Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

SSOG

Staff
  • Posts

    12,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. I am interested to hear how you come to this opinion. It seems off to me, because:1. The Chargers lost the games in which Rivers had to throw above his career average. 2. The special teams unit put the Chargers in bad positions, again and again. The offense was not only on the field more, but playing from behind more. This is being addressed by the team.3. The Chargers running game should be better. They have more options, and more diversity in their options. All of these things brings me to believe his ATT are coming back down to earth - bringing his totals down with them.I have heard the theory that and thought that "Rivers did X without Gates and Jackson; imagine what he will do with them." This logic is faulty, to me. Defenses have to adjust to the weapons on the field. Bring Gates and Jackson into an offense that didn't feature them, and defenses are more inclined to play softer on the running game.

    1. Correlation vs. Causation. Rivers was throwing because the Chargers were losing, the Chargers weren't losing because Rivers was throwing. The fact is that Rivers' throwing was the only thing keeping them in a lot of those games. In 2008, SD averaged 447 points and 5673 yards. In 2010, San Diego put up 441 points and 6329 yards, despite a much weaker offensive cast (no Tomlinson, no VJax, Gates injured, Floyd injured, Matthews injured, Naanee injured, Crayton injured) and much worse field position. They're a better offensive team when Rivers throws the ball. Moreover, I don't know if you can expect them to squeeze out that many more wins- they've won 9 or fewer in two of the last three seasons.2 and 3. Maybe, although in theory, the Denver Broncos defense is being addressed by the team, but it doesn't seem to be getting much better. Just because a team wants to do something doesn't mean they'll succeed. Fact is, the three most talented offensive players on the team are Rivers, Gates, and Jackson. The offense scores the most points and puts up the most yards when going through the air. The team has a history of choking and can't be counted on to win double-digit games. My money is on Rivers finishing closer to his 2010 attempts total than his 2009 attempts total. Especially because the team totals aren't that different- as a team, San Diego passed 519 times in 2009 vs. 544 in 2010. The big difference in Rivers' stats was due to him sitting out week 17. I don't expect San Diego to have clinched anything, which just makes it that much more likely that Rivers finishes in the 520-540 range.As for your final paragraph... yes, defenses play the run softer, but you've got two conflicting factors in play. One is a dramatic and direct strengthening of the passing game based on the addition of a hugely talented player. The other is a slight and indirect strengthening of the running game due to defensive schemes changing to account for the first point. Looking at it that way, the first factor is significantly stronger, so the addition can be expected to have a more positive impact on the passing game than the running game. Or, looking at it this way- if Larry Fitzgerald becomes a free agent next year and some team gives him a $60 million contract, do you think that signing will do more to improve the team's passing game, or running game? Because my money is on the passing game...
  2. With all due respect, I think you are probably at least 20 targets too high.First off, if we hold to past patterns before last year, there is a good chance that VJax may not play much in week 17, since I think the Chargers stand a great chance of having locked up the division before the last game. So we should probably talk more in terms of targets per game.VJax finished as WR12 (FBG scoring) in 2008 and WR10 (FBG scoring) in 2009, despite getting just 101 and 107 targets, respectively. He sat out week 17 in 2009, and he sat out the second half of week 17 in 2008. So his averages in those years were 6.5 targets per game in 2008 and 7.1 targets per game in 2009.The Chargers have more quality receiving targets now than they did in 2008 and 2009, and thus more competition for targets. Floyd and Gates are the same players, unless you are assuming they won't stay healthy. More importantly, Crayton, Ajirotutu, Washington, and Brown are much better WR3+ targets. Sproles is gone, but I expect the RB targets to be similar to past seasons.I haven't done a detailed breakdown yet, but I think more than 120 targets is too many to project.

    1. The last two seasons VJax played, Rivers had 478 and 486 attempts. Last year, he had 540. I expect his total this year to be closer to his total last year than his totals in '08 and '09.2. I think the idea that the RBs will get a similar proportion of targets is off base. Last year, Sproles got 75 targets and all other RBs got 79 combined. The other RBs might pick up some of Sproles' targets, but they aren't going to double their target totals.3. I'm not convinced that Crayton/Ajirotutu/Washington are better than Chambers or Naanee. We'll see.4. Jackson's been getting better as a WR... and more importantly, the team is paying him 8 figures to retain his services for a single season.5. You know I'm not a fan of projecting injuries, but at the same time, clearly Gates is a heightened risk to miss time. The guy is already beat up.A combination of all those factors- 60 extra pass attempts, 30-60 fewer targets going to RBs, Jackson playing more of a featured role- as well as a natural progression (Jackson had 101 targets in '08, was on pace for 115 in '09) should lead to a solid uptick in targets for Jackson. I view 120 as a pessimistic floor and 140 as a reasonable target.As for the resting starters during week 17 argument... few leagues are still playing in week 17. Besides, I'm pretty sure if you look up "putting the cart before the horse" on Wikipedia, the example they'd use would be expecting San Diego to have clinched anything by week 17. This is the team that has finished 9-7 and 8-8 in two of the last three seasons, coming off of three straight slow starts, playing for a head coach who is famous for underachieving in the regular season. They weren't even a playoff team last year. Expecting them to have clinched anything- the division, a bye, HFA- by week 17 is a bit daffy. Let's start with a winning record in the month of September.ETA: I'm sure you know this by now, but I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I'm sorry if my tone comes off as douchey. I enjoy the spirited back-and-forth. Just figured I should add that disclaimer in at the end since we're all gearing up for a new season.
  3. Rankings are live. Link is in my sig.

    I just don't understand your Jonathan Stewart ranking. By my count he's only the 6th most productive running back of his own class (2008). I realize you can take a long view here, but how long can you wait on a guy? A running back is a position that doesn't tend to get better with age. He's not shown the ability to ascend the depth chart. I realize DeAngelo is a very good player, but he's not a hall of famer by any stretch. When he's healthy, Stewart is an afterthought. He never practices. He's always dinged and he just hasn't matched the production of his fellow classmates.
    First off, all of my rankings are forward-looking. Yes, I've been waiting a long time, but at this point, that's a sunk cost. Two years ago, I had him ranked borderline top-10 with the expectation that he'd get the job in 2 years. I was wrong, but now I'm in the exact same situation- I expect he'll get the job in 2 years, so I have him ranked borderline top 10. The fact that I was wrong two years ago and will now have been waiting for 4 years is nothing more than emotional baggage which has no place in a purportedly objective ranking.

    Second off, you are radically underrating DeAngelo Williams. Go look up a complete list of RBs who have averaged 5.0+ ypc in three straight seasons. I've got three- Faulk, Brown, and Williams. Only one RB since 1975 has a higher career YPC than Williams (Jamaal Charles, for those curious). Stewart hasn't been sitting on the bench behind a pretty good RB, or behind an RB who's been playing pretty well- he's been sitting on the bench behind an amazing RB who has been playing lights out.

    Third off, it's ridiculous to say that Stewart is an afterthought when Williams was healthy. Jonathan Stewart finished 24th in 2008, a season in which Williams never missed a game. And even if Stewart really was an afterthought when Williams was healthy, he's enough of a stud when Williams is hurt to make up for it. Arian Foster got a lot of buzz after week 1 last season because he needed 109 yards rushing in week 2 to set the record for most rushing yards in a player's first three starts. He fell short. I bring this up because the guy who owned the record that Foster was trying to break was none other than Jonathan Stewart, who in his first 3 career starts went for 26/120/1, 28/206/1, and 16/125/1. And that's despite the fact that, as you correctly pointed out, he never practiced and he was always dinged.

    Fourth, so what if he hasn't matched the production of his classmates? Let's look at his classmates who have produced more than him. There's Chris Johnson, who I have ranked higher. There's Jamaal Charles, who I have ranked higher. There's Ray Rice, who I have ranked higher. There's Rashard Mendenhall, who I have ranked higher. Yeah, Stewart hasn't produced as much as these guys... but why on earth does that matter, since I have these guys ranked over Stewart? Forte has outproduced Stewart, but Forte is ranked within 2 spots of Stewart, and I've given an explanation for that ranking already. Meanwhile, though, I don't hear you complaining about Darren McFadden's ranking, despite the fact that he has less production even than Jonathan Stewart and is ranked even higher.

    Stewart is a 24 year old stud. I'm going to have to sit on him, but I've demonstrated that I'm not going to downgrade a player too much just because I have to wait to get returns- look what I did with Vincent Jackson last year. Think of it this way- if you had a chance to get DeAngelo Williams as a rookie, knowing what you know now (that you'd have to wait 2 years and he wouldn't see the field until he was 25 or 26, but when he did he'd be a stud), how would you have valued him? The 10-15 range among RBs is always a dangerous range- guys in that area have a habit of falling off the face of the planet in a HURRY (recent years have seen Beanie Wells, Knowshon Moreno, and Marshawn Lynch all occupying that range). I personally think that's a very appropriate place to rank a guy like Jonathan Stewart, who has plenty of negatives... but none relating to his talent.

    SSOG - looks like you've still got a hard on for VJax.....

    Why on earth would you expect otherwise? What's changed between 6 months ago (when I had a hard-on for VJax) and today (when I still have a hard-on for VJax), other than that we know he's going to be playing a full season and his QB situation turned out a lot better than many expected it to?

    For you and others I have seen post something similar, how many targets do you expect him to get? Are you assuming a lot more than he got in 2008 and 2009? Are you assuming Gates misses time? I think VJax will be good, just not sure why there would suddenly be an improvement over his past performance.

    I'm banking on 140 targets. I know the Chargers have a history of franchising guys and then barely using them (Sproles), but despite that, I think the fact that they're giving Jackson 8 figures this year definitely suggests they're planning on using him a bit more than in the past. I'm not expecting 160 targets because Norv Turner is Norv Turner, but I think 140 is definitely reasonable.

    Where is all this vast talent though? He's never been able to even start over DWilly. Goodson looked just as good last season. I'm not sure he's anything special at all.

    24th place finish as a true backup, 11th place finish despite being a true backup for 13 games, NFL record for most rushing yards in first 3 starts, 4.7 career ypc (from a big, punishing bruiser rather than a small speed back like Charles or Johnson), and the filthiest stiff arm in the entire NFL (check out the highlights, you'll see it repeatedly). Besides, if you really want to play the "he can't even start over ______" card (which is a monumentally stupid card to play), then not being able to start over DeAngelo Williams is a hell of a lot less damning than not being able to start over THOMAS FREAKING JONES, yet I don't hear you complaining about me having Charles ranked a hell of a lot higher than 11th. DeAngelo Williams is a better RB than Fred Taylor, and yet few people had a problem with me ranking Maurice Jones-Drew in the top 10.

    DeAngelo has been in the league five years and had one great season, one pretty good season and three ho-hum seasons. If Stewart is as talented as he's made out to be he should have no trouble earning an equal or greater share of the job than Williams.

    I'm one that bought into Stewart but I'm wondering if it's time to sell if I can find an owner that still loves him and will pay for him.

    DeAngelo has been a starter for 3 years. His per-game averages during that span are 97.9/0.8, which pro-rates to 1566/13 per 16 games. He averages 5.0 career ypc, which is the second highest total since 1975, ahead of Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson, Priest Holmes, and Barry Sanders. Just FYI.

    I know it's trendy to disagree with people's rankings when they don't conform. That's the beauty of this game is that there are always going to be people that like players better than others.

    That said, your ranking of Mario Manningham is mind-boggling. #52?

    I already started a thread about how underrated he is even ranked in the 30's. 52 simply doesn't make sense. In a nutshell, he's finished WR19 and WR30 in ppr the last 2 years. He fared even better at WR17 last year in non-ppr. He is in line for an INCREASED role as the clear #2 starter in NY (only started 8 games last year). And compared to Nicks, whom you have at WR6, Mario has a higher catch %, a higher YPR, and a higher TD rate than Nicks. The ONLY reason his numbers were "slightly" lower than Nicks last year was the # of targets. He still finished the year with 60/944/9 while only starting 8 games. He's only 25.

    So there's got to be some reason for him to be ranked an amazingly low and irrelevant WR52. If he performs at the pace he did last year and gets just 20 more targets (which is almost a given), he'll finish with top 10 WR numbers. A guy with that kind of upside at WR52 and who has already easily outperformed that ranking in 2 of his 3 yrs in the league just goes against any kind of logic.

    Is he at risk to miss time? Has he completely outperformed his talent level and the last 2 years of production don't really jive with what he'll do in the future? Is there someone that is a serious threat to take his position? Will his 90 targets go down?

    These rankings are still in the Beta stage. Someone already mentioned Manningham at DR.net, and he'll be coming up with the first update.
  4. My rankings are done and submitted. They're just waiting for final approval before they go live. In the meantime, the rankings on DR.net belong to Jason Kirsner, so make sure you address your insults to the proper ranking authority. ;)

    Also, in case any sharp-eyed owner notices that Freeman is missing from my QB list, I was experiencing some technical difficulties. He's supposed to be ranked 12th between Schaub and Cutler.

  5. D'oh. Just noticed you already posted them. Looks like no Hester love yet.

    FWIW, those are Jason Kirsner's rankings not SSOG's. Hester has to be top 20 in SSOG's rankings. J/K.
    Yeah, Jason is jumping into the rankings game this year, too. As soon as I finish up my rankings, mine will be the default and Jason's will be accessible by drop-down.I've already finished QB and TE rankings, so I just have to knock out RB and WRs. After that, I'll let Jason know, and my rankings will be live by tonight or tomorrow.I've essentially been in Siberia, so I'm looking forward to you all looking over my rankings and eviscerating them, making sure I'm ranking a player based on my own (off-the-wall) opinions about him rather than based on a lack of information.
  6. I have Nicks 10th on an all-position cheat sheet.

    Is there a good source of dynasty ratings out there this year? I'll admit to being more of a tuna than a shark, so sites like the Tundra blog or the DynastyRankings.net site were really helpful to me in determining the long-term value of players I was interested in for my keeper league.
    I'll be dusting off DR.net and getting things rolling over there pretty soon. I've got a lot of catching up to do, first; after a kerfuffle with Comcast, I took advantage of the NFL lockout to let my internet connection lapse, so I'm desperately behind on most of the news from this past offseason.
  7. Regarding Ray Rice, you think people would have learned their lesson from MJD. Jones-Drew had a slow start to the season and all the haters started coming out of the woodwork... and then over the 6 weeks coming into this week, MJD went out and averaged 154 yards from scrimmage. You can get a back like that down, but it's never forever. They're simply too talented.

    What top 15 running back does your statement NOT apply to?

    And what does "too talented" mean? More talented than the players producing more than him, who have also had big games? More talented than Peyton Hillis (why?), more talented than Michael Turner (why?), McCoy or Moreno? My point being, what value does the term "too talented" have, when there are 15 other players worthy of the title?

    Lastly, what does MJD's recent production have to do with Ray Rice? They are different players; Jones-Drew having a longer, more productive (Non-PPR) track record. Suggesting that one of Rice's seasons (one good, one great) is more indicative of his production moving forward than the other, is not the same as questioning MJD, who has yet to have a single digit TD season and gets the goal line carries in his offense.

    "Too talented" means "possessing such an overabundance of talent that...". Ray Rice is "too talented" to struggle for long. He has such an overabundance of talent that a string of bad games should not be taken as a positive predictor of the future.

    Is Rice more talented than the players producing more than him? Yes. Is he more talented than Hillis? Yes. More talented that Turner? Yes. More talented than McCoy or Moreno? Yes and hell yes. WHY is he more talented? I don't know, a fluke of genetics? HOW is he more talented? That's a good question. I don't really know, exactly, and I'm not going to pretend to. If you've read "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, you're familiar with a study on how humans are capable of making very accurate intuitive leaps utilizing their subconscious, but if they try to explain those leaps in terms their conscious understands, they lose all of the insight that they'd gained. In other words, if you showed me film of two players and said "which is better?", I'd be able to identify the better player at a fantastic clip. If you instead showed me film of two players and then gave me a scorecard and asked me to grade those players on 10 points (hip fluidity, burst, acceleration, vision, balance, etc) and then use those scorecards to determine which player was better, I'd essentially only have a 50% chance of identifying the better player.

    I think too much emphasis is based on conscious reasoning. The subconscious is much, much better at processing and weighting dozens of variables at once to reach a unified evaluation. In other words, while I may not be able to express the reasons for my opinion nearly as well as someone like Waldaman or EBF, I still stand fully behind my opinion. I've watched Ray Rice, Peyton Hillis, and Knowshon Moreno... and Rice is far and away the best player of the three.

    As for what MJD's production has to do with Rice... MJD and Rice were essentially the #3 and #4 players in dynasty coming into this year. MJD performed like an average RB2, everyone wrote him off, and then he exploded and reminded people how silly they were for writing him off. Ray Rice has performed like an average RB2, and people are writing him off. It's true that MJD has a longer history of production, but at the same time, it's not particularly relevant because people had seen enough from Rice after last year to judge him equivalent to MJD despite his shorter history of production. The point I'm getting at is that it's stupid to substantially drop someone you thought was a top 5 RB based solely on good-but-not-great production.

    :popcorn:

    I love it, Rice has a big game and then everyone says, "see, i told you Rice was elite". I never doubted Rice was a talented player when i brought his name up in this thread. I simply stated he might not be as good as his last years numbers suggested, and he doesnt belong in the top tier. I still think he is a top 10 RB(in talent and dynasty rankings), but he is averaging 4 yards per carry and hasnt scored more than 7 TD's in a season. He is the #12 RB in my dynasty leagues(non-ppr), and has needed 325 touches to get there. That wouldnt be a problem except i doubt he sees 350+ touches every year.

    You think I'm a bandwagoner who is only saying good things about Rice because he just had a monster game? I've been saying good things about Ray Rice every single week, when I've submitted my dynasty ranking updates. Rice has never been ranked lower than 4th in my rankings. I'm just saying, this week's game is the perfect example of why Ray Rice remains in my top 4 despite lackluster production.
  8. Regarding Ray Rice, you think people would have learned their lesson from MJD. Jones-Drew had a slow start to the season and all the haters started coming out of the woodwork... and then over the 6 weeks coming into this week, MJD went out and averaged 154 yards from scrimmage. You can get a back like that down, but it's never forever. They're simply too talented.

  9. Thanks. It's still a false dilemma, though. I looked at a lot of dynasty rankings last August while I was compiling mine. I don't want to say that I read every single set of free rankings on the internet... but I don't think I was too far off. It's impossible now to go back and verify who had whom ranked where because nobody other than us offers ranking history (which is a huge, huge, huge oversight in my book- ranking history is vital for performing any analysis like the one we're trying to do right now), but I definitely recall that only one person had Arian Foster in his top 20 in August. I can't even recall anyone else who had Foster in their top 30 at that point. Even if someone following F&L's rankings took Spiller over Foster, Foster would still be around several rounds absolutely screaming value before any of the other rankings would start advocating drafting him. If I recall correctly, there wasn't a single FBGs staffer that had him even as high as their top 40. This isn't a case where we're giving F&L props because he had Foster a couple of slots higher than everyone else, we're giving him props for having Foster several rounds ahead of anyone else. And he was also way ahead of the curve after Foster's huge week 1, too- like I said, he was on twitter telling people to trade Frank Gore for Arian Foster straight up. That was back when everyone else was still convinced he was a talentless system back, while Gore was a top 5 dynasty RB.

    A hypothetical situation can't be a false dilemma, Commissoner Gordon. Based on the simple definition of the word hypothetical.
    Sure it can. It can be a hypothetical false dilemma. If your hypothetical situation says there are only two possible outcomes (wind up with Spiller or wind up with Foster), when in fact there are other possibilities (wind up with neither, wind up with both), then it's a false dilemma.
  10. He didn't say Chris Johnson. He said Cliff Spiller, Jr. If you drafted Cliff ahead of Foster in a startup draft your season has been full of :thumbup: :thumbup: :doh: instead of :goodposting:It's a legitimate point. Rankings should be done from the gut and not for politics. Which is what I account that ranking disparity to, mostly, given who was giving it and who is involved.

    I believe when Coop refers to "CJ" in the whole rankings deal, he is referring to CJ Spiller. Just to clarify

    Thanks. It's still a false dilemma, though. I looked at a lot of dynasty rankings last August while I was compiling mine. I don't want to say that I read every single set of free rankings on the internet... but I don't think I was too far off. It's impossible now to go back and verify who had whom ranked where because nobody other than us offers ranking history (which is a huge, huge, huge oversight in my book- ranking history is vital for performing any analysis like the one we're trying to do right now), but I definitely recall that only one person had Arian Foster in his top 20 in August. I can't even recall anyone else who had Foster in their top 30 at that point. Even if someone following F&L's rankings took Spiller over Foster, Foster would still be around several rounds absolutely screaming value before any of the other rankings would start advocating drafting him. If I recall correctly, there wasn't a single FBGs staffer that had him even as high as their top 40. This isn't a case where we're giving F&L props because he had Foster a couple of slots higher than everyone else, we're giving him props for having Foster several rounds ahead of anyone else. And he was also way ahead of the curve after Foster's huge week 1, too- like I said, he was on twitter telling people to trade Frank Gore for Arian Foster straight up. That was back when everyone else was still convinced he was a talentless system back, while Gore was a top 5 dynasty RB.Again, this is exactly like if someone said "hey, you should draft this guy with an 8th round ADP in the 4th round at the absolute latest!" and then people were getting on his case because he wasn't advocating taking him in the 1st round.I don't think that F&L walks on water or anything. I've had plenty of disagreements with him in the past, although it's true that we've tended to see eye to eye more often than not. Still, he's certainly had his share of misses. It's just that anyone who wants to suggest for the barest fraction of a millisecond that Arian Foster in any way, shape, or form belongs within 50 feet of his "misses" pile is way, way out of line. Arian Foster was a home freaking run. Period, full stop.

    Yes, I was. But not everyone appreciates my sense of humor.

    For what it's worth, I chuckled.
  11. Good to have you back. One of my favorite posters, as even when we don't agree, I have to think, which is a good thing.As for the Herm23/F&L comment, I won't go too much into it. I don't want to open that can of worms. I just don't think it is fair to say F&L "won leagues" by having Foster #19, below CJ Spiller and thay GD will never do the same. If we say F&L did, then Go Deep also won leagues by being high on Dewayne Bowe among others, you won leagues by having DMC higher than others, you won leagues by having Vick higher than others, and so on and so on. On the flip side, F&l could have easily cost people championships, if they took CJ over Foster, as his rankings would have suggested. Just trying to keep things realistic.

    Holy false dilemma, Batman! Nobody was ever sitting on the clock and thinking "man, should I draft Chris Johnson or Arian Foster?". That was never a legitimate choice. Drafting Chris Johnson did not preclude getting Arian Foster, because Arian Foster was never once drafted within 3 rounds of Chris Johnson last offseason.It'd be like if someone said "no matter what you do, be sure you draft Arian Foster in the 3rd round this year!" back when he had a 10th round ADP, and now you're coming into this thread and saying "that was a terrible call, you should have drafted him in the 1st, instead!"

    I think his added weight has really sapped some of his explosiveness. Sure you can argue that he's managed to stay healthy after bulking up (although not sure if that is the causation) - but he doesn't look like anything special to me anymore.

    Completely agreed. I don't know why Felix felt the need to bulk up. He was an incredibly valuable player last year, giving huge return on 8-10 carries a game. Now he's a nobody, a fungible asset, giving replacement-level return. Who cares if that replacement-level return is on a larger number of carries? Replacement-level production by definition isn't valuable.I don't hate Felix the NFL player, I only hate Felix the fantasy player. If I were running the Cowboys, I'd slim him back down and go back to what they were doing last season again.

    It was fairly obvious that both players numbers' were artifically inflated by the sheer volume of the number of pass attempts made under McDaniel. I still think Orton could be a decent QB1 going forward, but Llyod's carriage is about to turn back into the pumpkin it once was. This is my one concern with Foster - what if Kubiak gets canned and the next HC changes up their run blocking schemes. I'm not saying that Foster all of a sudden turns into a pumpkin, but I think he can disappoint those that draft him in the top 5 of a start-up. He is ceratinly talented though and can survive in a power blocking scheme, just don't see him being the No. 1 overall RB w/o the ZBS he's so well suited to perform in.

    They weren't being artificially inflated, though. Prior to his complete and utter collapse the last two weeks, Orton was 6th in the NFL in YPA (3rd among players with 200+ attempts). Yes, he was getting a lot of attempts, but he was being incredibly efficient and effective with them, too. Lloyd's getting a lot of targets, but it's hardly a Herculean total or anything, and he's been unbelievably efficient with his targets, too (he ranks 6th in DVOA and 1st in DYAR and has better stats across the board than Andre Johnson on fewer targets). They were not simply compiling counting stats, they were earning every attempt and every target.

    - The Pittsburgh offense suddenly looks like its stuck in mud. Both Ben and Mendenhall are just not getting it done. - Randy Moss is now practically worthless. Is it worth even trying to "buy low"?- While there's probably more "elite" QBs, then ever, has there ever been so many bad starting QBs in the league right now. What do teams like Carolina, Arizona, Miami, Minnesota, Seattle and San Francisco look to do next year? You've hit on most of them though.

    Nothing's wrong with Roethlisberger, imo. He's finished 8th, 8th, 18th, and 1st in DYAR over the past four weeks. Pittsburgh's defense is averaging 9 points per game allowed over the last month, while the offense is averaging 22.5 points per game. Outside of the overtime win against Buffalo, they haven't had a bad game in the last month. I don't think there's anything meaningfully predictive there, they've just had a few drives that normally might have been TDs that were instead FGs. I still think Pitt and NE are the class of the NFL right now.Moss is a good one. It's incredible what's happened to his value this season. I'm really, really glad I got off that train while the getting was good.Yeah, there have definitely been this many bad starting QBs before, it just doesn't seem like it because the QBs that are this bad are quickly forgotten. For instance, to pick a season completely at random, here is a list of some QBs that got more than 150 pass attempts back in 2005: Gus Frerotte, David Carr, Kyle Orton (epically bad rookie edition), Trent Dilfer, Joey Harrington, Chris Simms, Kyle Boller, Josh McCown, Brooks Bollinger, Anthony Wright, Kelly Holcomb, J.P. Losman, Daunte Culpepper, Mike McMahon, Jamie Martin, and Charlie Frye. That's 16 names.
  12. Rice is not only the biggest bust in fantasy football this season, he is the most overrated RB, imho. To compare him with a talent like Charles is absurd; if Charles was allowed to touch the ball as much as Rice does, he'd set some kind of NFL record for combined yardage (and score a lot more TDs).

    This is the key, though. Coaches are smart. The fact that Charles isn't allowed to touch the ball as much as Rice does means something.I'm a huge, huge, huge Jamaal Charles fan. He's been ranked in the top 10 of my rankings every single week since I launched my rankings (August 14th), so it's fair to say that I'm one of the "true believers". I think he's an incredible talent, and obviously I'm not worried about the touches. With that said, I still have Rice one spot above him. I think Rice's efficiency metrics this season have been an outlier, but I think his usage metrics this season have been right on the money.
  13. So... state of the thread since I last checked in. Jonathan Stewart is averaging 107 yards per game over his last 3 and has raised his rushing average on the season to 4.4 ypc (which tops Williams' 4.1 ypc in the same situation). Felix Jones finally topped 20 carries... but he only got 83 yards on them, and his season average has now dipped below 4.0 ypc. Arian Foster and Darren McFadden have continued to make those who questioned their talent look foolish. Lesean McCoy is having the quietest top-5 season by a 22 year old RB in dynasty history (seriously, I'm not saying that I'd take him that high, but why is NOBODY mentioning him as a possible #1 overall in startups next year? He's top 5. He's 22 years old. That was at least enough to get Rice in the conversation last year). MJD has been straight beastin' and reminding everybody that there are more elite backs in the league than just Foster, Johnson, and Peterson. Michael Vick has done a lot to silence anyone who questioned ranking him in the top 10 among dynasty QBs. Pat Bowlen might have demolished any value Orton and Lloyd were busy building. Steve Johnson has shown he's not quite ready for prime time. Vincent Jackson and Sidney Rice has given reminders why we shouldn't drop players' values just because they're going to miss a handful of games in the near future. Dwayne Bowe has followed up one of the best stretches by a WR in fantasy history with one of the worst stretches by a WR in fantasy history. Arrelious Benn finally put in a cameo appearance. Curious what everyone else thinks have been the biggest storylines of the past 3-4 weeks.

    Also, a couple of thoughts on a couple of conversations I missed:

    First off, to be honest, it's a little bit disconcerting to see Charles as a consensus top-5 dynasty RB right now. It seems like early in the season he was 15th or so in the consensus rankings, and then nobody really talked about him for a couple of months, and now everyone seems to have independently arrived at the opinion that he's a top 5 guy. It's not that I disagree with that opinion (I certainly don't), it's just that it really took me by surprise. He's not a guy who seemed to steadily rise through the year, he seems to have instantly jumped from "RB2" to "stud RB1" while skipping all steps in between. Sometimes the consensus can be weird like that.

    Just wanted to point out something to those of you that do dynasty rankings. Tom Brady is still elite.

    He's currently ranked 7th by F&L, 11th by SSOG, and 12th by Go Deep.

    Yet he's currently the #2 QB in my fantasy league.

    2009? Virtual 3 way tie for 6th with Romo and Rivers.

    2008? ACL

    2007? #1 by a mile.

    2006? #7

    2005? #2

    He's 33 (1.5 years younger than Manning), and there's little reason to doubt his productivity for the next 4+ years.

    :blackdot:

    A whole lot of people sold him short when Moss got traded.

    Absolutely, positively, 100% on the money. I was one of them. I feel like I have a blind spot to Tom Brady- historically, I've taken every opportunity to downgrade him. I've clearly got a cognitive bias against him, to the point where I've actually added a note in my rankings spreadsheet that essentially reads "wherever you've got him ranked, you're probably underrating him".

    Your statements are both subjective and hyperbolic - you have no idea how the information in this thread is being used, by whom, or to what extent. Telling someone that thier posts haven't or never will have the impact of another's is simply silly. Do you really think that having Arian Foster at 19 (lower than CJ Spiller) "won leagues"? He was a 24 year old runningback in a top offense whose only competition (for the year) was Steve Slaton. I think 19 was pretty safe. If F&L points out where GD said that people should trade Spiller for Foster, then couldn't others do the same to him, having Foster lower than Spiller in his rankings? After Foster's 42 point game, the line in the sand was clear: long term talent or short term sitiuation? F&L was right and should get credit. But lets not pretend that he being slightly ahead of the curve, "won leagues." There were a lot of threads and posts clamoring about Foster. I am not saying that Go Deep contributes any more or less than F&L.

    For the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with F&L calling out Go Deep. I don't even mind the manner in which he did, as we are all adults on the internet and shouldn't have to coddle anybody.

    People get way, way, way too hung up on absolute rankings. Absolutely rankings don't mean a thing. They are literally completely and absolutely meaningless. All that matters is RELATIVE rankings- where you have a player ranked relative to his peers, and where you have a player ranked relative to where everyone else has him ranked.

    For instance, let's say that I've got Darius Heyward-Bey ranked at 19th in my current rankings (I don't, but we're playing "let's pretend"). Now, let's also say that Darius Heyward-Bey averages 1800 yard and 16 scores over the next 5 seasons. I would say that my current hypothetical ranking of DHB wasn't just a home run, it was a grand slam. Hell, it was more than a grand slam- if there was such a thing as a 6-run homer, it would be that. Sure, DHB might have outperformed my ranking by a mile (and I mean by a literal mile- that's easily 1800+ yards more than I'd expect from the #19 ranked receiver)... but the point is that it doesn't matter, because I guarantee you that I was the DHB owner. If everyone else has a player ranked 60th, and I've got a player ranked 19th, I *GUARANTEE YOU* that that player is on my roster. I've got him ranked so much higher than everyone else that I'm guaranteed to be the beneficiary of any future production he might post.

    That's what's going on with F&L and Arian Foster. Has Foster outperformed F&L's ranking? Yeah, by a huge margin... but that doesn't matter. F&L had Arian Foster ranked SUBSTANTIALLY higher than anyone else had him ranked (of people who publish their rankings, I had him the second highest... and I had him at 28th). Most of the FBGs staff had him in the 40s. Anyone who had Foster ranked at 19th could have traded any of the RBs that were in the consensus 20-30 range for him. Those guys would now be riding him to a championship.

    At the end of the day, it's not a question of how high you are on a player, it's a question of how many people are higher on that player than you are. In F&L's case, when it came to Arian Foster, the answer is "none". I literally could not find a single person ANYWHERE who was more bullish on Arian Foster than F&L was. So you can keep trotting out that "but you only had him ranked 19th!" line all you want, because at the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything. F&L had Foster ranked higher than anyone else did, and F&L was right. And it wasn't just this preseason- F&L has been right every step of the way. He tweeted after week 1 that he'd trade Frank Gore for Arian Foster straight up, and he got a lot of grief over it (much of that grief came from me, by the way).

    Similarly, I like to claim guys like Michael Vick and Darren McFadden as successes for me- not because I ever said "Michael Vick and Darren McFadden are going to be top-10 players in VBD this season", but because I repeatedly said "everyone has both of these guys too low". Vick's a guy I've taken a lot of crap for through the season- I took crap for having him in the top 30 at the beginning of August when everyone was busy anointing Kolb, I took crap for bumping him to 16th when everyone assumed he was going back to the backup role as soon as Kolb was healthy, and I took crap for bumping him into the top 10 when he only had a handful of good games against bad defenses... but at the end of the day, even though he's outperformed all of my wildest expectations, I count Michael Vick as a "hit" because he's on my dynasty team, because I was higher on him than everyone else. That's all that matters. None of my leagues subtract points if you didn't expect a player to be quite as good as he was, so I'm getting the full benefit of Vick's fantasy onslaught even though I "only" had him ranked at the bottom of the top 30 this past offseason.

  14. Hey guys, sorry I haven't been around much recently. As I said over on DR.net, I typically work a second job during the holiday season, which obviously puts a serious damper on my football time. With that said, after the gem of a game VJax just had, I had to drop by and bump this post:

    What's the chance VJax starts ONE game for your fantasy team this year, assuming you already own him?What's the chance he's ever a top 10 receiver again?I say 0 and 0.Makes him pretty much a zero in my book?But that is INDEED a "buy low opportunity"!!!

    As I said at the time- clearly someone doesn't understand what "zero percent" means...
  15. Brandon Marshall..... Very accurately ranked by F&L and SSOG for the last 2 years.

    LOLOLOOLLLLOOLL

    Yeah last year he was a horrible top 5 WR.

    Think before you post

    TIA

    F&L and I make rankings for non-PPR leagues. Brandon Marshall has never been a top-5 WR in non-PPR leagues. He's been 9th, 11th, and 9th (and this year he's 28th). I've got him ranked 9th. F&L has got him ranked 11th. Neither of us were ever saying he was garbage, or unrosterable, or mediocre... we were just saying he was decidedly not top-5. I think that claim stands pretty strong right now.

    One thing about dynasty rankings is seeing the forest through the trees:

    If Jonathan Stewart is a top 10 dynasty back (and I'm not arguing he's NOT), that almost surely means your team has been counting on starting him every week this year.

    Need I elaborate further on what a DISASTER your team's record SHOULD look like with that being the case?

    It's great to engage in mental masturbation over what "could/would/should" be in the next several years. meanwhile, teams with Shonn Greene and Stewart are circling the drains jockeying for draft position where their owners will then draft Shonn G/Daily Show 2.0

    Why should you be counting on him as a starter if he's ranked in the top 10?

    Let's look at it this way. Imagine you have the full and perfect benefit of hindsight. Where would you rank Arian Foster last November? Where would you rank Ray Rice in November of 2008? Where would you rank Calvin Johnson back in November 2007? In my opinion, with the full benefit of hindsight, I would have ranked all three of those players in the respective top 10s without flinching, blinking, or hesitating. It would literally be a no-brainer- I wouldn't even have to think about it, despite the fact that all three of those guys would have been getting you killed if you were starting them at the time.

    I wish I was able to start Jonathan Stewart today, but I'm not. Still, these are not redraft rankings. Jonathan Stewart has a 7 year career ahead of him, and while the fact that he is not producing great numbers in one of those seven seasons is inconvenient, it's hardly a dealbreaker. I'd rather have an RB who was garbage today and a stud for the next 6 years than an RB who was a stud today and garbage for the next 6 years, even if I'm currently chasing a flag.

  16. Understand now and agree with you on the age, not experience issue. I'm underplaying his performance, but only a bit. And I think others are overplaying his situation. Sure Otah will help. But they'll be getting a new coach and system and have 3 young QBs that have looked pretty bad. They're starting Brian St Pierre this week for pete's sake. What are they going to do next year, draft another QB? They need time to develop into a offensive system that fits his skills. I think that DeAngelo is better suited for a crappy offense (IMO, better lateral runner, shiftier, catches better, blocks better). So I think that he has the talent and could develop the situation to be top 10 in 2012 and top 3 in 2013. That's just a long way away for me. And that's not even mentioning the dings.Gotta hit the sack. Good talking to you guys.

    Can I get your thoughts on the Mark Ingram or Trent Richardson comparison? If you played in a league that allowed you to roster players while they were still in college, what would you trade right now to acquire a Trent Richardson or Mark Ingram? What would you trade to acquire the #1 pick in the 2011 draft? How about the #1 pick in the 2012 draft?
  17. The whole "burned 3 years already" thing is crazy. It doesn't matter how long he's been in the league, it matters how old he is. He's the same age as C.J. Spiller, so why does it matter that Stewart's been in the league 3 years while Spiller has only been in 1? I have 40 RBs in my top 5 tiers, and of those 40 backs, only FOUR were 22 or younger to start the season- Lesean McCoy, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best, and Beanie Wells. And it's not like Mathews, Best, or Wells have made much of a case to be ahead of Stewart, at this point. The only back in the entire league who is both younger than Stewart and more productive than Stewart is Lesean McCoy (note: rounding age to the nearest whole year, so I'm sure there are some guys who are a couple of months younger than Stewart who are producing right now).

    Not that I have an issue with your ranking of Stewart, but should Stewart really have an advantage over a player a year or two older, who is producing? Ahmad Bradshaw and McFadden come to mind. Of course I value age, but the difference between 22 and 23-24 is very little in my mental rankings. If one is producing and the other is not, I go with the points, when the age difference is so small, and they are both young. If Stewart is going to be 24 by the time he give you anything anyway, why not get the immediate points from a 24 year old, instead of points from a 24 year old a year + down the line?
    That's a fair question, I was strictly addressing the point that BSS raised that Stewart had been in the league for a while now, which I think is a non-issue because he's still as young or younger than pretty much every dynasty RB worth owning.

    I disagree. He's been in the league for 3 years and looked good for .5 years. Spiller has been in the league for .5 years and hasn't looked good. I still don't know if Spiller will be good, but he basically has 2.5 more years to make the same impact as Stewart. So if I'm betting, do I bet that someone looking average for 2.5 years is a better bet than someone who has looked average for .5 years?

    First off, the specific point BSS was making was that RBs have a short lifespan, and the Stewart had already "burned" 3 years of his. I was just countering that studies show that age, not years in the NFL, is the driving force behind an RB's decline, so the fact that Stewart has been in the league 3 years while Spiller has only been in the league 1 is irrelevant when determining how much career each back has left in front of him.Second off, I'd say Stewart has looked a heck of a lot better than average for a heck of a lot longer than 0.5 seasons. Dude averages 4.6 yards per carry for his career. He holds the record for most rushing yards in a player's first 3 starts. He was a top-24 RB as a rookie and a top-12 RB as a sophomore.

    that was my point, as a dynasty owner you have invested in him for 3 years of very meh production except for the back hlaf of one season. I dont know about you but I play to win, not to just hold onto dudes and pray they live up to their hype

    Again, I fail to see how someone like Jonathan Stewart is substantially different than someone like Mark Ingram. Both assets will require you waiting for a while before you can benefit. How much would you give up to acquire the #1 overall pick next season?
  18. So you are telling me when you drafted him 3 years ago you expect minimal value for his first 3 years in the league?you are also telling me that after his nice end to the 2009 season you expected minimal value this season? Now if Deangelo is moved he might do ok this coming season, but who knows he has shown a tendency to get nicked up alot (sure he didnt miss a game until last week in his career but there always seems to be lingering achilles/foot injuries in 2009) Now while his potential might be through the roof and greater than alot of people, he just isnt my kind of player.RBs have a relative short life span in the NFL anyway, he has burned 3 years already.

    Three years ago? I created a set of rankings at the beginning of the season based on my assumptions of how the season and future seasons would play out, and nothing that has happened so far this season has caused me to radically re-evaluate those assumptions. My ranking of Stewart was based on the assumption that he would add minimal value this year (I believe in his spotlight I said I was counting on low-end RB2 production), and a ton of value in future seasons. The value Stewart has added this year is much less than I thought it would be, but the difference between nonexistent and minimal is minimal, meaning that only requires a minimal adjustment to my initial valuations.The whole "burned 3 years already" thing is crazy. It doesn't matter how long he's been in the league, it matters how old he is. He's the same age as C.J. Spiller, so why does it matter that Stewart's been in the league 3 years while Spiller has only been in 1? I have 40 RBs in my top 5 tiers, and of those 40 backs, only FOUR were 22 or younger to start the season- Lesean McCoy, Ryan Mathews, Jahvid Best, and Beanie Wells. And it's not like Mathews, Best, or Wells have made much of a case to be ahead of Stewart, at this point. The only back in the entire league who is both younger than Stewart and more productive than Stewart is Lesean McCoy (note: rounding age to the nearest whole year, so I'm sure there are some guys who are a couple of months younger than Stewart who are producing right now).
  19. How far has Jonathan Stewart fallen in dynasty rankings? His prospects for the future are no different than they were coming into the season.

    well except for he is another year older, has missed ttime due to injury and unless Carolina improves the Oline QB situation (possible it couldnt be anyworse)What is everyones obsession with Stewart anyway? If I owned him I would move him to some Stewart lover, seems every dynasty league has a least 2, I'd let this guy be someone elses problem
    Personally, I rank based on how I see a player's career playing out, and I only change that ranking if something causes me to re-evaluate that assumption. Coming into this season, I assumed that Stewart would provide minimal value this year, so the fact that he provided minimal value this year is not cause for me to re-evaluate. I'm ranking based on future value, so the injuries don't matter unless they appear to be chronic or degenerative. If anything, Carolina's treatment of DeAngelo Williams (shutting him down for an injury he could have returned from) could possibly be viewed as an indication that DeAngelo isn't in Carolina's long-term plans, which would be a positive for Stewart... although I think that would involve just a little bit too much reading of the tea leaves.As I always say with respect to guys like VJax and Stewart... I think of them like the 2011 #1 overall draft pick. Is the 2011 #1 overall draft pick going to score any points for me this year? Of course not. Should I lower the value of the 2011 #1 draft pick halfway through the season because I suddenly realize it's doing nothing for me this year? Of course not. The difference between guys like VJax and Stewart and the 2011 #1 overall is that VJax/Stewart are older (although, in Stewart's case, not by much- he's the same age as C.J. Spiller and almost 2 years younger than Shonn Greene), but they're also more proven (i.e. we *KNOW* they can dominate at the NFL level because, well, they've already dominated at the NFL level).
  20. I've been trying to think about an answer to the initial question posed on values, but this answer illustrates part of the problem, and lets us know why most folks doing rankings ultimately give up on this type of analysis. On a killer team, a playoff team, the value of the #1 QB (RB/WR..whatever) is much higher when the rest of his lineup is already filled with quality players. On a rebuild, two or three second and third tier players combined may be far more valuable than a single player, no matter his rank.

    Cross positional values pose an even bigger challenge, as values really do vary wildly from league to league, and league size has an inordinate impact on QB values in particular.

    With those things in mind, it seems a monumental effort to create a rankings system that attempted to accurately "value" players both within a position and across positions. I'm curious to see the result, but hold absolutely no hope of the final product being worth the efforts required to produce it. IN the end, we'll still have to "adjust" to our own league rules and roster needs more than a little...and I have to wonder, if we have to adjust more than a little, what was the point to begin with?

    I love your rankings SSOG, and kind of like the idea of "value scores" to get a rough idea, but I think this effort may ultimately prove to be more limited in value than you imagine.

    Aha, but that's where the math comes in. Remember how I said that player values were determined by your odds of starting a player in any given week? Those odds vary by league size. In a 12-teamer, QB14 is actually going to see the field a good portion of the time, meaning he has solid value. In an 8-teamer, he won't see the field under any circumstances, meaning his value is essentially nil. That's the huge strength of our value scores- they're totally adjustable based on things like league sizes or starter requirements. The goal is to have a field where you fill in how many players start at any given position in an average week, and the value scores will automatically be recalculated and specifically tailored to your league setup.

    As an example: say you play in a 12-team 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 Superflex, 1 RB/WR flex, 1 WR/TE flex league. In an average week, you might have 20 starting QBs, 34 starting RBs, 40 starting WRs, and 14 starting TEs. Instead of trying to mentally adjust the values to reflect that, you could just fill those values into a form and all the math will automatically be recalculated on the fly.

    In the end, it's going to be insanely, insanely, insanely cool... all that's left is actually pulling it off (and thanks to everyone who's giving player values, because it really helps in that respect). Conceptually, it's sound.

  21. I don't maintain an ordered set of rankings. I simply felt compelled to comment given the WR example you gave, which was considerably off base for me. :lmao:

    Right, and I understood and anticipated that someone might have thought some of the examples were considerably off base, which is why I added the disclaimer that "The names in parentheses are the guys who currently occupy that spot in my rankings, but if your rankings differ, use the guy who you would rank at that position- remember, we're trying to get GENERAL positional values, not debate the values of one individual player."
  22. Why Green-Ellis? He doesn't seem to fit the profile (a pedigreed player).

    It's not just about pedigree. Kyle Orton wasn't a pedigreed player, but 3 months ago he could have been the poster child for someone who was being written off too early. When I see Green-Ellis, I see a guy who is playing much better than he was a year or two ago, but whom everyone seems to be valuing exactly the same as they were a year or two ago (when he was bad and everyone decided that was all he'd ever be).
    OK. I thught you were just listing the high draft guys and he just stuck out to me as not fitting in the list.
    High draft guys are always a great place to start compiling a list (especially highly drafted RBs, because pedigree matters much more at RB than it does at WR), but the goal is to pick guys who people seem to have developed a blind spot for and are writing off too early. Ryan Fitzpatrick's another guy like that- if Brian Brohm was putting up the stats that Fitz has been putting up, he'd be a no-brainer top 20 dynasty QB... but since it's Fitzpatrick, who everyone has long ago decided was terrible, he's barely cracking the top 30.
  23. My biggest issue here is that if I traded Rodgers for Manning+, it wouldn't be another QB I asked for.And even in the unlikely scenario that it was, it'd be a specific guy, like Freeman, who I see as a future stud.

    I'm trying to lock down the intrapositional values, to really get the dropoff values correct within the position. That means I need to know what QB1 is worth relative to the other QBs, and what RB1 is worth relative to the other RBs, and so on down the line. After that, we'll take a look at cross-positional values.Also, if you'd target Freeman to pair with Manning, then where do you have Freeman ranked? Is he QB10 in your rankings? QB12? QB16?

    Good point. There would have to be a value study done with every player being graded on the scale, regardless of position.

    There will be. Again, I have raw CPV scores that have been spit out by a formula, I'm just attempting to do some curve fitting, to smooth out the value curves and get the dropoffs right within the positions. Once that's been done, CPV scores will be comparable across positions. Hence the name Cross Postional Value.

    Why Green-Ellis? He doesn't seem to fit the profile (a pedigreed player).

    It's not just about pedigree. Kyle Orton wasn't a pedigreed player, but 3 months ago he could have been the poster child for someone who was being written off too early. When I see Green-Ellis, I see a guy who is playing much better than he was a year or two ago, but whom everyone seems to be valuing exactly the same as they were a year or two ago (when he was bad and everyone decided that was all he'd ever be).Law Firm has very quietly been improving his game, and he's actually been a pretty effective player this year. DVOA is obviously a flawed metric when it comes to measuring individual player values, but the DVOA top 10 right now is Foster, Charles, Law Firm, Hillis, Tolbert, McCoy, McFadden, Tomlinson, Greene, and Bradshaw. When I look at that list, I see four guys that are consensus top-12 dynasty backs (Foster, Charles, McCoy, McFadden), two more that are on the cusp (Hillis and Bradshaw), one more that would be there if he wasn't 31 years old (Tomlinson). That leaves Tolbert, Greene, and Law Firm. Tolbert is, in my eyes, clearly going to be sitting behind Mathews for several years after what San Diego spent to acquire him, even if he *IS* the goods. That leaves Greene and Law Firm, who both make my list of quality targets. Greene's obviously benefiting from his line, while Law Firm benefits from the efficiency of the New England offense as a whole... but Greene's still going to have his line next year, and BJGE is still going to have Tom Brady. Both guys are 25, and both guys are potentially starters in favorable situations next year. I'm not saying I'd give up a ton to acquire Law Firm, but he does make a very intriguing buy low. If I was going to be picking late in the 2nd round, I'd happily ship my pick off for Law Firm right now.

    I'd rather have Nicks than Fitzgerald, so anything given to me with Nicks for Fitzgerald is gravy. And for disclosure purposes, I'm in two dynasty leagues... in one I have Nicks and in the other I have Fitz... I wish I had Nicks instead of Fitz in the latter league.

    Awesome. Which is exactly why I said "The names in parentheses are the guys who currently occupy that spot in my rankings, but if your rankings differ, use the guy who you would rank at that position- remember, we're trying to get GENERAL positional values, not debate the values of one individual player."If Fitzgerald isn't your #1 receiver, then substitute the name of your #1 receiver there. If Nicks isn't your #6 receiver, then substitute the name of your #6 receiver there. The point of the exercise is that I'm trying to find out what the #1 overall receiver is worth when compared to the #6 overall receiver, not that I'm trying to find out what Fitzgerald is worth compared to Nicks.
×
  • Create New...