Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ernol

Members
  • Posts

    951
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

24 Excellent
  1. The draft is all about projection.As for Perriman, you feel free to bet on a guy with shaky hands to improve them in the NFL. I'll bet that a guy coming from JUCO can refine his routes so that his athleticism shines through before AND after the catch. And if you don't think your last point is an important factor in any prospect's success, you're crazy. That's part of the reason, besides talent level, that players drafted higher generally have higher success rates. They get the opportunities, and that's important. Because guys with bad hands get benched! The guy Perriman is replacing has horrible hands.Perriman will get no less opportunity than White. Steve Smith is getting old and there is no one else in that WR corps to steal targets from Perriman. White has to battle Jeffery, and I have strong feeling he isn't very likely to be better than Jeffery. Perriman won't get endless opportunities to drop the ball, if that's what he does. Realistic best case, do you really want Torrey Smith 2.0, is that your goal with a 1st round rookie pick, even if it costs less than White at a higher pick? You're giving short-term reasons or prefer Perriman at a lower cost, but I'm not seeing the long-term value there. Jeffery is very good, that won't stop White from becoming whatever it is he'll become.According to the efficient market of the NFL draft, Perriman is better than Torrey. Torrey would be his worst case, not best. You know that's not true, there are always busts, his worst case outcome is a lot less production than Smith. Don't play dumb. Yes, and White's worst case is a lot less than Julio, Fitz, and Hopkins. But we're ready to oversell White because we think he's a stud. Must have missed the argument that White's WORST case is Julio, Fitz and Hopkins.
  2. You make good points. Players are not like stocks (in the context you describe) and values differ from league to league, owner to owner. If I truly believed that Gurley were a generational talent, I would trade practically any player for him TODAY in a start 2+ RB league. Going back to 2007 when Adrian Peterson came into the league, I would have traded any RB for him including a 23/24-year old Steven Jackson, even after a 400 point 2006 season! It wouldn’t have mattered if in every other league, Steven Jackson would be valued higher. Every league is different. At a generational level of talent, you never know when someone is going to pay the price now and then take the player off the market, FOREVER. As for Bell and Gurley, I’m not a huge Bell fan to begin with. I wouldn’t draft Bell anywhere in the Top 7 or so picks in a startup. If I’m at 1.8 and were unfortunate enough to have Bell drop (i.e., my top 7 were all taken) and I loved Gurley, I’d probably just go ahead and take Gurley no matter that in other leagues, Bell would be taken ahead of Gurley. I’d only take Bell ahead of Gurley (at any slot) if I were certain I could trade him for either Gurley (and then some) or a player I liked more than Gurley. Last thing you want is for some unfortunate incident befalling Bell (e.g., another suspension) when he wasn’t even your guy in the first place. Or Gurley returning sooner than expected and lighting it up early on, making him practically untouchable in your league. When dealing with a player you believe will be #1, go with your guy, not with the guy that every OTHER league would rank higher.
  3. The fact that the NFL (at least St. Louis and probably others) thought enough of Gurley to have him picked 10th overall (despite the ACL and the recent trend of no RBs in the first round) means more to me than where he landed. In any case, St. Louis is a fine landing spot imo.
  4. ...Or Eli having an "Eli" year where one years he's awesome in fantasy, the next he looks like he would struggle to place both thumbs up his butt. ...Or the Giants decide its not in their best interest to continue to try to make one player the sole point of their team (is it possible that, with an offseason, other NFL teams might take notice of the opponent who was on track for 200+ targets and adjust?) ...OR the Giants running game improves ...or the Giants o-line improves ...or, in general, as we see time and time and time in the NFL, that teams are very good at adjusting to what other teams do and, generally speaking, a non-QB player, despite their talent level, can't just be a man among boys at this level. We see it sometimes. JJ Watt is living in that area now. But as a WR, TE, or RB, its harder. Not impossible, but more unlikely than likely. He is SO hyped up right now that the issue is becoming whether people can identify that line between making the mistake of paying too much for him Vs. not understanding what he is truly worth. Ok, maybe he's not Jesus, but at any price, might he not still be worth the #1 WR price? There are probably 8 or so WRs I would be just as happy to have without overcommitting on price or spending the time all offseason trying to figure out the price. In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if he is WR1 or WR18 or anywhere in between. Reminds me of Randy Moss after his rookie year - everyone KNEW he was going to get 20 TD's his second year...instead he only had 11. He was the #2 WR though. And that's the thing. Nobody (not many) are saying he won't be a top Wr, but its crazy to pay the A1 price expecting/hoping for some clearly unsustainable number when you could pay the A9 price and "settle" for Antonio Brown or Julio or Dez, where the production is absolutely proven. I'm just saying that I grant that he might be great, one of the greats, or THE greatest, but if I was sitting in a draft with the 8th pick, I would be sitting up nights losing sleep trying to figure out how to trade up to get this guy (or using time trying to figure it out when I could be studying other draft strategies). I would just "settle" for the Dez, Brown, Julio types and be very happy with it. Scenarios like these almost have nowhere to go but to disappoint. Guys will spend the bulk of their time in the offseason justifying this and extrapolating numbers and getting worked up over justifying how this guy can go 1800/20 next year, etc and, for what? If you use one of the top handful of picks (or trade the farm in dynasty) to get him and he does it, then big deal. Isn't that exactly what people at the top of the draft hope for each year? Isn't that why there were reasons you took Marshall Faulk or Priest Holmes 1st back in the day and just kicked your feet back? So, the only good result is the expected one. But somewhere in all that mess of wasted time and ad naseum debates are the dozen of other scenarios that can unfold where he becomes a 2nd year player who has a nice season...a REALLY nice season perhaps, and he ends up with 1300/14. That's great. But it won't keep the people who spent that top $ on him from griping all year how it was a disappointment. I don't see anyone arguing to pay a ransom over a Julio/Dez/Brown/AJ Green either. Someone has to be number one, and the difference right now between Odell and the "older" favorites like Julio/AJ/Dez is very small (if anything). If there is an opportunity to pay something small to go from Julio/AJ/Dez (and that is a big if), some may take it. I haven't heard of anyone trying to trade something more than that. In other words, the definition of your A1 price vs A9 price is nominal. What is amazing is that he is already considered by many to be the #1 overall, even if the difference between 1 and 9 (if at 9, AJ Green is still available, Dez/Julio should be long gone by then) may be small.
  5. It would be hard to come up with an overpay for OBJ in my estimation. In most of my leagues, it would take a Dez Bryant or Julio Jones plus some for even a glimmer of hope to get him.
  6. behind? wow... Id love to hear your POV such as? Dez, Julio, AJ, Antonio, Odell. only one of those listed is even comparable in age. of course, Im not saying the other guys are old, as they're just hitting their prime years... But Evans is 22. And put up a better Rookie Year than any of those toehr listed WRs (bar beckham), and was just as touted out of college, and drafted higher (not that being drafted earlier means he's better, but just that he was that highly rated out of college, and proved it year 1 in the NFL) Who cares. Nobody's looking out 10 years in a dynasty. 9/10 leagues would be folded and most teams turn over their entire roster every couple years anyways. If you have him above established young stars who are already putting up north of 1500 yards, you're playing all risk and minimal rewardI care, and others do as well. 22 is a big difference over 26/27. The production is still there with the already-greats, but trade value will be on the downturn soon enough as it is now with Calvin (whom I traded plus the 1.9 just to get Evans). So whether you have a shorter or longer term view of dynasty league life, the age difference will matter. I personally plan to play in my dynasty leagues for a long time, and in one, I am already at 10 years. In others, I am at 5. Accordingly, I always go in with an extreme long term view. Regardless, it often works out where the long view beats the shorter view anyway even in the relatively short-term (2-3 years). That said, I still prefer AJ, Julio and Dez over Evans right now due to elevated risk for the newbie, but that age gap could have Evans ranked over the three as a consensus by this time next year, so I wouldn't laugh at anyone that prefers Evans at this point. This is similar to the decision of AJ/Julio/AJ Green over vets Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald and Brandon Marshall years ago (and to a lesser extent, Calvin Johnson a couple years ago). Those who chose the younger, less tested group are reaping the rewards now. wat Oops. That should be Dez/Julio/AJ Green.
  7. behind? wow... Id love to hear your POV such as? Dez, Julio, AJ, Antonio, Odell. only one of those listed is even comparable in age. of course, Im not saying the other guys are old, as they're just hitting their prime years... But Evans is 22. And put up a better Rookie Year than any of those toehr listed WRs (bar beckham), and was just as touted out of college, and drafted higher (not that being drafted earlier means he's better, but just that he was that highly rated out of college, and proved it year 1 in the NFL) Who cares. Nobody's looking out 10 years in a dynasty. 9/10 leagues would be folded and most teams turn over their entire roster every couple years anyways. If you have him above established young stars who are already putting up north of 1500 yards, you're playing all risk and minimal rewardI care, and others do as well. 22 is a big difference over 26/27. The production is still there with the already-greats, but trade value will be on the downturn soon enough as it is now with Calvin (whom I traded plus the 1.9 just to get Evans). So whether you have a shorter or longer term view of dynasty league life, the age difference will matter. I personally plan to play in my dynasty leagues for a long time, and in one, I am already at 10 years. In others, I am at 5. Accordingly, I always go in with an extreme long term view. Regardless, it often works out where the long view beats the shorter view anyway even in the relatively short-term (2-3 years). That said, I still prefer AJ, Julio and Dez over Evans right now due to elevated risk for the newbie, but that age gap could have Evans ranked over the three as a consensus by this time next year, so I wouldn't laugh at anyone that prefers Evans at this point. This is similar to the decision of Dez/Julio/AJ Green over vets Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald and Brandon Marshall years ago (and to a lesser extent, Calvin Johnson a couple years ago). Those who chose the younger, less tested group are reaping the rewards now. You win some (AJ/Julio/Dez), you lose some (Nicks). Thats true with great looking rookies and vets alike.
  8. Considering that the exception was against the #2 rushing defense in the league (twice, where he averaged 4.9 and 5.4), this doesn't seem to say a whole lot imo. Its a bit of a stretch to try to knock down a 4.6 YPC for the season.
  9. I stopped listening after OBJ because I know neither guy had him 1 last year and it showed early bias towards the known results of NFL and not sticking to the grades as prospects.I love most everything DJ puts out but this was crap IMO. What was the context, maybe it was for their careers going forward knowing what we know now? They did still have Watkins ahead of Evans so it wasn't a complete over-reaction from last season. They say it's knowing what they know now but I fail to see how that really helps us grade them as prospects.It helps in relation to the 2105 class. I don't see how it doesn't. Despite what Evans accomplished last year, they still predict a better career for White. That's more useful IMO. You have a known data set for one group and an unknown data set for the other. It's ridiculously skewed.Isn't this what we do when attempting to rank rookies with veterans in dynasty rankings?
  10. Can't say I agree. Went to the SB last year and have a great chance of beating any team other than Seattle who was just a horrible matchup nightmare for them. Well, Peyton has won TWO playoff games since 2009. One of those was against a .500 Charger team that was only in the playoffs because KC chose to sit the entire varsity squad in SD for the last game of the season. I dare anyone to watch the playoffs last season and even make an argument that den was any better than the fourth best team in the league. Saints lose by 8 IN Seattle. SF loses by 6 IN Seattle. Then the broncos lose by 35 to Seattle on a neutral field. I think that CAR team could have given SEA a better game than that on a neutral field so fourth is probably being overly generous. Not saying he couldn't get 4k+ yards, 30+ TD's, and 9+ REGULAR SEASON wins. But hasn't Manning's career legacy been launching a thousand fantasy football circle jerks and then losing as a favorite in the playoffs? If he faces Rex Grossman in another SB he has a better shot, I'll admit. "Possible" maybe, but not likely. Wow, that was only a little biased. First of all, Denver beat a 9-7 San Diego team that beat an 11-5 Cincy team in the wildcard round (i.e., not walkovers). Denver then beat a pretty good New England team in the AFC Championship 26-16. Whether they were the second, third, fourth or whatever best team in the NFL will never be known (and no, comparing results vs Seattle does not prove anything), but Denver deserved to be in the Super Bowl regardless because they were the best team in the AFC and beat the second best team in the AFC in the Championship. Further, discounting the Colt’s Super Bowl win in 2006 is a little laughable as well (as if Peyton got lucky to face Grossman). They were clearly the best team in the NFL and beat what was clearly the second best team (New England) in the AFC Championship. 1 Super Bowl win and 1 close loss and 1 blow out loss in two others. Not as good as you would have expected for a great QB like Manning, but nothing to justify this kind of hate imo.
  11. I think you're exaggerating the amount of "unknown" with Patterson here. Sure he is not a known commodity at this point but to say Watkins is more known just doesn't make sense to me, at all. Watkins hasn't touched a NFL field yet. He hasn't had to deal with NFL CBs and defenses. He, like any rookie, is a complete unknown like Patterson was last year. The fact that Watkins had a ton of footage to go on in college while Patterson had little impacted their draft position. It doesn't mean much of anything about how their careers will transpire. If there are specific aspects of his game that you feel make him better than Patterson, right now and today, then fine. That's not the argument being presented though. The argument is what they have shown as NFL WRs. Using this argument to push Patterson down and not do the same for Watkins and Evans is again, illogical. Maybe you feel Watkins is simply a batter player than Patterson. Fine I'd get it. What are the reasons? Using these stats, that aren't really making the point IMO, doesn't help the discussion at all. Your saying because Watkins had great success in college his unknown value is lesser than Patterson who had a ho hum rookie season. By this measure, you should also be ranking Austin ahead of Patterson. Austin had significantly more footage than Patterson, was drafted higher and by all your measures also had a ho hum rookie season. Yet, we know that isn't the case. So you're saying that all rookies are equally unknown? The fact that Sammy Watkins played (and dominated) for three seasons (starting as young as age 18), the fact that he's the third freshman in history to be first-team All American, the fact that he finished his college career with 240 receptions and 36 games played, means he's every bit as unknown as a guy with 46 career college receptions, just because that second guy added 45 more receptions (at an extremely inefficient rate and on an extremely limited route tree) in the pros? As for the bolded, I would be surprised if we knew any such thing, seeing as Tavon Austin is my WR18 and Cordarrelle Patterson is my WR20... I'm saying all rookies are more unknown than players who we have seen in the NFL. Yes, to a point every rookie is unknown and all have potential to bust. Given what we now know about Patterson it's pretty safe to say he is not a bust and never will be. He's removed most of that doubt. That doesn't mean he will transform into a dominant WR1 for years. It means he can play and contribute though and that is something no rookie has proven yet, no matter how much you liked them and how highly they were drafted. Seeing as you are comfortable comparing Watkins college stats to Patterson in the NFL it would only seem fair then to compare Patterson in JUCO vs. Watkins as well, right? The competition gap is probably less than D1 to NFL after all. Ignoring Patterson there is odd in this scenario. He too dominated 3 years in college, just not all 3 being at Tenn. You are using a very selective reasoning to swing things in favor of Watkins. You are giving Patterson no credit at all for a body of work in the NFL and then also giving him no credit for 2 of his season in college. Yet Watkins gets elevated for his 3 years in college? Patterson had 159 reception, 2610 yds, 29 TDs receiving, 61 rushes 706 yds, 9 TDs. What about the fact that Patterson broke the SEC record for all purpose yds in his one and only season there? Patterson, like Watkins, dominated 3 years in college. Patterson unlike Watkins has played a season in the NFL and also produced there.It seems you like Watkins more and are trying to create stats to support it. If you like Watkins more fine. I'm ok with that. What do you think he does so much better? Using college stats to support him vs. a player with real NFL work under his belt is a very poor argument. What does he do that will translate so much better to the NFL over a guy we've seen translate his game to the NFL. We keep coming back to the same sticking point here and I can't seem to get a straight answer on it. The issue being downgrading Patterson for needing development and not showing enough as a NFL WR, yet not downgrading rookies who have shown nothing in the NFL for the same reason. As for what Patterson has shown to instill confidence? Well the first and most critical thing he showed is that his athletic ability translates to the NFL and still allows him to dominate. You say this doesn't move the needle at all because he was known to be an athletic freak prior. Seems you say this same thing about any bit of evidence presented so I'm not really sure you can or want to see it differently. None the less, yes we knew Patterson was an athletic freak but seeing it translate live and confirming it does in fact make a huge difference. We've seen lots of other athletic freaks fail and not translate; Jon Baldwin, Jericho Cotchery, Stephen Hill, ect. I also saw a guy who improved his route running and his route tree last year. Specifically on square in routes and comeback routes. Is he fully there yet? No, but there was development. Another thing he showed was an ability to fight for the ball in space. Many questioned his hands predraft and I think he showed his hands to be much better than many anticipated. He made some tough, contested catches and plucked the ball well on several occasions as well. Probably the most critical thing he showed of all was an ability to win the confidence of his coaches by learning the play book and adapting to the NFL quickly. As someone else mentioned, Patterson was expected to basically be a redshirt last year who contributed almost exclusively as a returner and some gadget plays on offense. That happened early on but his involvement in the offense increased as the season went on and that has continued this offseason under new leadership. He's displayed a willingness to learn and work at the craft and in the end that is what makes the most impact. Like I said at the beginning of this discussion, I agree that Patterson being ranked as a WR1 right now is a touch high. I have no problem with the notion that he's a bit overrated at his current price and I said exactly that early on. The issue is justifying rookies like Watkins and Evans as WR1 type guys right now. Especially when we are told that the reason Patterson isn't a WR1 just yet all apply to the rookies. I'm sorry, but using metrics that apply only the the guy who has played in the NFL to support this argument just don't make any sense. Especially seeing that Patterson actually scored well in those metrics compared to other rookies. You seem to be trying to paint Adam into a corner and in the process painting yourself into one. I like Patterson (a lot, sounds like more than you do), but I can certainly understand those that need to see more before they fall in line (while at the same time NOT needing to see more from Watkins or Evans). I don’t think their opinion that Patterson is unproven and knocking him down for being “unknown” has to mean ANYTHING relative to their opinion of Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans. If that were the case, then no one could knock down Justin Hunter or Tavon Austin for being unproven (like many do) while simultaneously ranking Watkins or Evans high. For me, Watkins and Evans SHOULD be ranked high, and yet Justin Hunter and Tavon Austin need to show me more before they get ranked higher. Many include Patterson with Hunter and Austin as well. I don’t see anything illogical about that. In fantasy football, whats good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Just because you rank Alshon Jeffery higher specifically because of his height/speed combination, does not mean it is illogical not to rank Jonathan Baldwin higher as well. There are too many other factors involved to try to create the bright line test that you seem to be trying to make with Patterson and Watkins/Evans.
  12. I agree with most of what you posted. Regarding the bolded, I think Patterson has reached that level (well, almost). While a WR11-12 to a WR1 may seem like a lot of room for upside as compared to RB3 to RB1, because there are more WRs taken in the first few rounds than RBs, the upside remaining is closer to RB3 to RB1 than it is to RB12 to RB1 imo. In the DFWC (6 PPR startups just recently finished), Patterson went as the WR11 (on average) at 2.08, 2.06, 2.06, 2.04, 2.10, 2.09. Gio went 1.11, 2.01, 1.10, 2.01, 2.01, 2.04. There is less upside left for Gio (from 2.01 to 1.01), but not a whole lot less than Patterson (from 2.06 to 1.01). Both are valued appropriately at those ranges imo.
  13. One more way to look at it. Lets say my team has Jimmy Graham (300 points) and a TE that scores 150 points (i.e., the replacement or baseline TE). My WR4 is the baseline/replacement WR at 150 points (in a league that permits 4 WR to start due to flex for example). My team scores a total of 2000 points over the year. Now, let me replace Jimmy Graham's 300 points with Dez Bryant's 300 points. I now have to start a 150 point TE. I lose my weekly "advantage" over all TEs. Dez Bryant provides no advantage at WR1. And yet, my total score at year's end is still 2000 points. All that mattered here was the difference between Jimmy Graham and the baseline TE and Dez Bryant and the baseline WR. The huge disparity between TE1 and TE2 had zero effect in this example. Now you can argue that the baseline WR scores more than the baseline TE, making a 300 point Jimmy Graham more valuable than a 300 point Dez Bryant, but then we are not dealing with equal VBDs anymore and still, all that mattered was the baseline, not the differences between TE1 and TE3 or TE1 and TE4, etc.
  14. Mind going a bit deeper on this one? If Gronk is TE1 and Dez is WR7, yet the VBD is close--I don't think that's accurate. Assuming Dez is in the WR1 spot--only one of the two provided an advantage over the league. It's semantic because points aren't segregated out like that. You don't get "WR1 points" and "WR2 points" and "WR3 points". If Dez Bryant is the 7th best WR, you could say he's your #1 receiver and gives you no advantage, or he's your #3 receiver and he gives you a massive advantage, but you're operating at a bigger disadvantage at WR1 as a result. Neither is accurate, because your WRs score as a unit. Even if we did slot separate positions for WR1, WR2, etc., something seems wrong or misleading to me in saying that the 7th best WR like Dez Bryant provides no advantage at the WR1. For one, this assumes that every team will have one of each of WRs 1 through 12. Even if it that were so, look at it this way. Lets say we had a perfectly distributed set of WRs across all teams, with your team having the WR7, WR18, WR31, etc. If Dez were slotted in your WR1 position and you traded him for Jimmy Graham, think of the ripple effect that would have on each of your WR positions. You would be creating a big disadvantage at WR1 (since you only have WR18 in that slot), a big disadvantage at WR2 (since now you only WR31 in that slot), and so on all the way down the line. In that way, having or not having Dez has a significant effect on multiple slots, not just the WR1. As such, in my estimation, losing Dez has every bit of the impact on your team as gaining Jimmy Graham. You can also think of it as having Dez allows a team to avoid as big of a disadvantage as the advantage that Jimmy Graham provides. This is not lessened by the fact that there are other WRs that can match or even beat Dez’s production. There is a disparity between Graham and the 2nd and 3rd best TEs, a disparity much greater than Dez and the next best WR. That is true. I think that has to be considered somewhat when looking at value. However, that fact has much less of an impact (very little impact) on your overall week to week score than most are attributing to it imo. This is one of the reasons why I always seek to acquire the top WRs (moreso than Jimmy Graham outside of a 1.5PPR TE league) - the enormous "advantage" having them provides over the rest of the league. It is reflected in the overall scores at years end despite weak production elsewhere (including at TE).
  15. If that's how you measure it. Any baseline below QB3 and TE3 is slanted in Rodgers' favor; it doesn't account for the added advantage Graham gives you over each and every other team in the league, save the Gronk owner. In Rodgers' biggest year, he was 49 points higher than QB3. Graham was 100 higher than TE3 in 2011. Gronk was 140 over TE3. Umm, actually, it does account for exactly that. Here's the math from 2011: ((Rodgers - QB2) + (Rodgers - QB3) + (Rodgers - QB4) + (Rodgers - QB5) + (Rodgers - QB6) + (Rodgers - QB7) + (Rodgers - QB8) + (Rodgers - QB9) + (Rodgers - QB10) + (Rodgers - QB11) + (Rodgers - QB12))/11 = 7.02 In other words, on average, Rodgers gave you a 7.02 point per game advantage over every other quarterback in fantasy in 2011. Repeating that same calculation for Jimmy Graham in 2013 gives you 5.43 points per game over average (non-PPR, because that's the data the HDD spits out). I didn't calculate it for Jimmy Graham in 2011, but I can easily do so now: Jimmy Graham averaged 12.31 PPG in 2011 (again, non-PPR, because that's what the Historical Data Dominator spits out). The other 11 TEs in the top 12 averaged 8.52 PPG in 2011. The difference between Jimmy Graham and the other 11 owners in 2011 was 3.79 points per game- or about half the advantage that Rodgers provided. Partly, that's because Gronkowski was so far ahead of Graham. Removing Gronkowski from the comparison drops the average from the other 10 TEs to 7.87 and increases Graham's advantage to 4.44 PPG, but Rodgers still blows him out of the water- and giving Rodgers a comparable treatment (i.e. dropping Brees or Brady out of his list of comps) makes the disparity even bigger. Nice formula. How much do you think the results will change in PPR?
×
  • Create New...