of an answer, but that's what I've usually fallen back on, unsatisfying as it is. There are little projects I still want to get to that may help narrow down how much I can believe this to be science and how much art, and I'm interested to know if I'll come up with a less hazy idea of evaluation windows if / when I ever complete these projects.Sort of related, but more or less rambling ahead... read at your own risk of falling asleep... As an accountant I'm a numbers guy and I like to always look at the numbers, and think they provide the starting point for going forward. But as an accountant I've also learned to have a healthy skepticism for numbers, and the need to understand the context from which they came. In FF I try to trust my peanut brain to somehow distill all the stuff I think I've learned over time into an intuition about things based on what I'm reading and learning daily, absorbing others' opinions I think are worth paying attention to, and piling them on top of things I've read and learned and have seen play out on the field season after season for a long time. At some point an opinion forms and I know when it's my own and not someone else's I'm regurgitating.The reason I'm now doing these rankings is for me (sorry guys, I know you thought it was because I love you and wanted to be nice), to help me firm up what I think. I've read a lot of rankings for a long time and am never quite satisfied. Tried the consensus approach, taking rankings from across the Net and averaging them, didn't like what it looked like. And I've often been left waiting for rankings updates from those I trust most and they don't come when I need them. So I decided that it was time to sort through all the stuff in my head and force myself to put my own rankings on paper, or e-paper or whatever I'm supposed to call it. I could have kept the rankings to myself, but putting them out there for you guys is also selfishly good for me. Your evaluations and comments require me to take a closer look. I may defend my position or I may change it. If I'm defending I hope no one takes it personally, and I hope I don't do so disrespectfully, because I truly value the feedback. I may stubbornly defend today then realize tomorrow you were right, and change my position. This still will never be a consensus ranking, but if someone makes me see that I've been missing something in the evaluation process I'm happy to change. Hopefully my own knowledge and understanding of my own weaknesses and biases can improve through this process, and you guys can have another set of rankings to add to your collection (if you don't think they are total crap), and maybe we'll be just a little bit better armed for our dynasty leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP, I get this, and I like your rankings and ranking style overall. However, this reads to me like it might lead you to overrank rookies a bit because their value will go up so quickly *if* they perform well. As if you might be ranking them higher than where you think they should be ranked based on their actual value (where value normally accounts for talent, situation, age, etc.)... perhaps ranking them based on ceiling value rather than expected value.

I'm still chewing on this JWB, not dodging the comment. Something I need to mull over more. This is the first year I've gone to the mat like this for this many rookies, and from the look of so many comments (yours and others), I don't want to just be bull headed and defiant about it. I need to further understand myself why I'm more committed to taking more risk now than I used to be with regard to these rookies, and whether it's crazy or still the best course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa dude this is aweosme yuo are really cool for sharing this thank you brohan with a plan

Just wanted to say youre one of my favorite posters brohan and I dont know or care if this is an alias you use or if its all schtik or not I just get a laugh out of your no punctuation style and fun commentary and using the word brohan all the time see you later brohan with a plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about not ignoring age. I agree about not seeking consensus, thinking outside the box, etc.I think part of the issue with some established players is that different dynasty owners tend to evaluate players based on different windows. Some use 3 years, some use 5 years, some use "rest of career." That would influence quite a bit of difference in how one ranks someone like Brees.

To be completely honest, choosing and sticking with an evaluation window is something I've never forced myself to really take a stand on, and I know I've sort of dodged this question from you before. I'm still unclear whether it's a big weakness of mine not to choose and stick with 3 years, 5 years, rest of career etc., or if it's better to be more flexible and circumstantial. If I'm building a rocket to the moon I do things precisely by the book or people die. But, if I'm admiring paintings at the Louvre I know paint-by-number stuff this ain't. So, my answer is sort of "it depends." I know "it depends" isn't much of an answer, but that's what I've usually fallen back on, unsatisfying as it is. There are little projects I still want to get to that may help narrow down how much I can believe this to be science and how much art, and I'm interested to know if I'll come up with a less hazy idea of evaluation windows if / when I ever complete these projects.Sort of related, but more or less rambling ahead... read at your own risk of falling asleep... As an accountant I'm a numbers guy and I like to always look at the numbers, and think they provide the starting point for going forward. But as an accountant I've also learned to have a healthy skepticism for numbers, and the need to understand the context from which they came. In FF I try to trust my peanut brain to somehow distill all the stuff I think I've learned over time into an intuition about things based on what I'm reading and learning daily, absorbing others' opinions I think are worth paying attention to, and piling them on top of things I've read and learned and have seen play out on the field season after season for a long time. At some point an opinion forms and I know when it's my own and not someone else's I'm regurgitating.The reason I'm now doing these rankings is for me (sorry guys, I know you thought it was because I love you and wanted to be nice), to help me firm up what I think. I've read a lot of rankings for a long time and am never quite satisfied. Tried the consensus approach, taking rankings from across the Net and averaging them, didn't like what it looked like. And I've often been left waiting for rankings updates from those I trust most and they don't come when I need them. So I decided that it was time to sort through all the stuff in my head and force myself to put my own rankings on paper, or e-paper or whatever I'm supposed to call it. I could have kept the rankings to myself, but putting them out there for you guys is also selfishly good for me. Your evaluations and comments require me to take a closer look. I may defend my position or I may change it. If I'm defending I hope no one takes it personally, and I hope I don't do so disrespectfully, because I truly value the feedback. I may stubbornly defend today then realize tomorrow you were right, and change my position. This still will never be a consensus ranking, but if someone makes me see that I've been missing something in the evaluation process I'm happy to change. Hopefully my own knowledge and understanding of my own weaknesses and biases can improve through this process, and you guys can have another set of rankings to add to your collection (if you don't think they are total crap), and maybe we'll be just a little bit better armed for our dynasty leagues.
One of the most intelligent, thoughtful and courteous posts in the history of the Shark Pool in my years eavesdropping and randomly posting here. If you put that much thought into you're rankings, they're gold in my book. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool thread tater!

I appreciate you going out on a limb here and sharing your ideas. I have learned quite a bit about this foosball from eavesdropping on your voices in the past. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be completely honest, choosing and sticking with an evaluation window is something I've never forced myself to really take a stand on, and I know I've sort of dodged this question from you before. I'm still unclear whether it's a big weakness of mine not to choose and stick with 3 years, 5 years, rest of career etc., or if it's better to be more flexible and circumstantial. If I'm building a rocket to the moon I do things precisely by the book or people die. But, if I'm admiring paintings at the Louvre I know paint-by-number stuff this ain't. So, my answer is sort of "it depends." I know "it depends" isn't much of an answer, but that's what I've usually fallen back on, unsatisfying as it is. There are little projects I still want to get to that may help narrow down how much I can believe this to be science and how much art, and I'm interested to know if I'll come up with a less hazy idea of evaluation windows if / when I ever complete these projects.

CP, great thread and this latest post, which I clipped, is one of many great posts from you in this thread.Focusing on the window element, I just wanted to make sure it is clear what I mean. It is of course typically the case that a player with high level talent who is 23 carries more long term value than a player with high level talent who is 33. The real question is how the different elements, like short term vs. long term value, are emphasized in rankings.To illustrate with an example, one might think Brees has 3 excellent seasons left, followed by two good seasons. Maybe something like this:2012: top 42013: top 42014: top 82015: top 102016: top 12And perhaps, even being high on Luck, one might think he will take a couple seasons to become a top fantasy performer, even if he ultimately becomes elite. Maybe something like this:2012: top 202013: top 152014: top 102015: top 82016: top 5If one projects these kinds of progressions, is it unreasonable to prefer Brees, pushing for near term championships? Particularly for one who is confident in his ability to draft/acquire value players down the line?This partly depends on scoring system, state of roster, roster limits, etc. But IMO it also partly depends on philosophy.Note: I am not arguing for ranking Brees over Luck, just trying to illustrate what I was trying to get at earlier.Excellent discussion. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP, I get this, and I like your rankings and ranking style overall. However, this reads to me like it might lead you to overrank rookies a bit because their value will go up so quickly *if* they perform well. As if you might be ranking them higher than where you think they should be ranked based on their actual value (where value normally accounts for talent, situation, age, etc.)... perhaps ranking them based on ceiling value rather than expected value.

I'm still chewing on this JWB, not dodging the comment. Something I need to mull over more. This is the first year I've gone to the mat like this for this many rookies, and from the look of so many comments (yours and others), I don't want to just be bull headed and defiant about it. I need to further understand myself why I'm more committed to taking more risk now than I used to be with regard to these rookies, and whether it's crazy or still the best course.
I'm not taking the position that you are indeed overranking them, it's just something I wondered about based on your answer, so I thought it might be something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool thread tater!

I appreciate you going out on a limb here and sharing your ideas. I have learned quite a bit about this foosball from eavesdropping on your voices in the past. :thumbup:

Bia, how are you buddy?! We go waaaay back. Glad you're still around! I've learned a few things from you too, so feel free to add to the conversation when you feel like it.

The "out on a limb" thing is about to be taken up a notch with a few things up my sleeve. Stay tuned.

But I have bad news. I'm lousy at foosball. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be completely honest, choosing and sticking with an evaluation window is something I've never forced myself to really take a stand on, and I know I've sort of dodged this question from you before. I'm still unclear whether it's a big weakness of mine not to choose and stick with 3 years, 5 years, rest of career etc., or if it's better to be more flexible and circumstantial. If I'm building a rocket to the moon I do things precisely by the book or people die. But, if I'm admiring paintings at the Louvre I know paint-by-number stuff this ain't. So, my answer is sort of "it depends." I know "it depends" isn't much of an answer, but that's what I've usually fallen back on, unsatisfying as it is. There are little projects I still want to get to that may help narrow down how much I can believe this to be science and how much art, and I'm interested to know if I'll come up with a less hazy idea of evaluation windows if / when I ever complete these projects.

CP, great thread and this latest post, which I clipped, is one of many great posts from you in this thread.Focusing on the window element, I just wanted to make sure it is clear what I mean. It is of course typically the case that a player with high level talent who is 23 carries more long term value than a player with high level talent who is 33. The real question is how the different elements, like short term vs. long term value, are emphasized in rankings.To illustrate with an example, one might think Brees has 3 excellent seasons left, followed by two good seasons. Maybe something like this:2012: top 42013: top 42014: top 82015: top 102016: top 12And perhaps, even being high on Luck, one might think he will take a couple seasons to become a top fantasy performer, even if he ultimately becomes elite. Maybe something like this:2012: top 202013: top 152014: top 102015: top 82016: top 5If one projects these kinds of progressions, is it unreasonable to prefer Brees, pushing for near term championships? Particularly for one who is confident in his ability to draft/acquire value players down the line?This partly depends on scoring system, state of roster, etc. But IMO it also partly depends on philosophy.Note: I am not arguing for ranking Brees over Luck, just trying to illustrate what I was trying to get at earlier.Excellent discussion. :thumbup:
I've run out of time tonight, other things I need to do before bed. I gotcha, and will follow up tomorrow. Hey JWB, doesn't it feel weird to you, all this back and forth between us here in a FBG thread? It does to me. (JWB is my co-owner of a team in a FF league and one of my best online friends. We email regularly about things and have talked on the phone lots of times. Having our conversations here in a FBG forum isn't typical, but we agree it's better to do it here if it advances the topic of the thread. By the way, he's one of the smartest FF guys I know. :thumbup: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very cool thread tater!

I appreciate you going out on a limb here and sharing your ideas. I have learned quite a bit about this foosball from eavesdropping on your voices in the past. :thumbup:

Bia, how are you buddy?! We go waaaay back. Glad you're still around! I've learned a few things from you too, so feel free to add to the conversation when you feel like it.

The "out on a limb" thing is about to be taken up a notch with a few things up my sleeve. Stay tuned.

But I have bad news. I'm lousy at foosball. :(

Haha! I'm good. Been taking it easy for all you sinners. ;)

I will if something strikes me. I know you consider replacement level when cooking up your rankings. An important principle that gets overlooked some times and can lead to bad judgement of player value. I mean if there is a free agent available just as good as what rookies you can draft then it means those are wasted picks and value lost in the process. This also applies to the overall pool of players as well. I think the tiering is a good way to get at that as well as reasonable baselines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most intelligent, thoughtful and courteous posts in the history of the Shark Pool in my years eavesdropping and randomly posting here. If you put that much thought into you're rankings, they're gold in my book. :thumbup:

Thank you Joey, and thank you to others who have said nice things. Just like you guys I love this hobby, and for some reason trying to predict things in an ever-changing and highly unpredictable sport is something I really like to do.Hey Joey, looks like we're Bay Area neighbors. We ought to hit a sports bar and see a game together one of these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most intelligent, thoughtful and courteous posts in the history of the Shark Pool in my years eavesdropping and randomly posting here. If you put that much thought into you're rankings, they're gold in my book. :thumbup:

Thank you Joey, and thank you to others who have said nice things. Just like you guys I love this hobby, and for some reason trying to predict things in an ever-changing and highly unpredictable sport is something I really like to do.Hey Joey, looks like we're Bay Area neighbors. We ought to hit a sports bar and see a game together one of these days.
Sounds great. I'll send you a PM but know that I don't put out on the first date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey CP, you may have mentioned this, but you know I am way to lazy to read every word in the topic. A related question was asked earlier up the thread, but I figured I would get your viewpoint.

In looking at a keeper league format, rather than dynasty (say a 3 keeper league, as opposed to draft and hold an entire roster +/- trading), can your rankings be used to determine value in drafting or keeping a player? Is Brady a keeper, though his dynasty ranking is lower? Of course, since keeper leagues vary year to year of course. But for younger players, the keeper value can be retained over the course of his career.

Also, as was inferred above, does the long-term dynasty value of a player need to be tempered with current year needs? Andrew Luck may be a high value dynasty pick, but the complete deconstruction of the Colts offense, basically, makes this an iffy year. So would Bradford be a better pickup than Luck? What about your thoughts on trade value? Does a league accept a Luck for Matt Ryan trade? The league (NFL) has been hard to figure the last couple of seasons. Loss of feature back offenses, emergence of TE, rules impeding defense aggressiveness increasing the passing game value, kick off changes, etc. This season, seems like more free agency moves than I anticipated, and some that have not yet happened (Jacoby Jones for example). Do you have any way of anticipating future trade chances? I think it is amazing that Steven Jackson (or is it Stephen? can't remember) has remained at St Louis. Think what he could have done behind a solid line during his peak years.

Also, many players are dependent upon the support cast. For example, Peerless Price - was a great WR2 but lousy WR1 when traded. Hines Ward was a great downfield blocker, does his retirement reduce YAC for other receivers?

How do you translate your positional rankings to overall? Could be an interesting way to value trades like they do for draft picks in the NFL.

Do you look at conference or division strength of schedule?

Is there a Magic 8 ball on your desk for when you are uncertain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey gang, I'll try to get to some of the comments / questions tonight (geez RedZone, couldn't think of any more Q's? LOL), I'm home briefly for lunch then gone again.

Just popping in to let you all know that I agreed to join the footballguys staff today, and at some point the requisite name change will take place on this board. They like staff to use their real names. I don't know if that'll happen today or not, but when you see a bunch of posts from Bruce Hammond instead of Couch Potato, that's still me.

The good news is my dynasty rankings will be up on the main site along with the other staff, and it'll be easier to view in that compact format than having to scroll down so much like you have to do here. When I get them up over there I'll post here to let you know and give the link for those who don't already have it. Joe has asked that I keep my rankings updated at least once a month, but I already committed to have them updated in this thread twice a month so I will try to stick with that.

I think we can keep this thread going for discussion, and at least until the rankings become part of the pay subscription umbrella later this Summer I'm guessing I will be able to keep the original post here updated with the rankings, notes, etc.

Now that I've been assimilated by the Borg, please don't abuse me too much, OK?

:scared:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey gang, I'll try to get to some of the comments / questions tonight (geez RedZone, couldn't think of any more Q's? LOL), I'm home briefly for lunch then gone again.Just popping in to let you all know that I agreed to join the footballguys staff today, and at some point the requisite name change will take place on this board. They like staff to use their real names. I don't know if that'll happen today or not, but when you see a bunch of posts from Bruce Hammond instead of Couch Potato, that's still me.The good news is my dynasty rankings will be up on the main site along with the other staff, and it'll be easier to view in that compact format than having to scroll down so much like you have to do here. When I get them up over there I'll post here to let you know and give the link for those who don't already have it. Joe has asked that I keep my rankings updated at least once a month, but I already committed to have them updated in this thread twice a month so I will try to stick with that. I think we can keep this thread going for discussion, and at least until the rankings become part of the pay subscription umbrella later this Summer I'm guessing I will be able to keep the original post here updated with the rankings, notes, etc.Now that I've been assimilated by the Borg, please don't abuse me too much, OK? :scared:

Way to climb the ladder! Look forward to your contributions Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey gang, I'll try to get to some of the comments / questions tonight (geez RedZone, couldn't think of any more Q's? LOL), I'm home briefly for lunch then gone again.Just popping in to let you all know that I agreed to join the footballguys staff today, and at some point the requisite name change will take place on this board. They like staff to use their real names. I don't know if that'll happen today or not, but when you see a bunch of posts from Bruce Hammond instead of Couch Potato, that's still me.The good news is my dynasty rankings will be up on the main site along with the other staff, and it'll be easier to view in that compact format than having to scroll down so much like you have to do here. When I get them up over there I'll post here to let you know and give the link for those who don't already have it. Joe has asked that I keep my rankings updated at least once a month, but I already committed to have them updated in this thread twice a month so I will try to stick with that. I think we can keep this thread going for discussion, and at least until the rankings become part of the pay subscription umbrella later this Summer I'm guessing I will be able to keep the original post here updated with the rankings, notes, etc.Now that I've been assimilated by the Borg, please don't abuse me too much, OK? :scared:

Congrats Bruce!Any comment about my question/statement last page Mr. Staff :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bruce! :banned:

If possible, could you throw some comments in with your rankings (on the actual site) like some of the guys do (i.e. Matt Waldman)? I always like checking those out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bruce!

I really like your rankings. Two questions...

Ever consider adding IDP? :)

Anyway to add a link to download the rankings into an excel? I really enjoy adding my own notes predraft in a spreadsheet along with my favorite rankings and this is a ton of copy and paste haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time lurker (Unfortunately, I post very little), and someone who has actually hung out with Bruce a few times and also competed with Bruce for about 14 years now in a keeper league I'd like to say that FBGs has made an excellent move in bringing Bruce on board.

Great move, and good on you Brucie boy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time lurker (Unfortunately, I post very little), and someone who has actually hung out with Bruce a few times and also competed with Bruce for about 14 years now in a keeper league I'd like to say that FBGs has made an excellent move in bringing Bruce on board.Great move, and good on you Brucie boy....

First, thanks to everybody. I wasn't seeking this job, Joe hit me with it yesterday morning and I was pretty surprised, but I was excited to be invited. I guess this thread's dialogue (and over 10,000 hits in less than 2 months) said there are a lot of guys thirsting for dynasty info / rankings / talk, and he wanted to beef up the number of staff devoted to it.Gunny is one of my Vegas drinking buddies the last two years! Great guy, commishes a lot of leagues. Also, he commishes the very first online league I ever joined, back in 1997 or 98 (it's still going strong). Note to RedZone - the league used to be called RedZone, and is a keeper league like the ones you are asking about. I know nobody cares about all that stuff but me. Sorry. haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bruce! I really like your rankings. Two questions...Ever consider adding IDP? :)Anyway to add a link to download the rankings into an excel? I really enjoy adding my own notes predraft in a spreadsheet along with my favorite rankings and this is a ton of copy and paste haha

Answer #1 -- your grandma knows more about IDP than I do. My motivation to get up to speed or be involved in IDP leagues has always been zero. Sorry! Answer #2 -- once these rankings go online at the main site the copy paste will be easy. I'm guessing that'll happen within a week or two. Will that be enough? Somewhere in this thread I explained that the spreadsheet I use feed from other spreadsheets, and to post the rankings here I have to do a few manual manipulations to prepare for posting. What you'd see sitting in my chair looks very different from what you see looking at the rankings in this thread. I've already ditched the post-manipulation spreadsheets (one per position) I used for posting, and I'm hesitant to open a can of worms recreating it and sending guys stuff one by one. But let me think about this and if the rankings I put on the site don't suffice, PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bruce! :banned: If possible, could you throw some comments in with your rankings (on the actual site) like some of the guys do (i.e. Matt Waldman)? I always like checking those out.

Absolutely! Like you, I was very happy when FBG added the note scroll over thingy ability and definitely intend to use it liberally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bruce!Any comment about my question/statement last page Mr. Staff :-D

Man, how did I do that. I read your post, did some looking at some things and thinking about it, and it somehow slipped my mind to ever follow up with a reply. Sorry Brandon. Tonight before bed I'll follow up hopefully. If not, in the AM.Short version is I still like where I have Mike Wallace and DeSean Jackson, but will probably agree I have Antonio Brown too low (not as high as you suggest though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time lurker (Unfortunately, I post very little), and someone who has actually hung out with Bruce a few times and also competed with Bruce for about 14 years now in a keeper league I'd like to say that FBGs has made an excellent move in bringing Bruce on board.Great move, and good on you Brucie boy....

First, thanks to everybody. I wasn't seeking this job, Joe hit me with it yesterday morning and I was pretty surprised, but I was excited to be invited. I guess this thread's dialogue (and over 10,000 hits in less than 2 months) said there are a lot of guys thirsting for dynasty info / rankings / talk, and he wanted to beef up the number of staff devoted to it.Gunny is one of my Vegas drinking buddies the last two years! Great guy, commishes a lot of leagues. Also, he commishes the very first online league I ever joined, back in 1997 or 98 (it's still going strong). Note to RedZone - the league used to be called RedZone, and is a keeper league like the ones you are asking about. I know nobody cares about all that stuff but me. Sorry. haha
Nice historical trivia. Now if Trivial Pursuit would just come out with a Couch Potato category! A seven slice pie would look strange though and I already get those little triangles wedged in my excitement of proving I know too much about things that don't matter.Kudos on the recognition. A great site gets stronger through the contribution of its members. Way to go Joe and David, recognizing quality talent and promoting on merit.I want a drinking buddy named Gunny. Closest thing I have is a relative who is a Major alcoholic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a drinking buddy named Gunny. Closest thing I have is a relative who is a Major alcoholic.

You got it. Come on to Vegas for opening weekend this September and the first round is on me. :banned:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.