ZWK

ZWK's Dynasty Rankings (Updated February 2017)

959 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Well I can't speak for ZWK, but Eifert's numbers are TD dependent over a time period not long enough to guarantee that's dependable for him.  It's essentially been slightly over one season's worth of games.  TDs are by far the most variable stat we're talking about here so I'll take the guy who would still be a top 3 TE without them over the guy who needs them just to crack the top 20.

Eifert's career high for receiving yards is 615 and career high for receptions is 52.  That belongs in the same tier as a guy who just caught 85 balls for almost DOUBLE the yards as Eifert's career high?  Then you consider the injury history on top of that and it just gets worse.

I understand that most would agree that Eifert has struggled to stay on the field, and some would view his upside no better (and perhaps lower) than both Reed and Kelce, so that combination would lead to this sort of tier break.

I posted the question mainly because @ZWK stated he didn't care as much about injuries as about quality of play and also stated that he highly values upside. That is a perfect combination to rank Eifert very high, and he is indeed ranked #4. I just found it interesting that having him a tier lower than the other two suggested that Eifert's relative lack of track record, which in this case seems to equate to a relative lack of health, held him back in comparison to the other two.

Edited by Just Win Baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best season in yards per game:
70.3 Travis Kelce 2016
68.0 Jordan Reed 2015
49.3 Tyler Eifert 2016

Best season in receptions per game:
6.2 Jordan Reed 2015
5.3 Travis Kelce 2016
4.0 Tyler Eifert 2015

On both of these stats, Reed and Kelce have each topped Eifert's career highs 3+ times.

In non-ppr Eifert's TDs might be enough to keep him on the same tier as the other two, but not in 0.5 ppr.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just Win Baby said:

I understand that most would agree that Eifert has struggled to stay on the field, and some would view his upside no better (and perhaps lower) than both Reed and Kelce, so that combination would lead to this sort of tier break.

I posted the question mainly because @ZWK stated he didn't care as much about injuries as about quality of play and also stated that he highly values upside. That is a perfect combination to rank Eifert very high, and he is indeed ranked #4. I just found it interesting that having him a tier lower than the other two suggested that Eifert's relative lack of track record, which in this case seems to equate to a relative lack of health, held him back in comparison to the other two.

Not sure why you focused solely on the last little aside at the end of my post instead of the meat of it, which was his TD dependence.  He needs an abnormal number of TDs just to keep pace and without them he's barely a TE1, much less a top option.  TDs are quite variable and we haven't seen a long enough stretch of TD dominance yet for me to say that I'm confident he'll continue to score at that massive rate.

It also means he's likely much more variable game to game, though I haven't actually checked the numbers on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

Not sure why you focused solely on the last little aside at the end of my post instead of the meat of it, which was his TD dependence.  He needs an abnormal number of TDs just to keep pace and without them he's barely a TE1, much less a top option.  TDs are quite variable and we haven't seen a long enough stretch of TD dominance yet for me to say that I'm confident he'll continue to score at that massive rate.

It also means he's likely much more variable game to game, though I haven't actually checked the numbers on that one.

I don't see it that way. I think he just needs a normal amount of targets and if he's healthy I think you see that. Keeping in mind last season many thought his target share would rise but he missed all of camp and even though the OC was promoted from within I think the missed camp and time impacted his ability to get more integrated into the offense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Eifert got a boost in targets that would obviously help, but it hasn't happened so far.

Number of games with 7+ targets (career, including playoffs)
Eifert: 9 out of 39 (23%)
Kelce: 27 out of 52 (52%)
Reed: 27 out of 47 (57%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BigTex said:

Depending on where they land and the scheme the Big 3 coming in are going to shake this ranking up!

Grab one or two if you can!

Tex

I wouldn't be afraid to land one of the big 3 (in the right spots) even if I already had Hunter. 

So more power to you BigTex!!!

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

You wouldn't trade him for Gronk?

I said moved up. Maybe not passed Gronk. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:
3 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

I understand that most would agree that Eifert has struggled to stay on the field, and some would view his upside no better (and perhaps lower) than both Reed and Kelce, so that combination would lead to this sort of tier break.

I posted the question mainly because @ZWK stated he didn't care as much about injuries as about quality of play and also stated that he highly values upside. That is a perfect combination to rank Eifert very high, and he is indeed ranked #4. I just found it interesting that having him a tier lower than the other two suggested that Eifert's relative lack of track record, which in this case seems to equate to a relative lack of health, held him back in comparison to the other two.

Not sure why you focused solely on the last little aside at the end of my post instead of the meat of it, which was his TD dependence.  He needs an abnormal number of TDs just to keep pace and without them he's barely a TE1, much less a top option.  TDs are quite variable and we haven't seen a long enough stretch of TD dominance yet for me to say that I'm confident he'll continue to score at that massive rate.

Not sure why you think my bolded statement above doesn't encompass your comments on TD dependence. But since you crave a more detailed answer:

I agree that Eifert's TD rate in 2015 is almost certainly not sustainable: 13 TDs on 74 targets in 750 snaps. However, his TD rate in 2016 seems sustainable: 5 TDs on 47 targets in 428 snaps.

Eifert played 8 games in 2016, but he only played 15 snaps in his first game, coming off his offseason injury and surgery. He had 1/9/0 on 2 targets in that game. Toss those, and his other 7 games scales to 64/880/11 on 103 targets over 16 games. That would have outscored Kelce in non-PPR and trailed Kelce by about 3 total points in 1 PPR. Obviously, the issue with Eifert is whether or not he can ever play 16 games in a season (or more than 13, for that matter).

Now consider that he lost his second year and essentially his fourth year to injuries, but mixed in a third year breakout in the middle. I don't see any reason to believe we have seen his best season at this point, at age 26. It simply comes down to health.

All that said, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer Kelce. I really opened this tangent with more of a question on why Reed is ranked a tier higher, given my sense that his injuries have been more serious from a long term perspective.

Disclosure: I own Eifert in both of my dynasty leagues; in one of them I also have Kelce, and in the other I also have Henry. Maybe I am biased in favor of Eifert (and Kelce) over Reed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion Eifert is ranked too high.

I recall comparisons of Eifert and Rudolph as both are from ND and were drafted relatively high for their position in consecutive seasons. Most seemed to think Eifert was head and shoulders better than Rudolph was and that Eifert would gain more yardage than Rudolph whos only chance at being a top 12 TE would be if he scored double digit TD.

As it has turned out thus far, the opposite is true.

Yet Eifert is ranked 4th and Rudolph is ranked 13th>

I don't even like Rudolph that much, but these two players are in the same tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Biabreakable said:

In my opinion Eifert is ranked too high.

I recall comparisons of Eifert and Rudolph as both are from ND and were drafted relatively high for their position in consecutive seasons. Most seemed to think Eifert was head and shoulders better than Rudolph was and that Eifert would gain more yardage than Rudolph whos only chance at being a top 12 TE would be if he scored double digit TD.

As it has turned out thus far, the opposite is true.

Yet Eifert is ranked 4th and Rudolph is ranked 13th>

I don't even like Rudolph that much, but these two players are in the same tier.

Disagree.

  • Rookie year (15 games each): Eifert 39/445/2 > Rudolph 26/249/3 (both 15 games)
  • Second year playing = initial breakout year: Eifert 52/615/13 in 13 games > Rudolph 53/493/9 in 16 games
  • Third year playing (8 games each): Eifert 29/394/5 > Rudolph 30/313/3

Those are the only reasonably fair comparison points, and all of them show Eifert outperforming Rudolph. Eifert has a much better ypr and TD rate. Eifert is almost a year younger, and is also arguably in a better situation.

Rudolph is coming off a career year in his 6th season, but Eifert's rate of production was better, although close, as I posted above.

IMO the only thing Rudolph has proven over Eifert so far is the ability to stay healthier. I don't believe that Eifert's past injuries are predictive, so I don't think this is enough to close the gap between them and put them in the same tier.

I realize you are a Vikes homer, so you may have insight on Rudolph that I don't, but this is how I see that comparison. As an Eifert owner, I wouldn't consider trading him for Rudolph without a lot more value coming back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just Win Baby said:

Not sure why you think my bolded statement above doesn't encompass your comments on TD dependence. But since you crave a more detailed answer:

I agree that Eifert's TD rate in 2015 is almost certainly not sustainable: 13 TDs on 74 targets in 750 snaps. However, his TD rate in 2016 seems sustainable: 5 TDs on 47 targets in 428 snaps.

Eifert played 8 games in 2016, but he only played 15 snaps in his first game, coming off his offseason injury and surgery. He had 1/9/0 on 2 targets in that game. Toss those, and his other 7 games scales to 64/880/11 on 103 targets over 16 games. That would have outscored Kelce in non-PPR and trailed Kelce by about 3 total points in 1 PPR. Obviously, the issue with Eifert is whether or not he can ever play 16 games in a season (or more than 13, for that matter).

Now consider that he lost his second year and essentially his fourth year to injuries, but mixed in a third year breakout in the middle. I don't see any reason to believe we have seen his best season at this point, at age 26. It simply comes down to health.

All that said, it is perfectly reasonable to prefer Kelce. I really opened this tangent with more of a question on why Reed is ranked a tier higher, given my sense that his injuries have been more serious from a long term perspective.

Disclosure: I own Eifert in both of my dynasty leagues; in one of them I also have Kelce, and in the other I also have Henry. Maybe I am biased in favor of Eifert (and Kelce) over Reed.

You make some fair points here and I'm starting to come around on Eifert a bit.

I still don't trust TDs without a bigger sample size so I'd prefer someone like Kelce who's not reliant on them, but I would probably move him above Reed who I agree, has much more worrisome injury concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

Disagree.

  • Rookie year (15 games each): Eifert 39/445/2 > Rudolph 26/249/3 (both 15 games)
  • Second year playing = initial breakout year: Eifert 52/615/13 in 13 games > Rudolph 53/493/9 in 16 games
  • Third year playing (8 games each): Eifert 29/394/5 > Rudolph 30/313/3

Those are the only reasonably fair comparison points, and all of them show Eifert outperforming Rudolph. Eifert has a much better ypr and TD rate. Eifert is almost a year younger, and is also arguably in a better situation.

Rudolph is coming off a career year in his 6th season, but Eifert's rate of production was better, although close, as I posted above.

IMO the only thing Rudolph has proven over Eifert so far is the ability to stay healthier. I don't believe that Eifert's past injuries are predictive, so I don't think this is enough to close the gap between them and put them in the same tier.

I realize you are a Vikes homer, so you may have insight on Rudolph that I don't, but this is how I see that comparison. As an Eifert owner, I wouldn't consider trading him for Rudolph without a lot more value coming back to me.

My thoughts on Rudolph are that he is pretty average, but that is my opinion of Eifert as well.

Eifert has higher yards per reception showing more big play ability, however even though I don't consider Andy Dalton to be a great QB, he is still better than what Rudolph has been playing with, better all around supporting cast with the Bengals in terms of offensive line as well. Otherwise for fantasy I think they are pretty much the same player. Just that one of them is overvalued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rudolph never had more than 40 yd/g before this season. This season seemed like a Pettigrew-in-his-prime type of season, where Rudolph got a lot of targets (and a low YPT) because the team was short on options. On reflection, Rudolph should probably be on the same tier as Walker & Brate, but I think TE13 is right for him.

Eifert has one TD for every 75 receiving yards for his career, and one TD for every 79 receiving yards in 2016, both of which seem like unsustainably good rates. TD-machine Rob Gronkowski has one TD for every 90 receiving yards, and since 1988 no other player with 3500+ total receiving yards has better than one TD for every 97 receiving yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

I wouldn't be afraid to land one of the big 3 (in the right spots) even if I already had Hunter. 

So more power to you BigTex!!!

I hear ya, im on board that train!

Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ZWK said:

Rudolph never had more than 40 yd/g before this season. This season seemed like a Pettigrew-in-his-prime type of season, where Rudolph got a lot of targets (and a low YPT) because the team was short on options. On reflection, Rudolph should probably be on the same tier as Walker & Brate, but I think TE13 is right for him.

Eifert has one TD for every 75 receiving yards for his career, and one TD for every 79 receiving yards in 2016, both of which seem like unsustainably good rates. TD-machine Rob Gronkowski has one TD for every 90 receiving yards, and since 1988 no other player with 3500+ total receiving yards has better than one TD for every 97 receiving yards.

Rudolph has also played for a worse offense that did not have the deep threat and other supporting factors that would likely have helped his overall production. I don't disagree with Rudolph being at 13 or even lower than that though.

The problem with Eifert is that there is such a small sample size of games you can use, because of the many games he has missed. This causes the 2015 season to be 60% of his 22 games played from 2014 to 2016 and 22 games may not be a large enough sample to find what a normal season for him looks like.. It likely isn't 1 TD per game like 2015.

If you include his rookie season (which I would prefer not do) you have 37 games 5 targets per game 3.3 receptions per game 40.3 yards per game .5 TD per game which over 16 games would be 80 targets 52 receptions 645 yards 8 TD. Which to me is a pretty average TE season aside from the TD numbers being bit better. Jack Doyle and Cameron Brate put up similar numbers to this last season and many TE were better than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BigSteelThrill said:

I said moved up. Maybe not passed Gronk. ;)

 

 

On February 14, 2017 at 2:39 AM, BigSteelThrill said:

As funny as this for me to say... Hunter Henry needs to be higher. Just don't see myself trading him for any other TE straight-up in dynasty.

:shrug:

Edited by Dr. Octopus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle Rudolph had 83/840/7 last year and was the number three tight end last year in my non ppr league.  

He's probably a couple spots too low - at worst he's consistently been a replacement level tight end. But he may have emerged - he had the best qb he's had (which Bradford sadly probably is), and he needed to play a bigger part in the passing game than blocking for the running game .  The same should be true this season.  Remember too that last year was only his age 26/27 season.  

He also has some room for upside. He's a good blocking tight end and when the other line injuries started to add up, he was asked to pass block a little more.  Look at his splits

Weeks 1-4 19 catches for 234 and 3 tds.

Weeks 5-8 13 catches for 102 and 1 td.

Weeks 9-12 22 catches for 190 and 1 td.

Weeks 13-16 29 catches for 327 and 2 tds

Once the other line stabilized some, his numbers did too. Then again, there's a risk that he will be called in to block more again next year, too.

I wouldn't move him up too far, but I would easily take him over Delanie, and personally I would take him over Brate and Ladarius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Octopus said:

 

:shrug:

Yeah I'd venture to guess its totally situation dependent.

28 vs 22 and I would understand if Henry's 70-700-9 (+) type of upcoming season would be enough this year to just "hold". Yet knowing Gronk can be 75-1000-12 if he stays healthy.

So slot 'em at #2 and do whatever you feel is best -- short or long term.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2017 at 2:10 AM, ZWK said:

5    20    Maxx Williams    BAL    23.4    (20)

Interested in the rationale here only because we're pretty deep down a Maxx rabbit hole over in a Mock Drafts thread. You haven't moved him down at all even after a completely lost 2016, yet it's possible (albeit not likely IMO) that he could be a camp cut.

Personally I've liked the kid since he was drafted, but I've been very underwhelmed from what little I saw on the field, and now he seems to have a balky knee on top of it. Is this just a legacy of "young plus highly-drafted", is it a bet against his competition in BAL, or do you still see a TE1 ceiling from him? Would your ranking of him and other young, unproven guys like Walford and Amaro change in a TE-premium (e.g. 1,5 PPR) setting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Irrelevant said:

Interested in the rationale here only because we're pretty deep down a Maxx rabbit hole over in a Mock Drafts thread. You haven't moved him down at all even after a completely lost 2016, yet it's possible (albeit not likely IMO) that he could be a camp cut.

Personally I've liked the kid since he was drafted, but I've been very underwhelmed from what little I saw on the field, and now he seems to have a balky knee on top of it. Is this just a legacy of "young plus highly-drafted", is it a bet against his competition in BAL, or do you still see a TE1 ceiling from him? Would your ranking of him and other young, unproven guys like Walford and Amaro change in a TE-premium (e.g. 1,5 PPR) setting?

Maxx Williams remains in tier 5 because he's young plus highly drafted, with a bit of a bonus because BAL doesn't have a good established starter in front of him and has gotten heavy use out of their TE in recent years. He didn't catch a pass this year, which is a negative, but it's less of a negative when it's largely due to injury. He missed much of the preseason (which put him in a bad position to do much at the start of the season), and then he got an injury in week 4 which sent him to IR.

Since TEs often take a few years to develop, there is a tricky question about what to do with young TEs who were good prospects coming into the league but haven't done much yet. Clive Walford won the starting job which is a good sign, but then didn't do much with it which is a bad sign. Maxx Williams had a lost year, largely due to injuries. Tyler Higbee played behind Lance Kendricks and had terrible numbers on a terrible passing offense. Austin Hooper played behind Tamme (when he was healthy) and Toilolo and had good efficiency numbers on a great passing offense. There are differences between these seasons, but to me they seem relatively small & subtle in terms of what they predict about the players' chances of breaking out sometime over the next 3 years.

Some more unambiguous negative signs are ASJ & Jace Amaro getting cut from their original team, and Richard Rodgers having his team sign FA Jared Cook.

In a TE premium league (1.5 PPR with a flex spot, so that even TE 10-15 have significant value) I'd move guys like Walford up. Winning the starting job and not doing much with it is a sign that he'll have a solid but not spectacular career, and several solid but not spectacular seasons are worth a lot more in TE premium leagues than in standard leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

End-of-season quarterback rankings. Assuming 12 QB starters and about 250 position players rostered. Age as of 9/1/17. Prev from 9/6/16.

Tr    Rk    Player    Team    Age    Prev
1    1    Andrew Luck    IND    28.0    (4)
1    2    Aaron Rodgers    GB    33.7    (2)
2    3    Russell Wilson    SEA    28.8    (3)
2    4    Derek Carr    OAK    26.4    (11)
2    5    Marcus Mariota    TEN    23.8    (5)
2    6    Jameis Winston    TB    23.7    (6)
2    7    Matt Ryan    ATL    32.3    (15)
2    8    Dak Prescott    DAL    24.1    (20)
3    9    Cam Newton    CAR    28.3    (1)
4    10    Ben Roethlisberger    PIT    35.5    (7)
4    11    Tyrod Taylor    BUF    28.1    (8)
4    12    Carson Wentz    PHI    24.7    (14)
4    13    Andy Dalton    CIN    29.8    (9)
4    14    Kirk Cousins    WAS    29.0    (18)
4    15    Drew Brees    NO    38.6    (16)
4    16    Tom Brady    NE    40.1    (13)
4    17    Jared Goff    RAM    22.9    (12)
4    18    Matthew Stafford    DET    29.6    (17)
4    19    Jimmy Garoppolo    NE    25.8    (26)
5    20    Ryan Tannehill    MIA    29.1    (22)
5    21    Sam Bradford    MIN    29.8    (28)
5    22    Teddy Bridgewater    MIN    24.8    (19)
5    23    Blake Bortles    JAX    25.7    (10)
5    24    Paxton Lynch    DEN    23.6    (23)
5    25    Philip Rivers    SD    35.7    (25)
5    26    Colin Kaepernick    SF    29.8    (35)
5    27    Eli Manning    NYG    36.7    (27)
5    28    Tony Romo    DAL    37.4    (32)
5    29    Robert Griffin III    CLE    27.5    (24)
6    30    Carson Palmer    ARI    37.7    (21)
6    31    Trevor Siemian    DEN    25.7    (30)
6    32    Matt Barkley    CHI    27.0    unr
6    33    Alex Smith    KC    35.4    (33)
6    34    Jay Cutler    CHI    34.3    (34)
6    35    Geno Smith    NYJ    26.9    (39)
6    36    Bryce Petty    NYJ    26.3    (36)
6    37    Mike Glennon    TB    27.7    unr
6    38    Brian Hoyer    CHI    31.9    unr
6    39    Matt Moore    MIA    33.1    unr
6    40    Brock Osweiler    HOU    26.8    (29)
6    41    Cody Kessler    CLE    24.3    (42)
6    42    Jacoby Brissett    NE    24.7    (47)
6    43    Joe Flacco    BAL    32.6    (38)
7    44    Landry Jones    PIT    28.4    unr
7    45    Tom Savage    HOU    27.4    unr
7    46    Christian Hackenberg    NYJ    22.5    (40)
7    47    Brett Hundley    GB    24.2    (45)
7    48    A.J. McCarron    CIN    27.0    (43)
7    49    Blaine Gabbert    SF    27.9    (31)
7    50    Johnny Manziel    CLE    24.7    (41)
7    51    Chase Daniel    PHI    30.9    (44)
7    52    EJ Manuel    BUF    27.5    unr
7    53    Ryan Fitzpatrick    NYJ    34.8    (37)
7    54    Mark Sanchez    DAL    30.8    unr
7    55    Kevin Hogan    CLE    24.9    unr
7    56    Garrett Grayson    NO    26.3    (46)
7    57    Case Keenum    RAM    29.5    (48)

Biggest changes from last year are the down years from Newton & Wilson, and the big seasons from Carr, Ryan, and Prescott.

I wrote a year ago about how, based on the precedent of running QBs like Vick, Culpepper, McNabb, Cunningham, and McNair, being in their late 20s put Cam Newton and Russell Wilson at immediate risk of decline. That was part of why I had them neck-and-neck with Rodgers (an older QB) and Luck (a less proven QB) in the top tier, although perhaps I should've listened more closely to my argument and put them lower. Both of them proceeded to have the worst rushing season of their career, 10+ ypg below their previous low, and to finish outside the top 12 in fppg. I have now dropped them both out of the top tier, with Newton falling significantly farther because I have more confidence in Wilson as a passer.

With the best passers going strong until their late 30s, and running QBs showing signs of slowing down in their late 20s, the dynasty format seems to offset a significant chunk of the edge that typical fantasy scoring rules give to running QBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZWK said:

 

4    11    Tyrod Taylor    BUF    28.1    (8)
6    37    Mike Glennon    TB    27.7    unr
6    43    Joe Flacco    BAL    32.6    (38)
7    48    A.J. McCarron    CIN    27.0    (43)

Great stuff.  But these stand out.  Tyrod isn't guaranteed to start next year and hasn't played particularly well and is within a year of cousins age,  and his main value is mobility, yet he's above cousins, Wentz, Dalton, etc? If someone took him over the elders (Brady and Brees) I get it, but it seems like they'll be starting longer than he is.  He seems about 10 spots too high. 

Looks like you're not buying into Glennon and McCarron possibly starting in the next few years.  

But flacco? Below petty, geno, hoyer, and moore? He's not a great starter but he is a starter.  What am I missing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FUBAR said:

But flacco? Below petty, geno, hoyer, and moore? He's not a great starter but he is a starter.  What am I missing? 

He's said before that with quarterbacks in a start 1 qb league, he's only looking for high end starters.  Flacco is past the age where you might expect him to make a leap forward, so you're basically using a roster spot on a guy you hope to never use.  All else being equal, you'd rather have a guy with some long term chance at positive vbd. Of course, a lot depends on league format.  If your league is small enough that you routinely have starting qbs on the waiver wire, Flacco should probably be one of them.  If it's a 32 team league or start 2 qb league he should obviously be much higher in the rankings.  In most leagues, he's a guy you would consider using during your starter's bye week and that's about it.

The other guys you mentioned are all in the same tier (tier 6) so they're basically equal but there's still some outside chance of one of them emerging as a qb1. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FUBAR said:

Great stuff.  But these stand out.  Tyrod isn't guaranteed to start next year and hasn't played particularly well and is within a year of cousins age,  and his main value is mobility, yet he's above cousins, Wentz, Dalton, etc? If someone took him over the elders (Brady and Brees) I get it, but it seems like they'll be starting longer than he is.  He seems about 10 spots too high. 

Looks like you're not buying into Glennon and McCarron possibly starting in the next few years. 

This was the first thing I noticed as well. If I'm holding Taylor and someone offers me Wentz or Cousins straight up, I'm at serious risk of breaking my index finger clicking Accept. I'd have to think a bit about Dalton but would probably take him as well, if only because I expect CIN to get pretty bad pretty quickly, which means they should be playing from behind more often than in years past.

If I squint, I can see a guy who as a FA is likely to bolt the Bills, a team that's finished 31st and 32nd in pass attempts the past two seasons. If you believe in his talent as a pure passer, almost anywhere he goes as a starter would represent a fantasy upgrade. The counterpoint is that I don't see him ever being one of the 12 best pure passers in the league, so if his rushing impact drops off you're left with, well, a poor man's Andy Dalton. I'd put him about level with Stafford, pending his near-term landing spot of course.

However, I think ZWK is right about both Glennon and McCarron. The case against McCarron is the easier one, but while Glennon has the measurables, he combines scattershot accuracy (career 59% CP) with abysmal pocket presence (career 8.2% sack rate which, horrifyingly, is actually better than his career rate at NCSU). You can get away with one of those and be a successful long-term starter, but almost certainly not both.

Edited by Mr. Irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flacco has been in the league 9 years and his best finish (ppg, min 8 games) is QB15. He was outside the top 20 the past 2 seasons. I wouldn't mind having him on my roster as a backup, but I'd rather use that slot on someone who has a chance to put up fantasy starter's numbers.

Glennon - he wasn't that good when he's played, the Bucs chose to draft a QB to replace him, and there didn't seem to be much of a trade market for him a year ago, so I think he's on the right tier. It's possible that he should be higher up in that tier; I had overlooked that he was hitting free agency now rather than a year from now.

Tyrod Taylor and his tier - I'm not all that confident about the rankings within this tier; it's possible that I'll shake them up significantly over the offseason. Things I like about Taylor: he put up fantasy starter's numbers this year, he's had good advanced stats (e.g., PFF grade), he seems likely to be an NFL starter next year, and he has been in a situation that seems not-so-good for a QB's passing numbers. Things I don't like about him: his team might let him go elsewhere (which is pretty much always a bad sign about a player) and he's going to be a 28-year-old whose value has depended heavily on running.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't envision a scenario where I'd ever actually start Joe Flacco in a 12 team 1 QB league with normal roster sizes.  2 QBs, large rosters, etc, sure.  But in a standard league I can't think of any time I'd ever open up MYFBG and see that their recommended start this week based on my roster is Joe Flacco.  It will always be someone off the waiver wire.  So given that, what's the point in having Flacco on my roster at all?  I wouldn't take him for free in any of my normal roster sized leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ZWK said:

Tyrod Taylor and his tier - I'm not all that confident about the rankings within this tier; it's possible that I'll shake them up significantly over the offseason. Things I like about Taylor: he put up fantasy starter's numbers this year, he's had good advanced stats (e.g., PFF grade), he seems likely to be an NFL starter next year, and he has been in a situation that seems not-so-good for a QB's passing numbers. Things I don't like about him: his team might let him go elsewhere (which is pretty much always a bad sign about a player) and he's going to be a 28-year-old whose value has depended heavily on running.

This sounds like you're describing a guy you have ranked around 20, not a guy ranked in the top 12 ahead of 3 of last year's top 5 QBs including one that is essentially the same age as him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I can't envision a scenario where I'd ever actually start Joe Flacco in a 12 team 1 QB league with normal roster sizes.  2 QBs, large rosters, etc, sure.  But in a standard league I can't think of any time I'd ever open up MYFBG and see that their recommended start this week based on my roster is Joe Flacco.  It will always be someone off the waiver wire.  So given that, what's the point in having Flacco on my roster at all?  I wouldn't take him for free in any of my normal roster sized leagues.

You're right.  Sometimes I overlook the difference between the leagues I'm in (16+ teams) and smaller.  And we wouldn't start Flacco except off waivers for a game maybe.  But I have less faith in the others around him and don't see them having any value.  They're all same tier, so not much of a difference. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus Mariota    TEN    23.8    (5)
Russell Wilson    SEA    28.8    (3)
Andrew Luck    IND    28.0    (4)
Aaron Rodgers    GB    33.7    (2)
Dak Prescott    DAL    24.1    (20)
Derek Carr    OAK    26.4    (11)
Cam Newton   CAR   28.3   (1)
Kirk Cousins    WAS    29.0    (18)
Jimmy Garoppolo    NE    25.8    (26)
Jameis Winston    TB    23.7    (6)

Took a stab at a top 10 today.  Suspect I'm higher on Mariota, Garoppolo and Cousins than most people.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Marcus Mariota    TEN    23.8    (5)
Russell Wilson    SEA    28.8    (3)
Andrew Luck    IND    28.0    (4)
Aaron Rodgers    GB    33.7    (2)
Dak Prescott    DAL    24.1    (20)
Derek Carr    OAK    26.4    (11)
Cam Newton   CAR   28.3   (1)
Kirk Cousins    WAS    29.0    (18)
Jimmy Garoppolo    NE    25.8    (26)
Jameis Winston    TB    23.7    (6)

Took a stab at a top 10 today.  Suspect I'm higher on Mariota, Garoppolo and Cousins than most people.

Don't quit your day job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tool said:

Don't quit your day job.

Yeah, I know.  I almost never do rankings because they turn out to be useless for anyone but me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tool said:

Don't quit your day job.

:shrug:Let's play "pick the guy who'll generate the most career VBD from today forward" from within his top 7. I'll give you your choice of any 2 and take the field at even odds.

Should be easy money, right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FreeBaGeL said:
15 hours ago, ZWK said:

Tyrod Taylor and his tier - I'm not all that confident about the rankings within this tier; it's possible that I'll shake them up significantly over the offseason. Things I like about Taylor: he put up fantasy starter's numbers this year, he's had good advanced stats (e.g., PFF grade), he seems likely to be an NFL starter next year, and he has been in a situation that seems not-so-good for a QB's passing numbers. Things I don't like about him: his team might let him go elsewhere (which is pretty much always a bad sign about a player) and he's going to be a 28-year-old whose value has depended heavily on running.

This sounds like you're describing a guy you have ranked around 20, not a guy ranked in the top 12 ahead of 3 of last year's top 5 QBs including one that is essentially the same age as him.

Here are the top fantasy QBs over the past two seasons, sorted by ppg. Can you guess how many QBs are ahead of Taylor in ppg over the past two years, but behind him in my rankings?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tool said:

Don't quit your day job.

Funny thing about rankings is that they rarely turn out to be accurate. I like that they are not the standard.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ZWK said:
On 2/17/2017 at 11:34 AM, FreeBaGeL said:
On 2/17/2017 at 10:58 AM, ZWK said:

Tyrod Taylor and his tier - I'm not all that confident about the rankings within this tier; it's possible that I'll shake them up significantly over the offseason. Things I like about Taylor: he put up fantasy starter's numbers this year, he's had good advanced stats (e.g., PFF grade), he seems likely to be an NFL starter next year, and he has been in a situation that seems not-so-good for a QB's passing numbers. Things I don't like about him: his team might let him go elsewhere (which is pretty much always a bad sign about a player) and he's going to be a 28-year-old whose value has depended heavily on running.

This sounds like you're describing a guy you have ranked around 20, not a guy ranked in the top 12 ahead of 3 of last year's top 5 QBs including one that is essentially the same age as him.

Here are the top fantasy QBs over the past two seasons, sorted by ppg. Can you guess how many QBs are ahead of Taylor in ppg over the past two years, but behind him in my rankings?

It's also worth noting that "top 5" is not necessarily that meaningful a distinction. Cousins was QB5 in total fpts for the season (though QB6 by VBD if you base it on ppg), and he was worth half as much as QB3 Drew Brees and less than 1/3 as much as QB1 Aaron Rodgers. Andrew Luck, who was in the spot ahead of Cousins this season, was worth more VBD this season than Cousins has been worth for his entire career.

In my eyes, Rodgers, Brady, and Brees are on their own tier for redraft (though 2 of them are ranked significantly lower in dynasty because they'll be 38+ years old next season). The other players who have the best chance of producing at that level next year are all in my top 10, ahead of Taylor (Luck, Wilson, Ryan, Newton, Roethlisberger). The other QBs in my top 20 are all either solid mid-career guys or young prospects with some promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ZWK said:

It's also worth noting that "top 5" is not necessarily that meaningful a distinction. Cousins was QB5 in total fpts for the season (though QB6 by VBD if you base it on ppg), and he was worth half as much as QB3 Drew Brees and less than 1/3 as much as QB1 Aaron Rodgers. Andrew Luck, who was in the spot ahead of Cousins this season, was worth more VBD this season than Cousins has been worth for his entire career.

In my eyes, Rodgers, Brady, and Brees are on their own tier for redraft (though 2 of them are ranked significantly lower in dynasty because they'll be 38+ years old next season). The other players who have the best chance of producing at that level next year are all in my top 10, ahead of Taylor (Luck, Wilson, Ryan, Newton, Roethlisberger). The other QBs in my top 20 are all either solid mid-career guys or young prospects with some promise.

What do you think about Bortles potential to perform at a high level in ff? His performance in real life was disappointing but in 16 he was still a top 10 ff QB (perhaps depending on your scoring). I'm not sure what to make of milanovich (qb coach), coming from the CFL is probably not a high percentage play but Hackett should be better in year 2 and marrone seems like am improvement over Bradley.  Imo, Bortles should be swapped with Taylor as he has top 5 potential and he will at least have a job in 17.  If the top 10 are taken and you want to take a risk, Bortles or Wentz are the guys I'm taking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FUBAR said:

What do you think about Bortles potential to perform at a high level in ff? His performance in real life was disappointing but in 16 he was still a top 10 ff QB (perhaps depending on your scoring). I'm not sure what to make of milanovich (qb coach), coming from the CFL is probably not a high percentage play but Hackett should be better in year 2 and marrone seems like am improvement over Bradley.  Imo, Bortles should be swapped with Taylor as he has top 5 potential and he will at least have a job in 17.  If the top 10 are taken and you want to take a risk, Bortles or Wentz are the guys I'm taking. 

I was relatively down on Bortles even before this season, since his big fantasy year seemed like a fluke where a not-that-good quarterbacking season translated into a surprisingly high number of fantasy points. I had him behind Tyrod & Dalton even then, and ranked him as high as I did mainly because he was a young high draft pick who still had a chance to develop into a better QB. This was discussed a fair amount in this thread last offseason, e.g. here.

After Bortles's lousy 2016 season I think that his chances of developing into a good NFL QB have dropped significantly, so I've dropped him pretty far in my rankings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if you're too slow on Cousins 18->14->?. Two great years in a row, both in FP and metrics. Only variable is a long term deal to stay with Gruden, and those things usually work out. IMO he belongs in the tier(s) with #4-9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.