Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SSOG

Staff
  • Posts

    12,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. Exactly. The problem with this example is that it's not an all or nothing proposition. Uniqueness, IMO, isn't a good thing or a bad thing. Our teams are unique enough or will become so as you move down to the final 250. there is no need to purposely seek out additional uniqueness.

    :goodposting:

    Where you fall on uniqueness partially goes back to your philosophy for this contest. I believe in doing what's best for the first 13 weeks, and taking my chances in the final 3 weeks, so I tend to believe that uniqueness is an unimportant consideration. If you fall on the other side of the former debate, then you may also align with those who believe uniqueness is important.

    I'll start by saying I believe it's probably true that, all else being equal, it's better to be more unique than less unique in the final 250, if your goal is to win the grand prize. This is similar to the idea that small rosters are better because they exhibit greater variance - with a more unique team, you're more likely to end up at the extreme ends of the final standings. You're either going to be near the top, or near the bottom. With a less unique team, you may be more likely to finish in the money, maybe in the top 50, but less likely to be the #1 overall team. I don't know if that's actually true, but it's my intuition. This is where the earlier coin flipping example is somewhat appropriate - if everyone picks heads, they'll all be huddled around each other in the standings, so to speak; if you go against the grain and pick tails, then you're either going to win the thing right away or lose right away. From a contest perspective, if you only care about winning the $20,000, and have no interest in winning $25-50 for coming in the top 100 or whatever, then uniqueness is probably your friend. I think most people probably fall in this boat.

    But as with many other contest discussions we've had in the past, we need to remember what we do and don't control. You don't get to pick a new lineup leading in to week 14. You have to make your selections in August. While it's occasionally obvious that some players will have relatively high ownership percentages (Benson this year, Foster a couple years ago, etc.), for the most part you don't actually know how heavily owned a player will be. Furthermore, unlike the hypotheticals that are often presented in this debate, it's never actually the case that 99.9% of the teams own Player A, and you're the only team with Player B, at least not in August when you're making your picks. It's both far more complex and unpredictable than that.

    The fact is, as I've said here before, some teams are more unique than others, depending on how you define such a metric, but all teams are sufficiently unique to win the contest. There are no duplicates. There are no rosters that are completely covered by others. You need to put up a string of 200 point weeks in the end - if your players do this, you'll finish near the top. If they don't, you won't. Whether or not they do score that many points for you is independent of how commonly owned they are. Darren Sproles won't be sitting on the sidelines in week 14, checking how many teams still own him in the contest before he decides whether or not to go off for 50 points that week. Besides, if there is a correlation, I'd suspect that the more commonly-owned players are more likely to score a ton of points, since they presumably carried more teams to the final 250, and have therefore been better players during the season. I said uniqueness is good, all else being equal, but all else isn't equal. If Player A wound up on most of the final 250 teams, he must be a pretty good player. He may in fact be more likely to put up a ton of points than Player B who's only on a handful of final 250 rosters - not because he's on more rosters, of course, but simply because he's a better player that year.

    Similarly, at the outset of the contest, the most commonly-owned players probably present the greatest value ("wisdom of the crowds" and all that). If everyone identified $3 Benson as the player most likely to outperform his price this year, what does it say about the entries that don't have him? The goal is to load up on as many players that will vastly outperform their price as possible - Benson is the prime example this year, and if you agree, why would you leave him off just to be more "unique?" You'd just be shooting yourself in the foot by intentionally passing on a guy who has the exact attributes you should be looking for.

    So when people argue about whether or not uniqueness is good in the final 250, they may be right, but it's sort of uninteresting (to me, at least) because that's something you have pretty much no control over. All of the really good strategy discussion that has taken place over the years deals with the things we do have control over - roster size, budget allocation, bye week strategies, etc. Uniqueness in the final 250 falls pretty far outside that scope. Build your roster with the intention of scoring the most points you can, and let the uniqueness part of it sort itself out.

    I don't like uniqueness for uniqueness's sake, but I definitely believe in having a plausible narrative. I want to look at my team and ask "what has to happen for me to win this thing?". The less complicated and more plausible the answer, the better. That was the philosophy behind my team- lots of commonly owned players (because they're good value), plus a Vick + Stewart kicker. My narrative is "If Vick and Stewart go off, I've got this sewn up". In my opinion, that is a plausible enough narrative (both players have talent and a history of going off), so I'm happy with my squad. I don't think it's very likely, but in a contest of 13,000, even a 0.1% chance to win it all is huge.
  2. Tried something different this year. Instead of over thinking it, I just waited until 10 pm Tuesday, went down the list, and clicked the names that looked like the best values. I checked what I had, and was shocked to find that I was at $259 and 31 players. I checked my byes and only found one potential conflict, so I cut two players, added another to patch my bye issue, and hit submit. Easy. We'll see how it goes this year, but I like the squad.

    QBs-

    Vick ($22)

    Locker ($9)

    Skelton ($7)

    Tannehill ($4)

    I love Vick in this contest. Love him. People are forgetting just how unreal he was in fantasy back in 2010. He's got higher upside than the big 3 at a lower cost, and this game is all about upside. Plus, he's relatively unique, which means if he goes off I've got a huge advantage against the field. Locker was my last addition to help get me past Vick's bye. Skelton and Tannehill finish out a corps that has four starters for the price of two to help cover for Vick's added risk.

    RBs-

    Doug Martin ($21)

    Jonathan Stewart ($16)

    David Wilson ($9)

    Robert Turbin ($6)

    Rashard Mendenhall ($4)

    Jonathan Dwyer ($4)

    Cedric Benson ($3)

    Evan Royster ($3)

    Between Martin, Stewart, The Pitt Pair, and Benson, I love my chances of getting two startable scores a week. Stewart gives me all-world upside and some more differentiation from the pack. Turbin, Royster, and Wilson are lottery tickets- I looked at trading them in for a single $17 back, but there was no one else in that range that I liked.

    WRs-

    Steve Johnson ($18)

    Mike Wallace ($16)

    Lance Moore ($11)

    Randall Cobb ($9)

    Justin Blackmon ($7)

    Kendall Wright ($6)

    Alshon Jeffery ($6)

    Eddie Royal ($2)

    I've really been warming on Steve Johnson recently, and thought he gave me a good, dependable value play. Wallace continues giving me upside. I like Lance Moore as a sneaky play with Meachem out- any injuries in NO and he can blow up. Cobb, the three rookies, and Royal were obvious value plays, IMO. Huge upside for the cost.

    TEs-

    Jimmy Graham ($29)

    Lance Kendricks ($9)

    Joel Dreessen ($4)

    Graham was my one big splurge. I didn't like very many value plays at TE this year, so I decided to spend big and get a stud. The two values I did like are potential second-year breakout Kendricks, and stupidly-underpriced Dreessen.

    PKs-

    Jason Hanson ($4)

    Randy Bullock ($4)

    Matt Prater ($3)

    Greg Zuerlein ($3)

    A pair of $4 guys in great offenses, a pair of $3 guys with huge legs.

    Ds-

    New York Jets ($4)

    Denver Broncos ($4)

    Cincy Bengals ($3)

    The Jets are the chalk pick. Denver is because any defense with a pair of pass rushers like Miller and Dumerville has explosive upside. Cincy was the best of the $3 bunch.

    So there you have it. Not a lot of studs, but I focused on potential difference makers. I'm not interested in finishing in the 90th percentile, I want to finish in the 99.9th percentile. I wanted to leave myself with a plausible and clear narrative which could leave me with the best team, and I think the Vick/Stewart combo accomplishes exactly that. If those two players go big (which they're demonstrably capable of doing), then my team is going places. Only 8 other teams in the entire contest features that duo.

  3. How would you rank those guys against the second tier QB's from this year's draft? Right now I like Tanehill better than Wilson, and Wilson better than Weeden, but I'm starting to think Wilson might be the best of the bunch. I would definitely say Wilson has the best supporting cast right now and could shine early. Long term might be a different story.

    I am ranking them:WilsonTanehillWeedonI was distracted during the draft process, so I didn't have strong opinions of the 3 coming into the pre-season. But, Wilson is only guy that looks like he will be able to move the ball with any consistantly this year. He has better weapons than the other 2, and is in a better situation. On top of that, I am really starting to covet guys that can move the ball on the ground. 30 yards rushing a game is equal to 75 passing in most formats, or 8 additional TDs over a season.
    Tannehill can move the ball with his legs, too. Guy played WR in college. Had a 1000 yard receiving season. Wilson's looked great, but at the end of the day, I still prefer the guy with the top 10 pedigree.Edit: and I want nothing to do with Weeden. He's already 28. I don't think he has much more development left in him- usually by 28 you are who you're going to be. Low upside, crummy franchise, shorter career... Pass. Give me a Foles or a Kaepernick, instead- I'd rather have a high-upside backup than a low-upside starter.
  4. No doubt Rodgers is the best player in the deal - but, I'm in a position where I don't NEED him since I am more than happy with Ryan and RG3. My team is not one player away from winning it all, so I could never part with 5 pretty good pieces for 1 guy, no matter how good. I didn't even bother countering b/c I'm not looking to trade multiple pieces unless it's at a position of need.

    I never said that you needed him, or that you should have done the trade, or that the trade made sense for your squad as is currently constructed. I never said that my philosophy was the dominant one, or the only one, or the right one, or that everyone should adopt it. In fact, I hope everyone DOESN'T adopt it, because then I'd have no one left to trade with. I'm just saying that any trade that would be accepted by a number of reasonable dynasty owners automatically gets disqualified from "worst offer" consideration. And while some may disagree, I like to think I'm a reasonable dynasty owner.
  5. Wow, can't believe some think this deal is remotely fair/close. Regardless of what you think of Helu/Little, they DO have value. Dealing both QBs, along with 2 WRs and Helu for one player, no matter how good, makes zero sense IMO. Whether I had the depth or not (which I don't), I would never strip my team down for one player. I also happen to think Ryan has a big year, and really like A.Brown. Would I trade, say 3 of these guys for Rodgers? Sure, but not all 5.

    There's a very popular school of thought in dynasty that says 95% of the time, whoever winds up with the best player "wins" the trade. I happen to be a big believer in that philosophy. Mid-level prospects are the easiest-to-acquire, most overrated assets in dynasty. Some of them become huge. Most of them fade into oblivion within a single season, two at the outside. I've been burned by it in the past, for sure- in one league, I've sold on Miles Austin, Mike Wallace, Pierre Garçon, Austin Collie, and Jordy Nelson prior to their breakouts. And I regretted it at the time. But they weren't all that hard to replace- hell, the only reason I had room to roster Austin and Wallace in the first place is because I sold on Garçon and Collie. and at the same time, I also extracted top value out of guys like Mike Sims-Walker, Donald Driver, James Starks, Javon Walker, Dustin Keller, and Lee Evans before their value took a major faceplant. Those guys were all instrumental in trades that landed me names like Brees, Rice, Fitzgerald, Jamaal Charles, and Rob Gronkowski. If that's what it took to grease the wheels of the machinery and get me to a point where I can field a starting lineup that looks like that, I'm perfectly okay with it. If your league has a transaction log, I'd propose a little bit of research into the past. Go check out trades from 3 years ago. In my experience, trades that looked laughable at the time (one team giving up a glut of value to land a single stud) look laughable in the other direction now, since that glut of value all fizzled out in a year or two while the stud is still going strong. Think about the guy who a dozen years ago had a chance to acquire Peyton Manning but balked because he didnt want to add Michael Bennett and Rod Gardner. I'm not advising it in all circumstances, but absolutely, when given a chance to land a player who hits the trifecta- young, stud talent, proven production- I'll overpay. I'll just keep throwing mediocre prospects into the mix all day long until I finally overwhelm the other guy with how much "value" I'm giving him. There are maybe a dozen players that match that description at any given time, but those names stay remarkably consistent from year to year. Plus, as I said, many-for-few trades free up lots of roster spots which, if you're diligent, you can easily turn around and turn into prospects roughly equivalent to the ones you just gave up.TL;DR- it's a philosophical difference, not a laughable trade.
  6. Received this offer yesterday - this guy notoriously sends pretty crappy offers, but this one takes the cake, even for him:I trade: M Ryan, RG3, Helu, Little and A.BrownI get: A.Rodgers, Caddy Williams (yes, he still has him on his roster), Boldin, B.Edwards and some other irrelevant WR that I can't even rememberI typically won't put snide comments in my response, but I couldn't help it with this one. I replied 'Is this a real offer? Why on earth would I make this deal?'He basically wanted 5 young dynasty pieces for Aaron Rodgers. The other guys (save for Boldin) were waiver wire material.

    I could easily see doing that trade. Let's be honest, here- it's not like Helu or Little are franchise building blocks. You've got Griffin, Ryan, and Brown for Rodgers. Everything else is window dressing. Lots of people aren't sold on Griffin because he's a rookie. Lots of people aren't sold on Ryan because he's never put up big numbers. A lot of dynasty rankings have Brown as a low-end wr2 or high-end wr3. It's not at all unreasonable to think that a lot of people will view that trade as a low-end qb1, a high-end qb2, and a low-end wr2 in exchange for a top-5 dynasty player, regardless of position. Hell, I really like Griffin, and I'd still probably make that trade, provided I had the depth to absorb it. I love packaging depth for major upgrades to my starting lineup. Some of you guys need to stop being so sensitive. Other people will value players differently than you do. It's not a personal insult. Back on the topic of terrible trade offers... I had someone offer to give me Mike Wallace for Ray Rice straight up. In a non-ppr league. He even acknowledged that Wallace was the 3rd best WR on his own roster, yet still somehow thought that that might be a trade that I might possibly be interested in entertaining.
  7. I guess personal preference of both Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb plays a significant part in this. As I struggle to envision a scenario where Randall Cobb becomes a more consistent fantasy performer than Jordy Nelson, at least for this year. As for Jordy always playing third fiddle, I don't necessarily see that as being the case. Although Aaron Rodgers may force the ball to Jennings and Finley some, he's not going to do so if somebody else is open. And seeing as defenses are more likely to pay extra attention to Jennings and Finley, that frees Jordy up for a lot of single coverage. Because of that, I don't think games in which Nelson gets a lot of targets (such as on Thursday where he got as many as Jennings and twice as many as Finley did) are going to be all that rare.

    I struggle to envision a scenario where Cobb becomes a more consistent performer than Nelson this year, too. He's a rookie. That's a given. In dynasty leagues, though, I'm never counting any any production until year 3, anyway. If they perform before that, it's just gravy.
  8. :goodposting:Cobb is getting too much love based in large part to the kick return TD. TDs via kick returns obviously aren't going to happen often, and at 5'10 190lbs I don't anticipate him getting much more receiving TDs either. And as someone who is 3rd or 4th in line to receive targets at best, I don't anticipate Cobb having much value in redraft leagues this year. Obviously this is a Dynasty thread so that doesn't matter too much, but if I were a Jordy Nelson owner I definitely wouldn't be selling him this early into what promises to be his most successful season yet, and if I were a Randall Cobb owner I'd be listening to offers and wouldn't rule out trading him to someone who's giving in big to the hype.

    I'm not selling Nelson based on Cobb. I'm selling Nelson because even in a best-case scenario, he's getting the scraps left over after Jennings and Finley get theirs. In a worst-case scenario, he's stuck behind Cobb, as well. Even that best-case scenario is enough to get me to sell, the worst-case scenario is just additional icing. I just don't see a path for Jordy to become a consistent fantasy starter... so if I can find someone who'll pay me consistent-starter value for him, I'm making that trade.

    Mike Wallace didn't have much value in redraft his first year. Only 39 receptions. Mostly a deep threat with sporadic (but healthy) TD production. But it was obvious from game 1 that Roethlisberger trusted him and he was going to be good.

    This is very true. I distinctly remember having a conversation with someone in my league after the Thursday night game that year (Pittsburgh played in the season opener). I had #1 waiver priority and was trying to trade it. He was telling me our league was so deep there wasn't anything good on waivers, anyway. I told him he was crazy and asked him if he'd seen Mike Wallace play the night before. I never thought Wallace would be this good, this quick... but he definitely flashed some serious potential pretty much immediately. And Cobb has done the same. It's not just his kickoff return TD (although that doesn't hurt), it's the total package.
  9. Seller. There's only been one #3 target I can think of who has been a quality fantasy play (Brandon Stokley, 2004), and Nelson isn't even guaranteed of being the #3 (Jennings, Finley, and eventually I think Cobb will pass him, too). Good bench guy, but I'd be willing to bet I could find someone paying a starter's price for him.

  10. From his running back rankings:Good shtick

    Haha, hadn't seen that. I think it's a glitch in the system because Kirsner doesn't input value scores- I think it's set up for me to display every player I assign a value greater than 0 to (there are a lot of other players who I have populating my lists with 0 value so I can move them into my rankings at any point). No clue how the system decides which players to display and which not to display in Jason's rankings. That might be why it's spitting out those crazy rank numbers.

    Just finished some rankings tweaks. The rankings on the site should now be the final offseason version. Also, we should have fixed the issue where the front page was displaying old rankings, too.

    Good work, SSOG.I'm surprised about one item: that you've ranked LaGarrette Blount at #21 isn't a big shock to me. Blount hasn't proven himself for an entire season, and most wouldn't consider him an elite talent. But that you've ranked Michael Turner one spot above Blount is a little vexing, though. At 29, Turner is a bit old for a RB, and he's playing on a team that would rather pass the ball. Are you saying you wouldn't trade Turner for Blount straight up?
    I'm what you could call a Michael Turner "hater". I've been really down on him for a couple of years now. Typically, when I have a strongly different opinion than the majority, I wind up ranking that player somewhere between where my "gut" says he should go and where the majority says he should go. I don't feel like this is a copout, I feel like this is a hedge- it's my way of using the "wisdom of crowds" as another datapoint in my player evaluation.Anyway, Michael Turner for the last two years has had a bit of an "anti-hater bump" in effect. It's been there so long that by now it's pretty much unconscious. If the majority is souring on his dynasty prospects, though, perhaps its time to re-evaluate whether Turner still deserves the hedge effect, and if not, how much further he should drop.

    SSOG: Jeremy Maclin at #27 needs some explaining. After Greg Little? After Michael Crabtree? After Reggie Wayne? Save value as Demaryius Thomas?! Que?!

    I've never been a huge Maclin fan- not buying into the huge hype, and don't think he'll ever supplant Desean as the #1. I am, on the other hand, a big believer in the talent of Thomas and Crabtree. Perhaps I have Little too high- it's really hard for me to rank rookies at first, because I don't scout college. I never feel too confident about my rookie ranks until halfway through the season when I've had a couple chances to see them play.

    Just finished some rankings tweaks. The rankings on the site should now be the final offseason version. Also, we should have fixed the issue where the front page was displaying old rankings, too.

    Number of people on earth: 6,940,000,000. Number of people who think Jamaal Charles should get more carries than Thomas Jones: 6,939,999,999. And then, of course, you have Todd Haley...

    What about Mother Jones and Mr. Jones himself?
    What about them? Ma Jones didn't raise no fools. Even Thomas thinks Charles should be getting more carries than him.
  11. SSOG,I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on Blount now that he has shown he can catch the ball. I know it's only pre-season, but it is hard to ignore that he has worked on his catching ability and he did put up good numbers once given the chance last season. Does he warrant a big upgrade in your mind yet or is he still a wait and see type guy? Big back with alot of power behind him, I think, from your rankings, he is a bit low. I'd like your thought process on him especially after his 3rd preseason game.

    I'm open to the possibility that I've got Blount way too low, but my impression from him last season is that he's not out of place starting at RB for an NFL franchise... but he's also not the kind of guy who's going to take the job, grab it with two hands, and lock it up for years. Right now, he's the incumbent, and life is good... but I think there's a good chance he gets primaried at some point. The question then becomes whether he produces enough value in the meantime to warrant rating him higher... and I don't see Tampa Bay as a very explosive fantasy offense for RBs.I'll put a question to you: do you think that Blount is more talented than any of the RBs I have ranked ahead of him? If so, which?
  12. What are people doing with Carson Palmer in dynasty leagues? I can't see him being gone for good but is he worth keeping over say a (non Newton) rookie from this year's draft class?

    I had him ranked 21st... *BEFORE* he announced his retirement. He has not been the same QB since his injuries. His arm is shot and has worn down through the course of the year in every recent season. I was bearish on his ability to ever produce as a starter-caliber fantasy QB again. Even if he fails to retire and winds up on another team, those concerns aren't going to magically go away. Carson Palmer's name carries a lot of cachet in dynasty leagues because of how he looked early in his career (people thought he was going to be the next Peyton Manning, at one point), but the truth is that Carson Palmer hasn't been Carson Palmer in years, and it looks unlikely that he ever would be. He's David Garrard with a premium brand name.
  13. Me (via PM): I'd be willing to give you MJD + something for Foster, or DeAngelo + Roddy White for Foster, but there's no way you'll get both MJD and Roddy White for Foster.

    Him (via PM): I saw in your last PM that you said you'd give me DeAngelo + Roddy White for Arian Foster. That's an interesting proposal, but would you be willing to upgrade DeAngelo to MJD and give me MJD + White for Foster?

    Me: *facepalm*

    I don't mind people who make bad offers. I just mind people who do not listen to what I am saying during trade negotiations. There's an excuse for the former (maybe they have completely different valuations, maybe they suck at making trade proposals, or maybe they're just chumming the waters with crappy trades to try to fleece the ignorant), but there is no excuse whatsoever for the latter.

  14. My rankings are more or less set (call it 95%- just needing a few cosmetic changes). For some reason the link in my sig goes to a cached version of the website- if you type the url into your browser bar (www.dynastyrankings.net), you should get to the updated site. Or, if you click any of the individual position pages, you should get the updated rankings.

    SSOG, I see you dropped Delone Carter down a tier. Why is this? He seems to me to be a player on the rise. He's ascended the depth chart according to some sources and has looked good. He's the only back on that roster capable of carrying a heavy load. Donald Brown is a bust and Joseph Addai is nothing special. Should he falter, I think Carter steps into the role as RB-Indy. And that's a nice place to be. I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for dropping him behind Brown in your rankings.
    You're looking at Jason's rankings, not mine. At the top of the page (underneath the picture of Chris Johnson) there are a pair of radio buttons that you can use to switch back and forth between Jason's and mine. I've got Carter at 35 and Brown at 54.

    If you could slot Matt Flynn into this season's rookie QB crop, where would he fit? I have it like this so far.NewtonGabbertLockerFlynnPonderDaltonMallettFlynn is going to get his shot next season somewhere. He could start right now for a few teams (Miami, Cincy, San Fran, Seattle, etc.)

    I've got him behind all of them, though I didn't know he was a free agent after this season. That'll jump him over Mallett, but I'm not sure if it'll get him ahead of any of the 1st rounders. 1st round QBs become 1st round QBs for a reason, even if I don't understand or agree. The other advantage 1st round QBs have is that some team has committed a tremendous amount of resources to them and has a major vested interest in seeing them succeed. Flynn might get that next year, but his best case scenario (in terms of commitment) is that he gets what those other 5 guys already have.
  15. My rankings are more or less set (call it 95%- just needing a few cosmetic changes). For some reason the link in my sig goes to a cached version of the website- if you type the url into your browser bar (www.dynastyrankings.net), you should get to the updated site. Or, if you click any of the individual position pages, you should get the updated rankings.

  16. This is only my 2nd year in a dynasty league, so my first rookie draft is a few days away.I hear lots of talk about always taking the "best player available" in a rookie draft andignore positional need. Do the experienced dynasty folks here agree with this?Not to make this an Assistant Coach thread but as an example... :)Even though I reeeeeally want to go RB at my 1.05 pick (assuming Ingram, Green, Jones and Thomas are taken),it looks like Little is going to be there and seems consistently ranked above the next tier of RBs(Carter, Hunter, Helu, etc etc).For experienced dynasty owners, is it a no-brainer, slam dunk to always draft the player you rank higher,regardless of team need? (assuming the need isn't dire).thoughts?

    I'm definitely a proponent of ignoring positional need. In one league this year, my strength coming into the draft was at WR (using my own rankings, I had a top-5 WR, a top-10 WR, and two more top-24 WRs), while I had absolutely no depth at all at RB (JStew is my top backup, which obviously is sub-optimal when looking at the coming season). I also had 3 1sts in this year's draft. With those three picks, I took A.J. Green, Greg Little, and Randall Cobb. I also spent my 1st rounder last year on a WR (Demaryius), giving me a glut of young talent at the position. I still need an RB, but as I'm fond of saying, a dynasty owner's biggest goal should simply be accumulating talent and letting things work themselves out, and Green/Little/Cobb were far and away the top talents left on the board when I was picking. Don't be the guy who drafts Roy Helu Jr. over Greg Little.You have to remember that in dynasty leagues, trades are far and away the best means of filling holes in your roster (with an abbreviated draft and a lack of immediate contributors, you can't count on the draft to shore up needs). With that in mind, you want to stockpile talented players to maximize your trading chips.Now, it's not like there's absolutely no flexibility. If I have Ingram and Green valued pretty similar (and I do), then I might let team needs dictate which one I take. Players can be shuffled up and down within tiers based on outside considerations, but I make it a rule to never, ever, ever draft a player from a lower tier when there's a player from a higher tier still on the board. In other words, minor talent differences can be overlooked, but tier breaks are sacrosanct. Greg Little is a much, much, much better player than Roy Helu, Jr. The fact that Helu plays at a more valuable position and has a clearer path to immediate production is irrelevant. Besides, in my experience, all the opportunity in the world can't make a mediocre back into a stud- just ask Brandon Jackson.
  17. Apropos of nothing, a thought occurred to me today. You know who Flacco/Boldin/Evans kind of reminds me of? The 2006 Cowboys. You've got the young gunslinger QB (26 year old Tony Romo, who averaged 8.6 ypa). You've got two WRs on the wrong side of 30, one of whom is perhaps the most physical after-the-catch threat in the league (33 year old Terrell Owens), the other of whom is an underrated deep threat who has yet to lose a step (32 year old Terry Glenn). Please don't confuse any of this with anything remotely resembling "analysis" or "prediction", it was just an interesting comparison that struck me this morning. I actually think there's a pretty solid chance of Evans having a Glenn/Galloway type final chapter to his career, although as you all know I'm ever the optimist when it comes to Evans.

    I think "ever the masochist" would be more apt. I am sorry, but I can't take Evans seriously any longer - for years we heard that this is an elite talent but doesn't produce because he doesn't have a QB who can get the ball to him and/or there is no WR #2 to draw attention from defenses to keep him from getting double teamed.

    Well, the Bills not only got a half-ways decent QB in Fitzpatrick, but also a capable #2 finally emerged in Stevie Johnson. And contrary to what we would have expected, Evans numbers not only didn't improve, but Johnson became the star receiving threat and enough of one to make Evans expendable. It is true Evans had injury issues, but I honestly don't think if he was completely healthy the results would have been that much different. If you want to continue to be the optimist, fine, but the Evans' glass sure looks half empty to me - I don't think Evans was ever as good as we thought he was.

    The problem with this analysis is it is sloppy.

    First, you call Fitzpatrick a "half-ways decent QB." In reality, he is in the bottom third. He was 27th in completion %;.21st in ypa; 22 in QB rating, smack dab between Alex Smith and Shaun Hill. So....for the past four years he has had crap at QB. Instead of the 31 or 32nd worst QB he had the 22nd. That's still awful.

    Second, Johnson hit it off with Fitzpatrick more than Evans. That's because Evans is a deep threat and Johnson is more of an over the middle possession WR.

    Bottom line is that Buffalo never had the personnel or the strategy to take advantage of Evan's strengths. Four years of half-ways decent" production doesn't prove that he isn't talented. How do you explain the two years he has had over 1000 yards and the one year that he was a top 10 receiver? Clearly he has talent but the team didn't know how to exploit it.

    The analogy with Glenn is perfect because nay sayers like you said the same thing about him. And he, like Evans, is a deep threat guy who needs a QB who can hit him on the deep patterns. Like Evans, he had had two great years interspersed with a lot of mediocre years. Then he went to a new team with an offense and QB who could use him properly, and he had two more 1000+ years. He also had gone 4 years since having had a decent year before the trade to Dallas, and he was 2 years older at the time of the trade.

    Mind-blowing Terry Glenn stat that will blow everyone's mind: Terry Glenn ranks in the top 30 in NFL history in receiving yards per game. Seriously- I'm not making that up.

    I really think Glenn and Galloway are very interesting comparisons to Evans. Both Glenn and Galloway really caused me to re-evaluate when speed guys start to lose a step in the NFL. Glenn and Galloway both posted the highest YPC of their careers at age 32, and they topped 15.0 YPC a combined 7 times at age 30 or older. Galloway averaged a ridiculous 17.8 YPC (2nd highest total of his career) at age 36- in what was one of the greatest age 36 seasons of all time. Bruce kept his speed for quite a while, too.

    I know maybe not relevant for Glenn in this case but I do want to point out that YPC isn't the best metric for fantasy success. There have been a lot of guys with high YPC who haven't been consistent enough to be fantasy viable. The reality is some guys are deep threats who have inflated YPC as a result. There are guys who simply cannot be anything more than the big play guy and there are guys whose YPC drop significantly when/if the become integral parts of the offense (and thus are asked to do more than just stretch the field).

    I would go into more detail / pull stats but on my iPad right now. Point is this isn't always the best metric. YPG sure. I'd have to look at the specifics of DVOA but I'm sure like anything else it has inherent biases too.

    I wasn't using ypc as a rough proxy for fantasy worth, I was using it as a rough proxy for speed. You expect speed guys to start losing a step at 30, but Glenn and Galloway held their speed for a while after 30.
  18. Apropos of nothing, a thought occurred to me today. You know who Flacco/Boldin/Evans kind of reminds me of? The 2006 Cowboys. You've got the young gunslinger QB (26 year old Tony Romo, who averaged 8.6 ypa). You've got two WRs on the wrong side of 30, one of whom is perhaps the most physical after-the-catch threat in the league (33 year old Terrell Owens), the other of whom is an underrated deep threat who has yet to lose a step (32 year old Terry Glenn). Please don't confuse any of this with anything remotely resembling "analysis" or "prediction", it was just an interesting comparison that struck me this morning. I actually think there's a pretty solid chance of Evans having a Glenn/Galloway type final chapter to his career, although as you all know I'm ever the optimist when it comes to Evans.

    I think "ever the masochist" would be more apt. I am sorry, but I can't take Evans seriously any longer - for years we heard that this is an elite talent but doesn't produce because he doesn't have a QB who can get the ball to him and/or there is no WR #2 to draw attention from defenses to keep him from getting double teamed.

    Well, the Bills not only got a half-ways decent QB in Fitzpatrick, but also a capable #2 finally emerged in Stevie Johnson. And contrary to what we would have expected, Evans numbers not only didn't improve, but Johnson became the star receiving threat and enough of one to make Evans expendable. It is true Evans had injury issues, but I honestly don't think if he was completely healthy the results would have been that much different. If you want to continue to be the optimist, fine, but the Evans' glass sure looks half empty to me - I don't think Evans was ever as good as we thought he was.

    The problem with this analysis is it is sloppy.

    First, you call Fitzpatrick a "half-ways decent QB." In reality, he is in the bottom third. He was 27th in completion %;.21st in ypa; 22 in QB rating, smack dab between Alex Smith and Shaun Hill. So....for the past four years he has had crap at QB. Instead of the 31 or 32nd worst QB he had the 22nd. That's still awful.

    Second, Johnson hit it off with Fitzpatrick more than Evans. That's because Evans is a deep threat and Johnson is more of an over the middle possession WR.

    Bottom line is that Buffalo never had the personnel or the strategy to take advantage of Evan's strengths. Four years of half-ways decent" production doesn't prove that he isn't talented. How do you explain the two years he has had over 1000 yards and the one year that he was a top 10 receiver? Clearly he has talent but the team didn't know how to exploit it.

    The analogy with Glenn is perfect because nay sayers like you said the same thing about him. And he, like Evans, is a deep threat guy who needs a QB who can hit him on the deep patterns. Like Evans, he had had two great years interspersed with a lot of mediocre years. Then he went to a new team with an offense and QB who could use him properly, and he had two more 1000+ years. He also had gone 4 years since having had a decent year before the trade to Dallas, and he was 2 years older at the time of the trade.

    Mind-blowing Terry Glenn stat that will blow everyone's mind: Terry Glenn ranks in the top 30 in NFL history in receiving yards per game. Seriously- I'm not making that up.

    I really think Glenn and Galloway are very interesting comparisons to Evans. Both Glenn and Galloway really caused me to re-evaluate when speed guys start to lose a step in the NFL. Glenn and Galloway both posted the highest YPC of their careers at age 32, and they topped 15.0 YPC a combined 7 times at age 30 or older. Galloway averaged a ridiculous 17.8 YPC (2nd highest total of his career) at age 36- in what was one of the greatest age 36 seasons of all time. Bruce kept his speed for quite a while, too.

    Also, there's some potential downside with Garcon, and that's AGon. Yeah, yeah, I'll give you a moment to stop laughing. But if AGon's injuries have been a result of variance rather than a predisposition to getting hurt, and if his injuries haven't sapped his talent, I think he could surpass Garcon on the depth chart. I seem to be the only person out there that hasn't written AGon off (only one FBG staffer even ranks him, Adam and F&L don't rank him either). But the potential effect on Garcon's production is something that's also taken into account. (And yes, I know he's currently nursing a gimpy hamstring. /sigh)

    Regarding F&L, I definitely wish Rotoworld would let him focus more on dynasty content. At least let him go 300 deep for dynasty rankings.

    I'm actually with you on The Other Tony Gonzalez. His absence from my rankings is more glitch in the system than deliberate- he got lost as I was restacking my board, and I didn't notice it. I'd already noticed he was gone (just yesterday I was planning on posting about Gonzalez being the forgotten man), and I plan on bumping him up in my next ranking update. Probably somewhere in the 50-60 range.
  19. Apropos of nothing, a thought occurred to me today. You know who Flacco/Boldin/Evans kind of reminds me of? The 2006 Cowboys. You've got the young gunslinger QB (26 year old Tony Romo, who averaged 8.6 ypa). You've got two WRs on the wrong side of 30, one of whom is perhaps the most physical after-the-catch threat in the league (33 year old Terrell Owens), the other of whom is an underrated deep threat who has yet to lose a step (32 year old Terry Glenn). Please don't confuse any of this with anything remotely resembling "analysis" or "prediction", it was just an interesting comparison that struck me this morning. I actually think there's a pretty solid chance of Evans having a Glenn/Galloway type final chapter to his career, although as you all know I'm ever the optimist when it comes to Evans.

  20. we all wanted to see Stewart and D-Will on different teams, but you also have to realize D-Will has as little wear as a 28 year old RB could. Its not like they rode him hard and into the ground the way Portis, S-Jax, etc. were going into their late 20s. I think DeAngelo has AT LEAST 3 peak years left, at least. So I don't think they blew their money signing him, he has a lot of great football left. They just blew our chances to see Stewart be at top 5 RB. :cry:

    The concept of "mileage" is largely a myth. Repetitive injuries will wear an RB down in a hurry, but there's very little evidence that workload alone (or the lack thereof) is a meaningful predictor of quality carries remaining. In fact, by many measures, there's a slightly negative effect- controlling for production, RBs who have had more carries prior to year N tend to have more carries after year N, as well.

    I kind of agree. I think I've got both QBs lower than most (QB5 for Peyton, QB8 for Brady). I often feel an urge to rank them slightly lower still, but so far I've been able to resist it.

    Brady at QB8 is a dynasty steal.
    Possibly. As I've pointed out, though, there's only a 2-point difference between QB4 and QB8. And Brady is substantially older than any other top-10 QB except for Manning and, to a lesser extent, Brees. That doesn't just matter for performance (which could possibly give out at any time), it also matters a lot for exit value (which is a key component I use when determining value ranks). Even if Brady continues to produce, his value is certain to start declining in coming seasons. A single injury or bad season could send him plummeting through the floor in a way that guys like Rodgers or Roethlisberger don't really have to worry about.

    Where are we with Garcon? He seems to be kind of forgotten about, and his situation is sort of interesting:Aging Manning, Wayne, Clark - All still have time left, thoughCollie has all kind of problemsGarcon entering his 4th year, which has proven of recent to be a year that these small school guys break out (VJax, Austin)SSOG and the other guy on DR.net (BTW, what is his screen name here?) Have him low. Way too low, IMO (I wanna say ~WR43) The only recent ranking F and L has is a top 200 at Rotoworld in which Garcon is, IIRC, in his top 30 WRs which seems more plausible to me.What do you guys think of the guy at this point?

    Liked Garcon a lot going into last season. Soured on him quite a bit last year. Too inconsistent, mediocre-or-worse hands. Totally outshone by Collie. I wouldn't move him up even a single slot, since Benn and Sanders both have better pedigree, better track records (i.e. fewer strikes against them in my mind), and both play with quality QBs. Besides, the "Manning bump" given to Indy WRs is starting to get phased out of my rankings as Manning continues to age (bringing us one year closer to the time when Indy receivers are catching the ball from guys like Curtis Painter, instead).
  21. Also, I get the DeAngelo signing. It pisses me off, but I get it. Do you think Steven Jackson played a role in the development of Sam Bradford? People talk about getting a young QB a good safety valve, but what better safety valve than an elite RB to keep defenses honest? I think Stewart is elite, too, but both DeAngelo and Stewart have injury histories. If your goal is to use resources as efficiently as possible to maximize wins, then spending that much on an aging back when you already have Stewart on the roster is insane. If your goal is to spend whatever it takes to maximize your franchise QB's development, then I don't think it's a bad idea to devote a huge chunk of your cap space to ensure that your franchise QB will always have an elite partner in the backfield keeping his jersey clean and keeping defenses from teeing up on him.

    After all, remember what happened to David Carr when the Texans just rolled him out there his rookie season? He got killed, and it was obvious for the rest of his career that his mental timer was two ticks too fast. I don't know if he would have developed into a good QB if he'd gone to a quality organization like the Steelers (who put on a clinic on how to develop rookie QBs when they surrounded Ben in bubble wrap and let him hand off on 2/3s of the plays). I do think that he almost certainly would have turned out far better.

    Don't think of Williams as an 8-figure old RB, think of him as an 8-figure insurance policy on Carolina's single biggest investment in franchise history.

    But yeah, as an owner of both Stewart and Williams, it pisses me off to no end.

  22. Have Brady/Manning become trap players in a startup dynasty? It's hard not to rank them fairly high, it's hard to not want to take them over less proven players but it's also hard to build a team that support their draft position. If your taking a balanced approach or building a team to peak in years 2, 3, or 4, are you taking too much of a risk that you will be replacement shopping right when your team is peaking. So unless your building a team to be at it's peak in year one and two, do they even makes sense assuming you have to spend a reasonable high pick?

    I am one who likes to draft for the long haul. However, I expect to be a serious contender in year 2 at the latest and possibly year 1 if things work out well. There is no reason whatsoever to think you can't win AND build a strong younger core by year 2. Waiting until the 3rd year is too long...and this opinion is from someone that builds around a strong young core.

    That being said, I would have no worries taking either Brady or Manning early in a draft. They have a solid 3-4 elite years. If you use the 3 years as a benchmark, it gives you plenty of time to have a replacement lined up. Also, if you draft well and have some solid younger players, you can always trade for a QB if need be.

    I like to draft with the intent of having a strong contender in year 2 and not worrying about year 1. But overdoing the draft in favor of younger players can cost you in terms of value.

    I don't think the bolded is necessarily true, the key word being "elite". I would not draft either of them at their likely draft position in a startup dynasty.
    I kind of agree. I think I've got both QBs lower than most (QB5 for Peyton, QB8 for Brady). I often feel an urge to rank them slightly lower still, but so far I've been able to resist it.

    I'm in a start 2QB league where I've built a pretty tough squad. I had Ryan Fitzpatrick as my QB4 to go along with Rivers, Peyton, and Romo. So I didn't really need him. I offered him out to about 5 different owners. I didn't expect any takers. 5 minutes went by and somebody actually gave me DeAngelo Williams for him.

    I know the 2QB thing really tilts things but I feel I got the better of this deal (I also own Stewart).

    How many years does DeAngelo have left? Also, in this league I have the 1,2, and 5 picks and I am seriously considering Cam Newton with the 2 or 5. Is this advisable? I have a lot of Chargers, but that situation is a lot different than having a lot of Panthers.

    I got DeAngelo last year for Tomlinson and Law Firm after he went on IR (the owner was desperate for short-term RB help).

    At DR.net you have Jonathan Stewart ranked # 11 for running backs. Was that decided before or after the DWill extension that made him the highest paid veteran running back in football? I'm just curious because I like JStew but he is hurt again and behind DWill. Thanks.

    After. Here's the comment from the rankings: "I had Stewart ranked several slots higher under the assumption that he'd move up if Williams left, and down if Williams remained. Williams remained, so Stewart moves down. Still, he's so much better than any of the guys below him that it's hard to move him down much further. I might grit my teeth at the wait, but I hold Stewart because I firmly believe he'll prove himself worth it."

    I'm probably going to move Matthews ahead of him in the next update, dropping Stewart to 12. Below that, though? Not going to happen. Stewart is too good and too young, even if I will have to wait a year or two to receive any payoff.

    I traded for Jon Stewart before last year, after I was infected with SSOG's man crush for him. The past two years, Stewart was inflated by the belief that once he got the starting job he would still only be 24 years old and would have 4 good seasons left. Now, if all contracts run to completion, he won't have a chance to leave for another two years, putting him in a starting role when he is 26. He is basically Michael Turner circa 2006. 11 is much too high for him now and can only be justified if you think that Stewart will beat out DeAngelo this coming year. Turner is 29 now and has given owners two great years, but his dynasty value is low.

    Funny, I don't think Stewart will beat out DeAngelo this coming year... and yet I still manage to justify a #11 ranking.

    Look, if you can find any old dynasty rankings, go back a few years and look at the names in the 11-15 range. 80% of the guys are going to make you shake your head because you'd forgotten they were ever ranked that high. Kevin Smith once fell in that range. Marshawn Lynch did, too. Beanie Wells and Knowshon Moreno were there just last year. I've seen Grant and Benson there in recent years. Sure, one out of five of the guys wind up being guys like Chris Johnson or Jamaal Charles- guys who rocket up into the top 5- but most 11-15 range guys are mediocre backs who are just taking up space while we wait for them to fall off the map and for the next young thing to take their place. People think that RB11-15 is such a valuable range, but it's really not. It's a crapshoot, and one that it unnaturally likely to come up snake eyes. Of the guys who I currently have in that range, Stewart is far and away the one who I think is most likely to make that jump into the top 5. Yes, he has a lot of warts- the injury history, the delayed payoff, possibly the age- but everyone in that area has warts. Jonathan Stewart's biggest strength is that one of his warts is not "mediocre talent".

×
  • Create New...