Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SSOG

  1. Infections can happen following any surgery (Brady had a setback on his knee recovery IIRC). If it is reoccurring then there may be some underlying problem, but nothing to be concerned about, yet.

    Agreed. If this were closer to the season, it'd be something to keep an eye on. With 6 months before kickoff, I'm not concerned until I hear otherwise. Most importantly, as far as injuries go, this all still counts as one injury when determining injury history. The second and third injury are not indicative of anything other than that installing a plate can occasionally weaken the bone at the ends of the plate, and surgeries can occasionally result in infection. Both of those are more indictments of the limits of medicine than of the limits of Rob Gronkowski.
  2. He was a 6th round pick for a reason and he is not the type of RB that Shanahan was looking for in the read-option scheme.

    If he wasn't the type of RB Shanahan was looking for, Shanahan wouldn't have drafted him. Shanahan is a big fan of getting players who fit his system late in the draft, sort of like how Pittsburgh used to snap up all the 'tweeners late in the draft in the late '90s to early '00s when they were one of the only teams running the 3-4 (Carlos Emmons in the 7th, Jason Gildon at the end of the 3rd, Joey Porter in the 3rd, James Farrior on the cheap after the Jets let him walk, Larry Foote in the 4th, Clark Haggins in the 5th, James Harrison as an UFA). Getting drafted late didn't mean that Pittsburgh didn't value them, it meant the demand for them wasn't as high because their skills didn't fit in nearly as well with the rest of the league. Similarly, Shanahan has always believed that he could take slow-but-decisive runners with good vision and turn them into relentless chain movers. The rest of the league didn't really value them because of the lack of speed or "wiggle", which means they were available cheap... but they fit splendidly with what Shanahan was hoping to accomplish with his running game, which was basically just moving the chains, leaving manageable conversions, and keeping the passing game ahead of schedule.Alfred Morris fits what Shanahan wants out of an RB to a T. Not a lot of home runs, just a steady stream of hope-killing, chain-moving singles and doubles, keeping his QB out of obvious passing situations (and therefore freeing up the QB to pick his spots to go yard without the defense teeing up on him). Edit: the fit is doubly appropriate, given that Griffin throws perhaps the most accurate deep ball in the NFL. If you give him a lot of 2nd and 5s or 3rd and 2s to play with, defenses are going to get burned, especially given how much respect they have to pay to his legs.
    • Like 1
  3. One issue I have with ranking this guy too high is the fact that Helu is still on that roster...and looked good in his own right before getting hurt.

    Helu looked OK. Despite getting all the short yardage carries, Morris averaged 4.8 ypc on 300+ carries. That is pretty damn impressive. Helu only averaged 4.2 ypc on his 150 and only had 2 TDs and I am pretty sure didn't have as many short yardage carries.If Morris is healthy, I see no reason for Helu to cut into his carries at all. The coaches loved Morris and with a gimpy RG3, Morris single handedly shredded the Cowboys to get them into the playoffs even though the Cowboys knew he was getting the ball every play. Not sure if you watched that game, but Morris was ridiculous in their biggest game of the year. He also played real well against Seattle (16-80, 5ypc) in the playoffs, again with a gimpy RG3.I have him in one league and no doubt I will be keeping him for something absurd like an 18th round pick. That and his handcuffs will be real cheap.
    Over the last two seasons, here's the breakdown, presented without comment or analysis:2 or fewer yards to goMorris: 27/37/5 (1.37 ypc, 59% first down rate)Helu: 18/64/1 (3.56 ypc, 61% first down rate)3 or more yards to goMorris: 308/1568/8 (5.09 ypc)Helu: 135/578/1 (4.28 ypc)I don't think the ypc difference in short yardage situations is particularly meaningful (Morris had a much higher percentage of his carries coming in goal-to-go situations, which obviously limits potential yardage), but I included it anyway in case anyone cares.
  4. In 2012, we will get to see these theories put to test. Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles sustained injuries after the age of 23 and will have to prove their return to elite performance before owners should justify giving 2nd and 3rd round dynasty start-up value. During dynasty start-ups, savvy owners should consider overall value before diving into RBs coming off injuries; fully understand the risk involved with all injuries before drafting!

    Thanks for the articles, but I strongly disagree with this last part. Well, I don't disagree that savvy owners should consider value and understand risk, but I feel like the implication is that savvy owners should apply a sizeable risk discount. In my experience, the general risk discount applied to dynasty players for any number of reasons (not the least of which is injury) is already inflated. Savvy owners shouldn't be looking to avoid risky assets, they should be looking to acquire them, because the market systematically undervalues them. Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles were just two more hits for a theory that could have landed you guys like Brady, Welker, Brees, McNabb, or Vincent Jackson for a fraction of their former cost. Personally, when I hear the words "ACL tear", the first thing I do is a queue up an offer. I don't send it right away, because I don't want the other guy to think I know something he doesn't. I'll wait a week or two, and then I try to buy to see if I can get a $10 talent for a $5 bill.Other guys whose owners might have given an inflated risk discount within the past season include Robert Griffin and Percy Harvin. The ship has sailed on Harvin now, with his trade to Seattle, but late in the season he probably could have been had for WR10 or WR12 prices. Bob Griffin's window for buying is still pretty open, though- I think we'll find that a year from now any concern about his knees was generally overblown, so if you valued him as a top-3 dynasty QB before the injury, see if you can't land him for QB5 prices.
  5. People are idiots, thats why. Even after Shanny gives him 315 plus touches, they still think he is holding him back. He doesnt catch passes? Yet still managed to rack up 1600 plus yards. He find the endzone?

    So what is the problem? People like McFadden over this guy, and McFadden has never stayed healthy or sniffed the production Morris has.

    Just plain hype of others I guess and he is slippin. Get him on the cheap if you can.

    I couldnt move him for Murray or McFadden straight up according tot he other owners in my league.

    PS-If you think he's that good why are you trying to trade him for McFadden?

    How he's valued in one league isn't exactly an overall picture. I've looked up ADP from numerous leagues and he's about rb9 to rb11. McFadden, Murray, etc are lower.

    Other than Terrel Davis and Portis, all the other rbs that have had a good season with Shanahan have quickly disappeared. They both had a lot more talent than Morris. I think most of us know he wouldn't start with another team in the league and probably would be lucky to make the roster. Maybe he could be a full back and block. It's pretty dangerous when you are that replaceable. Things change quick. The Redskins could have a bad year and miss the playoffs. Schneider loves to fire coaches. Or Morris could fumble twice in a game or have a hamstring injury. Another back comes in and plays well and there you go.

    The only good thing I'll say for him is that he'll probably put good numbers up next year and it's hard to find top 10 production, even for a year or 2. I put his value about the same as MJD. A guy I count on for a year or 2 and expect nothing out of after that.

    I can't speak for "most of us", but I believe there isn't a team in the league where Morris would struggle to make the roster. By my quick count, there are 17 teams in the league where, if he was on the roster, I would easily expect him to win the starting job. He's not Samkon Gado, here.
  6. Heres FBG top 151 RB Trent Richardson, CLE 5 4 1 1 2.8 2.5 2.51 RB Arian Foster, HOU 2 1 6 2 2.8 2.0 2.03 RB Adrian Peterson, MIN 1 2 5 4 3.0 3.0 3.04 RB Ray Rice, BAL 3 5 2 3 3.2 3.0 3.05 RB LeSean McCoy, PHI 8 3 3 6 5.0 4.5 4.56 RB Doug Martin, TB 6 7 4 5 5.5 5.5 5.57 RB Jamaal Charles, KC 4 8 8 8 7.0 8.0 8.08 RB Marshawn Lynch, SEA 7 6 9 7 7.2 7.0 7.09 RB C.J. Spiller, BUF 9 11 7 9 9.0 9.0 9.010 RB Matt Forte, CHI 12 9 10 10 10.2 10.0 10.011 RB DeMarco Murray, DAL 10 14 11 13 12.0 12.0 12.012 RB Alfred Morris, WAS 15 12 12 11 12.5 12.0 12.013 RB Chris Johnson, TEN 11 10 18 14 13.2 12.5 12.513 RB Maurice Jones-Drew, JAX 13 15 13 12 13.2 13.0 13.015 RB Darren McFadden, OAK 17 13 14 15 14.8 14.5 14.5Right off the bat I would take Morris over Forte due to his injury history and TD vulture Bush being in ChiNext I would surely take him Murray again due to his injury history and he did not look good at all last yr.Lastly, it would be a tough call but I slight have Spiller higher due to CJ being a more talented player; but its close

    I hadn't looked at this yet, but wow, Richardson #1?! I agree that Morris should be in the top 10. I can't believe Murray is ahead of him. Murray is pretty much on my DND list. Spiller is hard not to like, but who is his QB going to be? Charles was hit or miss last year and his o-line is going to be in flux. How the hell is Lynch so low? In a redraft, I'd take him over Richardson. It wouldn't even be close b/w Lynch and McCoy. This is a bad list. I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Wait until the season gets closer to worry about the rankings.
    Those are the consensus dynasty rankings, not redraft.
  7. Tell me what the difference is between Alf and Mike Anderson?

    [*]Both were drafted in the 6th round

    [*]Both played for Shanny

    [*]Both racked up 1600 yards in thier rookie season

    [*]Both were RB/FB tweeners

    [*]Both put up double digit TDs

    So, what is it with Alf that is going to give him the job security that Mike Anderson didn't have?

    Mike Anderson didn't have job security because he was on the same team as a 2000 yard rusher and former league and SB MVP who had recently led Denver to back-to-back superbowl championships. He also got hurt by the fact that a back his team had rated as a high first-round talent fell to the late second round, and the fact that when those two people were finally out of the backfield, Anderson was poised to retake the starting job but got hurt during preseason and lost for the year. Despite all of that, Anderson still came back and put up one of the top 5 fantasy seasons by a 32+ year old back in league history. The only guys to have a better fantasy season at that advanced age are Walter Peyton, John Riggins, Ricky Williams, and Ottis Anderson. That's some pretty talented company to be keeping.

    Alfred Morris doesn't share the backfield with a former league MVP. His team is strapped for cap space and draft picks, so they won't be making a "luxury" pick of an elite RB prospect, even if this draft offered one, even if one happened to fall. I expect him to perform as well as Mike Anderson would have performed had he never had to contend with Terrell Davis or Clinton Portis. Of course, "as well as Anderson would have performed", in this case, is more than enough to justify a top-10 ranking. Anderson would have been one of the best fantasy backs of the 2000s had Portis and Davis not stood in his way. I firmly believe this.

    It is easy to say these players would have been just as good elsewhere but you know what? You can't say that. None of them have. Before you take me out of context, I do think Foster and Davis would have been good on other teams, but not nearly as good as they were/are in their zone schemes. The rest of them, including Alf would be and will be career journeymen in any other system.

    You can say that Reuben Droughns, Olandis Gary, Selvin Young, Mike Bell, and Tatum Bell would have been career journeymen outside of the ZBS. I don't disagree at all, largely because those guys were career journeymen INSIDE of the ZBS. The only one of those guys to get 75+ carries in more than one season for Denver was Tatum Bell. He had two seasons of 75+ carries (none of 200+) before Denver showed him the door. And most of those guys were about as good outside of Denver as they were in Denver- Droughns had 1481 YFS in Denver, and then 1600 YFS the next year in Cleveland. Mike Bell had 835/8 as part of a committee in Denver, and 666/5 as part of a committee in New Orleans. There was nothing magical about Denver that turned mediocre players into studs, it just turned mediocre players into mediocre players getting a high usage volume in a great offense. That's the key- it's not the fact that Denver ran a different scheme that made the backs so effective, it's that Denver had the highest-paid offensive line in the entire NFL. The ZBS isn't some magical cure-all that turns nobodies into studs. The quality of the production was tied to the quality of the line, not the scheme. Witness what happened to Denver's rushing game after 2005 as key contributors Matt Lepsis, Tom Nalen, Ben Hamilton, and Cooper Carlisle got old, injured, or signed away with no great replacements on deck (Denver went from 2539/25 rushing, to 2152/12 rushing, to 1957/10 rushing, to 1862/15 rushing). Witness what happened to Houston's rushing game last year after losing key contributors on the line (a 300 yard drop in rushing yardage, and Arian Foster fell to a barely-respectable 4.1 ypc). That's the big problem with comparing Alfred Morris to Olandis Gary. Morris had much better production behind a much worse line (although Morris was aided immensely by the presence of Griffin). And even this is a bit of a diversion- even if we decide that 100% of Morris's value is tied to his scheme, isn't that irrelevant unless and until Morris is changing schemes?

    At the end of the day, as someone who watched a lot of Denver football, I don't think any Denver fans ever thought guys like Bell, Bell, Young, Droughns, or Gary were really that great. They produced solid counting stats because of a huge usage volume (Droughns and Gary were both getting well north of 20 carries a game) and a fantastic supporting cast. Despite this, their efficiency wasn't all that impressive- YPCs in the low 4s, average success rates. Everyone knew that these guys were journeymen, that they were just a shadow of the talent of a Davis or a Portis (who were both MUCH more efficient with their carries, and occupied a much larger portion of the defense's attention). Even the team knew it- it never entered a season intending to give one of these guys the ball. Not once. It always had its hand forced. Now, is Alfred Morris as good as Davis or Portis? No, not really- but he's a long sight better than Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, Mike Bell, or the rest of the placeholders Denver was forced to trot out due to injury. Washington chose Morris, rather than were forced into him by circumstance. As I mentioned earlier, I think Mike Anderson is a very good comparison, talent-wise... but while many would view that as an insult, I view that as a complement. Anderson gets kind of lumped in with the rest of the journeymen and placeholders to pass through Denver, but he really was different. Mike Shanahan moved him to FB because Anderson was talented enough that Shanahan WANTED to get him on the field more (rather than being forced to do so by injury). Mike Anderson actually won the starting job outright twice (although, as I mentioned, he got injured before 2004 and never got the chance). He wasn't a Davis or a Portis, but he was a very good back in his own right, and he would have been incredibly productive if circumstances hadn't conspired against him. And I think that holds true for Morris, too- he's a very good back who will continue to be very productive as long as circumstances don't conspire against him. And Washington's dearth of cap space and draft picks serve to ensure that circumstances won't.

    • Like 1
  8. Portis was a 2nd round pick and Charles a 3rd.

    ... and Larry Johnson was a 1st rounder (27th overall).

    LJ put up a total of 85 yards his rookie year. A lot of people saw him in the same way we see pead right now (not saying pead is good). Charles was sitting on ff waivers for his first few seasons. I remember picking up kolby smith over charles because i saw an opportunity at RB in KC.To add another: People bought into D Murray pretty quickly. He was on track to be a 1st round ff pick until he got hurt. Colston, Boldin, Tampa Mike Williams, marshall, finley, pierre thomasDespite thier late round pedegree, we bought into these guys pretty quickly
    Anquan Boldin was a 2nd rounder. Demarco Murray was a 3rd. Mike Williams was a 4th rounder, but he fell that far due to character concerns- he had a huge bandwagon and hype thread before he'd ever played a single meaningful snap. Brandon Marshall was a 4th as well, but he also fell due to character concerns and had a big following- he was nicknamed "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" after the excited shriek Sigmund Bloom uttered whenever his name was mentioned.I think Foster and Colston are interesting analogies. Very weak pedigree, very little hype before they started producing. Probably the closest match to Alfred Morris in terms of perception immediately before their big season. I think it's interesting to ask why everyone warmed so quickly to Foster and Colston and so slowly to Morris- is it all the Shanahan effect? Is it all a result of the eyeball test? Were Foster and Colston perceived to be in a better situation? Some combination of the three?
  9. I'm a big Morris fan who thinks anyone who mentions Mike Shanahan is guilty of underrating him. Alfred Morris is a substantially better RB than Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns, Mike Bell, Tatum Bell, Selvin Young, what-have-you. He's not as good as Terrell Davis or Clinton Portis, but he's probably as good as Mike Anderson, a tremendously underrated back who would have been a perennial fantasy stud if not for Terrell Davis and Clinton Portis (and an unfortunate injury in preseason 2004). Given Washington's lack of draft picks, I don't see Shanahan making a luxury pick of an RB in the second round, even if a Portis-like talent falls like it did in 2002, and there's no Terrell Davis already on the roster, so I think Morris has that job on lockdown, even if he fumbles or starts slowly next year.

    With that said, I can easily see an argument for having Morris 10th at RB. I think Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Marshawn Lynch, and C.J. Spiller are all better talents. Trent Richardson probably is, as well. Martin, Rice, and McCoy are workhorses like Morris, but they get involved in the passing game, too. Arian Foster is the biggest TD machine in the league today. I think you can be a big Morris believer and still prefer those 9 names in Dynasty or Redraft. I think once you start getting beyond that, it starts getting a little bit silly, though. There's no way I'd pass on Alfred Morris to grab Darren McFadden or Demarco Murray at this point.

  10. Walker is a replacement-level player, if that. He's been in the league 7 years and his best total so far is 344 yards and 3 TDs.

    How many TEs have a breakout year at age 29?

    Dallas Clark (28 was his first good season and even that wasn't great at 58/616)
    Marcus Pollard scored twice as many points at age 29 (122 points) as his previous career high (62 points)

    Byron Chamberlain never ranked higher than TE46 until finishing as TE11 at age 28 and TE7 at age 30.

    Dwayne Carswell had one finish higher than TE16- a TE8 finish at age 28.

    Wesley Walls never finished in the top 50 until age 28. Then he had six consecutive top-8 finishes.

    I'm sure there are plenty of others, those were just a few off the top of my head. Now, those names aside, count me in the camp with the Delanie Walker skeptics. I don't think he's going to amount to anything fantasy relevant in Tennessee.


    Dwayne Carswell finished as TE8 (at age 28), which was his only season in the top 16 TEs, is off the top of your head?

    I would imagine he thought if of those players and looked up the actual stats.
    Yup. I knew of Carswell (aka "House") and Chamberlain because I'm a Broncos fan. I knew of Pollard and Walls because I'd recently been looking into TE aging patterns. I checked PFR to make sure I was remembering correctly and to get some numbers to back it up.
  11. Walker is a replacement-level player, if that. He's been in the league 7 years and his best total so far is 344 yards and 3 TDs.How many TEs have a breakout year at age 29?

    Dallas Clark (28 was his first good season and even that wasn't great at 58/616)
    Marcus Pollard scored twice as many points at age 29 (122 points) as his previous career high (62 points)Byron Chamberlain never ranked higher than TE46 until finishing as TE11 at age 28 and TE7 at age 30.Dwayne Carswell had one finish higher than TE16- a TE8 finish at age 28.Wesley Walls never finished in the top 50 until age 28. Then he had six consecutive top-8 finishes.I'm sure there are plenty of others, those were just a few off the top of my head. Now, those names aside, count me in the camp with the Delanie Walker skeptics. I don't think he's going to amount to anything fantasy relevant in Tennessee.
  12. Considering trading Reggie Bush for Tannehill and the 1.6 in a Superflex league right now. A slam dunk from a longevity standpoint but I'm very intrigued with Bush in Detroit.

    In a superflex league, I'd trade Bush for Tannehill straight up. The 1.6 is just gravy.

    Isn't there some stat that if a QB isn't in the top 10 in his first two years starting, it's highly unlikely he ever cracks that barrier?

    I believe this is what you're referring to.
  13. We've seen this movie before in NE. How quickly people forget.The one thing that Bill has done over the years is get rid of players at the right time. And it's pretty uncanny how you hardly ever hear a peep from them again. Let us count the ways:* Randy Moss -- Traded back to MN early in the 2010 season after he griped. Perfect timing.* Mike Vrabel -- Huge fan favorite. Traded to KC with Cassel for a 2nd round pick. Haven't heard much from Vrabel. Cassel a bonafied bum.* Adam Vinitieri -- A legend. Possibly the clutchest kicker ever. Eh. They lived and didn't have to pay him.* Asante Samuel -- Left to sign a huge contract in Philly. He's been solid, but I'd say that his performance since hasn't been worth that kind of dough.* Richard Seymour -- Traded for a first round pick. How often have you heard Seymour's name in Oakland?* Willie McGinest -- Pats let him go to Cleveland. Poof.* Deion Branch -- Traded at his peak to Seattle. Got him back for peanuts later. He's been servicable since that point.* Drew Bledsoe -- Traded WITHIN THE DIVISION for god's sake. Poof.* Ty Law -- They let him go. He actually had a pretty good year for the Jets after, but soon after that, it was downhill.* Lawyer Milloy -- They let him go. Went to Buffalo. Don't remember caring much.The Welker departure stings now, but I'm giving Bill the benefit of the doubt. KY

    Milloy, Samuel, and Seymour were all very good players for years after leaving the Pats. This isn't to say that the Pats were hurt by letting them go (they did fine without Milloy, got a great return for Seymour, and Samuel was asking for huge money), it's just to disagree with the idea that release from the Pats means a player is done. Milloy lasted 8 more years in the league. Samuel made the pro bowl for three straight seasons after joining Philly. The reason you don't hear about Seymour has nothing to do with Seymour and everything to do with the dumpster fire of a team surrounding him.
  14. You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

    :no:You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.
    Yup. It drives me nuts when people talk about whether someone else got "market value" for a player. The market is not every dynasty football owner in the entire universe. The market is the 11 (or 9, or 13, or however many) guys in your league with you. Actually, the market is much smaller than that- the Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers owners won't be looking to buy Peyton Manning. Maybe the Luck or Griffin owners will be, but they're looking at him more as a 1-year rental and will only pay accordingly. The Tony Romo owner might view Manning as an upgrade, but not a huge one. Maybe the other three teams in the market for a QB are all prospect-hounds who overvalue youth. Oftentimes, the market for a player is just one owner. Sometimes, the market is no owners at all. If that's the case, I don't care where Manning is ranked, you aren't going to get anything for him. That leaves you with a choice- you can either keep him, or you can trade him for below "market" value (with this "market" being the mythical market of all dynasty owners sitting around judging each other's teams). At the end of the day, if a trade is the best you can get for a player, and if the trade makes your team better in your estimation, then you make that trade every single time. That should be your only consideration- does this trade improve my team to a greater degree than any other trade I could possibly make? Is this trade the best use of my resources towards my goal of maximizing championships? If the answer is yes, you make the trade, "market" value be damned.
  15. While we are at it, we should cancel Columbus Day as a national holiday since Columbus lead to the mass slaughter of Native Americans. If everyone wants to be full on PC, put your money where your mouth is and ban Columbus Day. The way the Redskins name is used is not in a derogatory way at all. Their fight song is "Hail to the Redskins". No one who says the name "Redskins" means anything derogatory by it. Get real.

    It's ironic someone brought up Columbus Day, since the holiday was created to ease racial resentment towards the Italians, and was quickly adopted and promoted by the Irish (who were desperate for a Catholic role model who could be embraced by the largely Protestant American population).

    The team's name will eventually be changed for the same reason that the NFL will one day be two-hand tag... the "sissification" of America.Someone might get their feelings hurt or lose a fingernail.After "Redskins", they will go after "Chiefs", because that's racist too, right?Then it will be "Saints", because no true Saint would want to be associated with a violent game, right?Then it will be "Giants", because someone tall might decide to be offended.Then it will be "Packers", because what Cobalt and his life-partner do in the privacy of their home is none of your business.There will still be football in Goodell and Cobalt's world, it just won't be a man's game anymore.

    Right. Because banning names that are racist slurs is the first step on a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to banning names of mythical creatures and corporate sponsors (the Indian Packing Company bought Green Bay's uniforms for them in exchange for having the team named after them).
  16. Just read the part I cut out at the bottom after the line of asterisks.

    The whole etymology-based argument is stupid. Can I name my team the [rhymes with maggots] and then claim it's not derogatory because it used to mean a bundle of sticks of whatever? Of course not. All that really matters is the current understanding of the word, and there is zero doubt that many Native Americans (and lots of other people) think it is derogatory. Case closed.
    Interesting etymology lesson: referring to gay people by a word originally meaning a fat stick good for burning dates back to the practice of burning gay people alive. Things like this are why all this PC nonsense really matters. When you call someone a ######, you're basically saying they aren't good for anything but firewood. That may have been acceptable given the social mores of the day, but is really reprehensible today in a society that really should know better. And ignorance, in my mind, is the opposite of an excuse- it's even more reason to change it. When we have millions of young kids running around calling each other firewood without realizing what they're saying, it's our job as responsible adults to EDUCATE them about what they're really saying.Similarly, when millions of people are cheering on the Redskins oblivious to the fact that the name is pejorative, we shouldn't just shrug and say "well, as long as they didn't know, I guess it's okay".
  17. I have been the guy always winning the trades too. Some owners are very irrational and will trade for all manner of reasons besides just wanting to make their teams better.

    Just because a trade is for a reason other than improving the team doesn't make it irrational. There are all sorts of fantasy owners with all sorts of goals. I have a non-competitive league with a bunch of college buddies, for instance. Everyone in the league knows that I take this more seriously, and that I'm probably going to whip them all (6 seasons, 6 years in the playoffs, 5 title game appearances, 2 titles), but nobody cares because the goal is just keeping in touch now that we've all moved across the country. The league is more about the good natured ribbing and the shared history than dominating face. In a league like that, it's perfectly rational for someone to draft nothing but rookies, or nothing but players from one particular college. One year, we were a member short, so we just created an extra team, had it draft from ESPN's consensus rankings, and never bothered to set its lineup (we named it after an old friend who was laughably bad at keeping his commitments). The team had the lowest point total in the league, but managed to ride the most amazing schedule ever to the second round of the playoffs. Which is just another thing that makes this one of my favorite leagues. In WCOFF, obviously that's irrational. For us, for that league, with those goals, it's the most rational possible solution to the problem. What I'm getting at is that when we're calling other owners irrational, what we're really saying is that their behavior makes no sense according to our goals, beliefs, and values. That's a mistake, because even in highly competitive leagues, everyone has their own goals, beliefs, and values. Some guys would rather lose with their own hand-picked guys than win by following someone else's rankings and loading up on someone else's favorites. Some guys live for the hero shot, the one call that will secure for them fantasy immortality, while others are grinders whose only goal is to keep trading two dimes for a quarter until they are millionaires. Some guys believe that the only goal each and every year should be winning the championship that year, while others focus on maximizing championships over a longer timeline, and will gladly take a short term value hit even when they're a heavy contender. For some guys, it's not even about championships, it's about rosterbation- creating the best, prettiest, youngest team on paper. For some, that's what makes them happiest. And, not to get too heavy into social psychology, the truth is that most guys cycle through several of these goals based on framing- time of year, team record, recent success rate on moves, and other contextual factors which have no bearing on player value but a lot of bearing on how we value players. In short, it's probably better not to think of league mates as irrational, but rather as rational actors following different values. The advantage that offers is that if we can decode those values, we can start making moves that wind up being rational for both teams according to their own values.
  18. The quick answer is always get the best player in the deal. This translates to not trading said great player.

    Quick rule of thumb: any quick rule of thumb that contains the words "always" or "never" is always wrong, and never right.As a general guideline, the whole "whoever gets the best player wins" guideline is a very useful heuristic, but to suggest that it's always the case is just wrong. To think of it in terms of startup value... if you could trade a top 5 startup pick for four late 2nds/early 3rds, you're certainly coming out ahead in that trade.In EBF's hypothetical, I think your goal must always be making your team better, not preventing your opposition from getting better. If your opponent improves, but you improve by a greater amount, you've gained an advantage on all 11 other teams in your league. If you improve, but your partner improves by a greater amount... well, you've still gained an advantage over the other 10 teams in the league. If you have a stud wasting away on a dead end roster, you're just wasting his production. Points do you no good unless you're competitive. I'm not saying sell your stud for a bunch of mediocre WR3s, because those won't make you a title contender either, but you owe it to yourself to try to get something of value for him, especially if it's someone like Arian Foster, Ray Rice, Larry Fitzgerald, Brandon Marshall, or Drew Brees, who won't still be viable by the time it takes you to get the rest of your house in order. Don't waste away his career and drain him of every ounce of market value just to spite the rest of your league.
  19. Hell, I don't even care about the name

    I know. And my point in all of this discussion with you - which apparently I haven't made clear - is that some people do care about a name more than you do. I don't see why that's apparently such a crazy thing to say. It comes off as holier-than-thou to say, "My fanhood has nothing to do with a name, so yours shouldn't either." I simply predicted that they'd take a bigger financial hit than others think they would.As I've thought about it, though, I do need to alter my prediction to account for how it changes. It could range from a court-ordered change to a Snyder-trying-to-sell-more-jerseys change. The former probably wouldn't lead too many fans away. The latter would be the straw that broke the back of the thousands and thousands of people who are already pissed off at Snyder and have been close to leaving for years.
    If you got 1,000 Redkins fans together (without telling them why) and had them write down their top 5 reasons for fanhood, their top 5 favorite things about the team, how often do you think "their name" would show up? Out of 5,000 possible data points, I'd venture it would show up less than 50 times. In fact, I would not be the least bit surprised if it failed to show up a single time. I would be absolutely shocked if it was #1 on even a single list. How many people are going to stop rooting for a franchise because that franchise kept their top 5 favorite things intact and changed something well down the list, instead?I also imagine if you did the same exercise and asked 1,000 Redskins fans what their 5 least favorite things were about the team, their name would show up a lot more frequently.
  20. I might rail and rage, but come game day, I'm always back on the couch cheering them on.

    Why do you keep cheering them on?
    Because I'm a fan
    Of what?
    Certainly not a name or a uniform. My fanhood stems from strong regional ties and shared memories. I grew up in Colorado, and being a fan of the Broncos preserves my roots. My extended family all came from there and now that they've moved across the country, it's become a common heritage. When I meet anyone else from the community of Broncos fans, we have an immediate shared history to unite us- we can immediately grab a beer and wax nostalgic over The Drive, or the heartbreak of 1996, or This One's for John. I don't for a second think that the Broncos are really any better or meritorious than any other franchise, or that my relationship with them is somehow unique. If I'd been born in Ohio, I'd probably be a Bengals or a Browns fan right now- and a damn proud one, at that. If I'd been born somewhere without a common rooting interest, I really could have picked any team at random and invested the time and energy necessary to make myself a fan, and I'd be just as happy and well-off as I am now. But the fact is that I was NOT born in Ohio, and I did NOT pick any team at random. I am a Broncos fan, and I've invested huge amounts of time and energy into that endeavor. I've learned the history and internalized the results. I've created a lifetime of memories, a scrapbook of where I was when certain events happened, of who I shared experiences with. I've woven my Broncos fanhood tightly into the tapestry of my identity, and it would take a lot more than a name change to sever that strand and pull it free. Hell, I don't even care about the name- I think it's a pretty mediocre name, to be honest. If I were rating the names from best to worst, it'd be middle of the pack. It's not as bad as the Packers or the Bills or the Jets or the Browns, but it's also no Lions, Bengals, Chargers, or Vikings. It's just a name, not really important except that it signifies some ephemeral concept in which I have heavily invested myself. That investment doesn't magically disappear if the name changes.
  21. I might rail and rage, but come game day, I'm always back on the couch cheering them on.

    Why do you keep cheering them on?
    Because I'm a fan, and if I'm being perfectly honest, less than 1% of my enjoyment of rooting for the team has anything to do with their aesthetics. Denver could change their colors to puce and olive and I'd ##### about it because I like to feel like I have some sort of control over what the team does, but in the end, game day would be every bit as enjoyable to me after the color change as it was before.
  22. I don't think the Wizards, Titans, and Angels are very good comps for the Redskins. I'll admit it is romanticized a bit, but the Redskins do have a decent number (no idea how many) of people who have held season tickets in their family since before any of those franchise existed. That has reduced over time with people giving up tickets for a variety of reasons (too expensive, losing, don't like the owner, don't like the stadium location, etc.). But, it's still exist for the Redskins more than many other franchises. Comparing the Redskins situation to the Tennessee Titans, who spent one full year named the Tennessee Oilers (and played in Memphis) before changing, is nowhere near a fair comparison regarding name changes. Of course the people of Nashville didn't run away when they changed their name. Why would they? Maybe some of us are overestimating the impact, but I think others are underestimating.

    As I said, say the Redskins change their name to the Washington Sponges, or the Washington Buckets. What are you going to do? Root for the Ravens? Give up football? As a fan, my team would have to do something truly egregious for me to forsake my fanhood. I might rail and rage, but come game day, I'm always back on the couch cheering them on.
  • Create New...