What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Which non QB means the most to his team's wins/losses? (1 Viewer)

matttyl

matttyl

Footballguy
I believe I post a question like this each year, gets some good conversation going.  Also, you can't say Belichick, it has to be a player on the field.  So, which non-QB player means the most to his team's wins and losses for this year. 

Last year I was thinking a player like Watt, coming off back to back defensive player of the year awards - but the Texans went from 9-7 with him in 2015 to 9-7 without him in 2016. 

How about Julio?

And a follow up question to whomever you nominate - how many more wins does that player count for?

 
technically it should be the guys that are getting their teams money that is usually set aside for QB's....for instance Von Miller is making $20 mil a year, basically taking up what should be Denver's QB money if they had a top level guy....so you hope that that guy impacts the games on a consistent basis like a top QB would.....unfortunately thats not the case as even though Von was voted the second best player in the league, he can often be game planned out of a game by the other teams....as shown by him having zero sacks in he last 4 games last year when DEN was trying to make a playoff push....he is getting paid to get sacks and make impact plays like strip sacks, etc.....but he actually had very few, if any "game changing" type impact plays last year....you would have to say the ROI was not very good on that $20 mil.....you can't really gameplan out a Brady or Rodgers or Brees....but you can a defensive player....you can make sure they don't beat you.....and if nobody else steps upon defense, it is kind of wasted money....same thoughts with Watt....if you don't have players around these guys that can take advantage of maybe the extra attention they get....your losing ground...

with that said and most positional players working as a unit and it being hard to pick out one player.....cause ATL can still win if Julio is out, etc....I'm going to kind of go out on a limb and say it would either be the punter or the kicker on a respective team....if they have a bad day or days....it can be very costly....cost you games...if they have a great day, they can often help you win a game or games ....a PK who is nails helps you at least finish a drive with some points and a punter that flips the field for you all day can change a game.....teams can usually replace another player during the game, but if they lose their PK or punter it can get ugly....while the actual guys may be interchangeable, the positions may have the most impact...I think back to Denver's SB run a couple years ago....a strong case could be made that Colquitt and McManus were their most valuable players down the stretch as the offense was really struggling and the defense was carrying them...

otherwise I might say David Johnson or Antonio Brown

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
I would argue Tyron Smith before Zeke
Click to expand...
Could see that. Not arguing too much against smith but the Cowboys were 2-1 when he didn't play last year (although the wins were against the bears and 49ers), and smith was there in 15 when the boys sucked. 

 
Can we more or less agree on the positional values, in general?

 an elite player can push his value to the next tier. Exceptional players might transcend the tiers.

Systems matter, but in general:

QB

DT, DE, LB, CB, LT, K

RB, WR, TE, G, RT

C, S, P

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ- said:
Can we more or less agree on the positional values, in general?

 an elite player can push his value to the next tier. Exceptional players might transcend the tiers.

Systems matter, but in general:

QB

DT, DE, LB, CB, LT

RB, WR, TE, G, RT

C, S, P, K
Click to expand...
guess I really disagree on ranking P and PK's that low on a week to week basis....a DT or a DE has a bad game or stretch of bad games based on whatever standard you want to establish for them and the team could still probably win....whereas the fact that a punter and a PK are in on such crucial plays every time they touch the ball, if they stink up the joint, even once during a game/games it can be the difference between a win and loss several times throughout the season.....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
with as close as many of the games are (many one score or less)....and if you say turnovers are a wash....field position/special teams are huge....

 
JJ Watt has been injured the last couple of years but certainly, I think he leads this list of guys I think about for this question

I think a guy like zeke is very replaceable or if he was on the 49ers last year we aren't even having this question.  There is a reason rb's don't get paid now...they are a dime a dozen

 
killface said:
JJ Watt has been injured the last couple of years but certainly, I think he leads this list of guys I think about for this question

I think a guy like zeke is very replaceable or if he was on the 49ers last year we aren't even having this question.  There is a reason rb's don't get paid now...they are a dime a dozen
Click to expand...
Of course this question would still be relevant.  

Zeke wouldn't be ZEKE!!!!!! but he'd probably still be really good and, imo, the 49ers wouldn't have had the #2 pick. 

 
-OZ- said:
Of course this question would still be relevant.  

Zeke wouldn't be ZEKE!!!!!! but he'd probably still be really good and, imo, the 49ers wouldn't have had the #2 pick. 
Click to expand...
And if Hyde was on the Cowboys we would be talking about Hyde in this thread.  I guess that's the point...

 
Stinkin Ref said:
with as close as many of the games are (many one score or less)....and if you say turnovers are a wash....field position/special teams are huge....
Click to expand...
True.  I guess it depends on how you view the question. If a kicker has one bad play he can lose the game for the team.  So in that regard, yes.  Kickers are more valuable in that regard than my list would imply. 

But if you look at the question as X player vs the league average for that position, I don't think they are individually that valuable.  When guys like folk and hauschka switch teams, and others get dropped and few outside the devout fans even notice, that means something imo. The same might be said for OL but the good starters don't get dropped.

 
killface said:
Well Demarco Murray put up substantially better numbers than Zeke when he was with the Cowboys.  
Click to expand...
In Murray's best season he had 3 fewer TDs, a lower per carry average (4.7 vs 5.1) and 8 yards more per game than Zeke had as a rookie. If you want to call that substantially better, cool. 

 
guess I must be really ####### bored if I am defending punters and kickers in a fantasy football thread.....lol

there have been several seasons for many teams where a PK has made a a game winning and or game tying FG which led to a win in the final moments of a game....Prater did it like 4-5 times or more in 2016 or the Lions.....so I guess when you are talking wins and loses, to me that is pretty significant since you can actually say "if he makes it we win, if he misses it, we lose"....so thats 4-5 times a year....significant amount...for other players it is harder to define....

so I will stick with my point of view that PK's....more than any other non QB player mean the most to his teams wins/loses....

hell if Chris Boswell doesn't make all 6 of his FG's against KC in the playoffs last year....Steelers probably lose that one

PK's often determine the outcome......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ- said:
In Murray's best season he had 3 fewer TDs, a lower per carry average (4.7 vs 5.1) and 8 yards more per game than Zeke had as a rookie. If you want to call that substantially better, cool. 
Click to expand...
Or you could say Murray had 270 yards more, put up almost 1900 yards rushing, and had 25 more catches.  I consider Murray's season substantially better because he put up almost 1900 yards and had 57 catches.  That is pretty rare for a rb.  Zeke's season was certainly good but wasn't great yet.  

The point here is not debate the merits of who had the better season (I think you can agree they were both pretty great) but to point that if Elliot should be considered in this question than so should Murray? What Murray showed is that Zeke isn't special behind that line unless Murray is to be considered special as well.  Murray of course went on to sign a pretty crappy contract and share carries.  Thus my point that rbs are a dime a dozen nowadays.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref said:
guess I must be really ####### bored if I am defending punters and kickers in a fantasy football thread.....lol

there have been several seasons for many teams where a PK has made a a game winning and or game tying FG which led to a win in the final moments of a game....Prater did it like 4-5 times or more in 2016 or the Lions.....so I guess when you are talking wins and loses, to me that is pretty significant since you can actually say "if he makes it we win, if he misses it, we lose"....so thats 4-5 times a year....significant amount...for other players it is harder to define....

so I will stick with my point of view that PK's....more than any other non QB player mean the most to his teams wins/loses....

hell if Chris Boswell doesn't make all 6 of his FG's against KC in the playoffs last year....Steelers probably lose that one

PK's often determine the outcome......
Click to expand...
I think a great PK needs to be in this conversation.  The problem is often that they are hot and cold some years.  When they are on they can easily lead to 3,4 or 5 more wins per year.  When they are off, the reverse is true.  

 
I think you have to consider a kicker for this title. Matt Prater is one that comes to mind. Without him making clutch kicks Detroit doesn't make the post season and is likely picking in the first half of the draft with a record of 5-11 or 4-12- just go into the Detroit 2016 thread and read the remarks after each win...

I'm not sure there's another player, non QB, that took his team to the NFL playoffs last year

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently for the Eagles it's tackle Lane Johnson.

Eagles were 5-1 with him in the lineup, and 2-8 without him.

I would guess many teams would have the same results if they lost their top tackle.

 
killface said:
Or you could say Murray had 270 yards more, put up almost 1900 yards rushing, and had 25 more catches.  I consider Murray's season substantially better because he put up almost 1900 yards and had 57 catches.  That is pretty rare for a rb.  Zeke's season was certainly good but wasn't great yet.  

The point here is not debate the merits of who had the better season (I think you can agree they were both pretty great) but to point that if Elliot should be considered in this question than so should Murray? What Murray showed is that Zeke isn't special behind that line unless Murray is to be considered special as well.  Murray of course went on to sign a pretty crappy contract and share carries.  Thus my point that rbs are a dime a dozen nowadays.  
Click to expand...
Sure, I have no problem whatsoever including Murray in the discussion.  In the right system, DM is one of the best backs in the league. Of course, he also had 5 years of experience to get to that level. 

The only caveat is DM's replacement / backup is probably the best backup (maybe north of New Orleans) in the NFL right now.  So I think the Titans would feel less loss if Murray were out than the Cowboys would if Zeke were out.  

Alright, I'm coming around on the Kicker. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
killface said:
I think a great PK needs to be in this conversation.  The problem is often that they are hot and cold some years.  When they are on they can easily lead to 3,4 or 5 more wins per year.  When they are off, the reverse is true.  
Click to expand...
so they are covered either way you go as far as the question in the thread.....

 
this is part of the reason I think it is kind of crazy for teams to give their QB money (18-20+ mil) to a defensive player no matter how good he is.....for that amount of money they need to be impacting nearly every game with game changing type plays the way a QB affects every game....

short way of saying....as a KC fan I am actually kind of happy to see DEN give Von all that money....he can be game planned out of he game unlike a QB....and it will keep Denver from signing a guy like Brees when he becomes available next year.....the only way you can get away with giving a defensive player that kind of money is if it lines up just right with you hitting on a late round QB like Wilson that you end up getting on the cheap for a few years....DEN in a world of hurt if Lynch doesn't pan out...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stinkin Ref said:
this is part of the reason I think it is kind of crazy for teams to give their QB money (18-20+ mil) to a defensive player no matter how good he is.....for that amount of money they need to be impacting nearly every game with game changing type plays the way a QB affects every game....

short way of saying....as a KC fan I am actually kind of happy to see DEN give Von all that money....he can be game planned out of he game unlike a QB....and it will keep Denver from signing a guy like Brees when he becomes available next year.....the only way you can get away with giving a defensive player that kind of money is if it lines up just right with you hitting on a late round QB like Wilson that you end up getting on the cheap for a few years....DEN in a world of hurt if Lynch doesn't pan out...
Click to expand...
I agree to some degree. the QB touches the ball nearly every offensive play (yes, the center does too but let's not split hairs). 

An OLB can impact every single play on the defensive side of the ball TBH. Sure he can be game planned out of the game... but isn't that the point? If you have an OLB on the left side of the field, so the offense runs 75% of their plays to the right side... isn't that beneficial to the defense? He may not directly impact every single defensive play by making a tackle, but he does dictate play calling as OCs have to theortically table 1/2 of their play book if they want to avoid that guy completely. 

I am not a fan of giving a defensive player 20+ mil either, as I agree that it does hamstring a team from spending that money on a QB. But to claim a defensive player as not being worth a bigger contract because offenses can gameplan them out of the game... well the defense knows that too and they can adjust. That team isn't going to run at the best run defender in the league- they'd be very unproductive- so the DC can roll help to the opposite side where they know there is a good chance that the offense will be running in that direction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Dan said:
I agree to some degree. the QB touches the ball nearly every offensive play (yes, the center does too but let's not split hairs). 

An OLB can impact every single play on the defensive side of the ball TBH. Sure he can be game planned out of the game... but isn't that the point? If you have an OLB on the left side of the field, so the offense runs 75% of their plays to the right side... isn't that beneficial to the defense? He may not directly impact every single defensive play by making a tackle, but he does dictate play calling as OCs have to theortically table 1/2 of their play book if they want to avoid that guy completely. 

I am not a fan of giving a defensive player 20+ mil either, as I agree that it does hamstring a team from spending that money on a QB. But to claim a defensive player as not being worth a bigger contract because offenses can gameplan them out of the game... well the defense knows that too and they can adjust. That team isn't going to run at the best run defender in the league- they'd be very unproductive- so the DC can roll help to the opposite side where they know there is a good chance that the offense will be running in that direction.
Click to expand...
guess my point is Von is getting paid big money to sack the QB, to get strip sack turnovers and to make game changing impact plays....not to just tackle people...yet he can and should be made a non factor pretty easily by the offense.... as he was down the stretch last year....so as I said in my first post, unless the team then also has guys that can take advantage of Von being game planned out, it's kind of a bad move money wise...if Von is getting so much attention that other guys are having career years and getting those strip sacks, etc....then great....but if not it ends up being a black hole....and that's the case with Den, Von didn't get it done and neither did somebody else...yeah he was second in sacks, but they weren't really impactful sacks like they were when DEN won the super bowl (and before Von got paid and went on dancing with the stars)....Brady, Brees, Rodgers....your not game planning those guys out and with a guy like Brady, he could probably have me and 3 of my fat friends line up at WR and we could all go for 70/800/6....so my answer to the bolded is no....I don't want my $20 mil guy being able to be game planned out.....my ROI sucks....especially if nobody else steps up.....Von and most defensive players are dependent on other guys and those guys alos being above average....Brady and the likes can make bad WR's serviceable...

 
Stinkin Ref said:
guess my point is Von is getting paid big money to sack the QB, to get strip sack turnovers and to make game changing impact plays....not to just tackle people...yet he can and should be made a non factor pretty easily by the offense.... as he was down the stretch last year....so as I said in my first post, unless the team then also has guys that can take advantage of Von being game planned out, it's kind of a bad move money wise...if Von is getting so much attention that other guys are having career years and getting those strip sacks, etc....then great....but if not it ends up being a black hole....and that's the case with Den, Von didn't get it done and neither did somebody else...yeah he was second in sacks, but they weren't really impactful sacks like they were when DEN won the super bowl (and before Von got paid and went on dancing with the stars)....Brady, Brees, Rodgers....your not game planning those guys out and with a guy like Brady, he could probably have me and 3 of my fat friends line up at WR and we could all go for 70/800/6....so my answer to the bolded is no....I don't want my $20 mil guy being able to be game planned out.....my ROI sucks....especially if nobody else steps up.....Von and most defensive players are dependent on other guys and those guys alos being above average....Brady and the likes can make bad WR's serviceable...
Click to expand...
I think we are in agreement based on the bolded. Yes, if other guys step up and if a defense can be very effective with teams running plays away from the "stars," then it's money well spent to some degree (maybe more easily justified?). I think the example of Von is dead on. I was just saying painting with broad strokes was the wrong way to approach a defensive player getting paid big. If the 1st bolded is true, and other guys step up, then it could be worth it. If not, then it's a waste. I mean look at JJ Watt/Houston... he signed a big deal but they still managed to go out and spend big money on a QB (granted they struck out). So true for most, but maybe not true for all. 

I do agree, I'd rather my team spend the money on a QB who will be your offensive leader/franchise player for 5, 10, 15, 20 years rather than a defensive player that basically results in your GM playing with a handicap when it comes to going after difference makers elsewhere on the roster. Now, finding that franchise QB like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc is difficult to find, but that's a whole different topic

Edit: Plus, a franchise QB can last you 15-20 years. A defensive stud like Von Miller... if he puts in 15-20 years of difference making football I'd be surprised. I can't recall many defensive players having that kind of impact and being worth that kind of investment for the same length of time a franchise QB would

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To me, kickers are the equivalent of closers in baseball. They blow an easy kick or late lead and they are going to take all the heat for the loss. If they come through big and secure a win, they don't get much credit unless they are Mariano Viniateri and do it year after year in the post season.

 
follow the money

DEs and LTs are highly paid

if you don't get to the QB, there are about 25 that will hurt you, so it is whoever is winning the LT vs DE battles

 
I'm not sure any team relied on a single player offensively more than the Cardinals relied on David Johnson. Absolutely irreplaceable in that offense.

 
The team was still bad, but I might nominate Odell Beckham. Eli's passer rating when targeting OBJ the last 3 years has been 113. When targeting anyone else, it has been 82. In other words, the difference between the 8 points higher than the  NFL record for passer rating and Brian Hoyer's career passer rating. (courtesy of Pat Thorman on Twitter). 

 
Lash said:
follow the money

DEs and LTs are highly paid

if you don't get to the QB, there are about 25 that will hurt you, so it is whoever is winning the LT vs DE battles
Click to expand...
The Browns' Joe Thomas has been the best LT in the league for a decade.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kickers? KICKERS?!??! Y'all are crazy. Kickers are stupid and they should take them out of the game entirely. Why yes I am a Bills fan. How did you know?  :D   :bag:  Hahahaha

If the question is what position with an elite player plugged in is the most impactful, I say MLB. Just because they do everything. Sacks, picks and absurd tackle numbers. 

 
Kickers are interchangeable. Matt Prater wasn't even in the top 10 in field goal percentage in 2016; I'm sure that any of the 10 guys ahead of him, given the same opportunities, would have performed more or less the same. That's not true of the actual football players being mentioned in this thread.

 
CalBear said:
Kickers are interchangeable. Matt Prater wasn't even in the top 10 in field goal percentage in 2016; I'm sure that any of the 10 guys ahead of him, given the same opportunities, would have performed more or less the same. That's not true of the actual football players being mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...
Detroit lost seven games. Prater missed a field goal in four of those, and three of those games were one-score games.

 
CalBear said:
Detroit lost seven games. Prater missed a field goal in four of those, and three of those games were one-score games.
Click to expand...
True, the question isn't how good the player is, it's impact on wins and losses. 

That said, a LT can screw up and get his QB injured, thus impacting the game.  So Donald Penn

 
Id say Gronk.  Yes, I realize that he may not directly impact Wins n Loss's  However, the Team needs to make changes to have success.  It aint just a "plug n play" type situation.  I'm not sure a QB/TE have ever had this much rapport.  Ive somewhat been a fan of TE's for yrs  (while ones who catch the dam ball anyway)

Its certainly not all on BB.. 

Antonio Brown (possibly OBJ) would be my second choice

 
Hmm, this will take some thought.  It's likely going to be some player who is like the 3rd or 4th best player at his position but because of the team makeup and schemes, the guy's importance is inflated for what they do. Someone mentioned David Johnson.  I could see that.  He is probably not as good as someone like Bell, but if you take him off their team they will have some big time troubles.  Take Bell off the Steelers and they still make the playoffs probably.  However, like I said, I think Bell is better, but doesn't give the Steelers more wins than DJ gives the Cardinals.

The kicker talk is silly cause if you were to take the best offensive weapon off of those teams the kickers probably don't even get the chances to impact the game.

I just read a post for Gronk.  Umm, no.  Pretty obvious no.  They just won the SB without him, and they have been winning for several years when he has been injured. 

 
CB Josh Norman went from Carolina who previously had been in the Super Bowl.  He left and they really missed him as their record dropped.

C Alex Mack went from a poor Cleveland team to Atlanta.  Cleveland struggled even-more without him as Atlanta went to to the Super Bowl.

Corner and center isn't on anyone's team bulding blueprint but based on last year those two guys certainlly seemed to have had an impact.

 
Bracie Smathers said:
CB Josh Norman went from Carolina who previously had been in the Super Bowl.  He left and they really missed him as their record dropped.

C Alex Mack went from a poor Cleveland team to Atlanta.  Cleveland struggled even-more without him as Atlanta went to to the Super Bowl.

Corner and center isn't on anyone's team bulding blueprint but based on last year those two guys certainlly seemed to have had an impact.
Click to expand...
Panthers struggled but the skins actually had a (slightly) worse record after adding Norman. 

Agreed that mack helped the falcons a lot. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yogibear
How I expect the 2022-2023 NFL Season to go (In other words, the road to Super Bowl LVII)
Replies
13
Views
1K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Capella
*Capella’s Soon-to-Be Extremely Wrong Over/Under predictions 2023 bay-bee* 🦄 🙏🏈💸
Replies
24
Views
923
Pip's Invitation
Pip's Invitation
T
Travdogg's 3 round mock draft
2
Replies
73
Views
2K
Chaos34
Chaos34

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top