2 seasons in the NFL is a LIFETIME in Fantasy Football (1 Viewer)

[sgtrobo]

2006 fantasy stats (non-PPR):

2006 QB fantasy ranking (with 2008's placeholder in parenthesis)

1. Peyton Manning (Drew Brees)

2. Drew Brees (Philip Rivers)

3. Michael Vick (Aaron Rodgers)

4. Carson Palmer (Kurt Warner)

5. Marc Bulger (Jay Cutler)

6. Jon Kitna (Peyton Manning)

7. Tom Brady (Donovan McNabb)

8. Philip Rivers (Matt Cassel)

9. Donovan McNabb (Tony Romo)

10. Eli Manning (Chad Pennington)

2006 RB (with 2008's placeholder in parenthesis)

1. LaDainian Tomlinson (DAW)

2. Larry Johnson (Michael Turner)

3. Steven Jackson (Adrian Peterson)

4. Frank Gore (Matt Forte)

5. Willie Parker (Thomas Jones)

6. Brian Westbrook (Ladainian Tomlinson)

7. Tiki Barber (Steve Slaton)

8. Maurice Jones-Drew (Clinton Portis)

9. Rudi Johnson (MJD)

10. Ladell Betts (Brian Westbrook)

WR (with 2008's placeholder in parenthesis)

1. Marvin Harrison (Fitz)

2. Terrell Owens (Andre Johnson)

3. Reggie Wayne (Calvin Johnson)

4. Chad Johnson (Greg Jennings)

5. Donald Driver (Steve Smith)

6. Torry Holt (Roddy White)

7. Lee Evans (Anquan Boldin)

8. Steve Smith (TO)

9. Javon Walker (Antonio Bryant)

10. Roy E. Williams (Randy Moss)

TE (with 2008's placeholder in parenthesis)

1. Antonio Gates (Gonzo)

2. Alge Crumpler (Witten)

3. Tony Gonzalez (Dallas Clark)

4. Todd Heap (Antonio Gates)

5. Chris Cooley (Visanthe Shiancoe)

6. Kellen Winslow Jr. (Owen Daniels)

7. Jeremy Shockey (John Carlson)

8. Desmond Clark (Chris Cooley)

9. L.J. Smith(Greg Olsen)

10. Ben Watson (Anthony Fasano)

6 of the top 10 QBs dropped out of the top 10 within 2 years, including 4 of the top 5. Obviously Brady's injury skewed this, but only by 1 player. Now, granted, Vick was in jail and Brady and Palmer had unforseeable health issues. But would you feel comfortable with either Bulger or Kitna as anything other than a 2/3rd string QB?

7 of the top 10 RBs disappeared from the top 10. The top 5 changed completely. Jackson has had health issues, and Gore barely missed the top 10, but LJ and Fast Willie have plummeted, Rudi and Ladell bets don't even start, and Tiki Barber is long gone from football.

8 of the top 10 changed out. Only 2 (Steve Smith and TO) were top 10 in 2006 and 2008. Wayne, Fitz and AJohn were "on the cusp", but Ocho and evans seemed poised to become complete studs, and Williams and Javon Walker looked like they were well on their way also. Marvin Harrison, Donald Driver and Torry Holt sure seemed ageless.

Only Gonzo, Gates and Cooley remain from 2006's class. Crumpler caught a few passes; Heap, Jr. and shockey are perpetual IR inhabitants, and Clark, Smith and Watson simply disappeared from their team's gameplans.

I selected 2006 for the simple fact that 3 years is what I've heard a lot of people say, regarding "dynasty drafting". I know that I look at the drafts that I'm doing now and think guys like Fitz, Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Drew Brees, etc seem like "sure things" for years, but I'm getting to the point where I simply don't believe in a "sure thing" on the offensive side of the fantasy ball.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

1. Peyton Manning (Drew Brees)

2. Drew Brees (Philip Rivers)

3. Michael Vick (Aaron Rodgers)

4. Carson Palmer (Kurt Warner)

5. Marc Bulger (Jay Cutler)

7. Tom Brady (Donovan McNabb)

8. Philip Rivers (Matt Cassel)

9. Donovan McNabb (Tony Romo)

10. Eli Manning (Chad Pennington)

1. LaDainian Tomlinson (DAW)

2. Larry Johnson (Michael Turner)

3. Steven Jackson (Adrian Peterson)

4. Frank Gore (Matt Forte)

6. Brian Westbrook (Ladainian Tomlinson)

8. Maurice Jones-Drew (Clinton Portis)

2. Terrell Owens (Andre Johnson)

3. Reggie Wayne (Calvin Johnson)

4. Chad Johnson (Greg Jennings)

6. Torry Holt (Roddy White)

7. Lee Evans (Anquan Boldin)

8. Steve Smith (TO)

9. Javon Walker (Antonio Bryant)

10. Roy E. Williams (Randy Moss)

1. Antonio Gates (Gonzo)

3. Tony Gonzalez (Dallas Clark)

4. Todd Heap (Antonio Gates)

5. Chris Cooley (Visanthe Shiancoe)

6. Kellen Winslow Jr. (Owen Daniels)

7. Jeremy Shockey (John Carlson)

If you take away the 'Top 10' guys that a reasonable person would have predicted wouldn't be performing at a high level in 2008 your list looks very different... Bulger, Vick, Walker, Heap unexpectedly fell off, but a few guys like that are to be expected. And a few guys like Roy Williams can reasonably expected to perform again in the future. And a few others are just getting old - even if slightly faster than they might have.

That's why it's a dynasty - you have to separate out the one-hit wonders and find the guys who will bounce back if they have poor seasons for whatever reason.

 

[fsufan]

i only look 2 years down the road in dynasty when it comes to evaluating a players and their situation. I am a believer in just getting the best talent on your team no matter what the situation is.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I am a believer in just getting the best talent on your team no matter what the situation is.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

i only look 2 years down the road in dynasty when it comes to evaluating a players and their situation. I am a believer in just getting the best talent on your team no matter what the situation is.

The thing I find is so many people forget the current year has money on the line too, I worry about winning now, and next year will be the same, u can always rebuild a team....Free agents, Draft, Trades....IN A DYNASTY, I SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, THE ONLY YEAR THAT EVER MATTERS IS THE CURRENT ONE!1. Delhomme, Jake CAR QB 4 2. Freeman, Josh TBB QB ® 8 3. Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB 5 4. Betts, Ladell WAS RB 8 5. Gore, Frank SFO RB 6 6. Grant, Ryan GBP RB 5 7. Jackson, Steven STL RB 9 8. Portis, Clinton WAS RB 8 9. Ringer, Javon TEN RB ® 7 10. Boldin, Anquan ARI WR 4 11. Britt, Kenny TEN WR ® 7 12. Burress, Plaxico FA WR 13. Chambers, Chris SDC WR 5 14. Holt, Torry JAC WR 7 15. Jenkins, Michael ATL WR 4 16. Moss, Santana WAS WR 8 17. Clark, Dallas IND TE 6 18. Shiancoe, Visanthe MIN TE 9 19. Packers, Green Bay GBP Def 5 20. Redskins, Washington WAS Def 8 This is my squad in a start-up dynasty, everyone says I'm old, especially at wr, well WR are the easiest position to repair!People u can worry about next year and years down the road, but thats cool, I'll take the money this year!

 

[T Bell]

Your analysis is flawed and speaks more to trades IMHO than to (rookie) drafting. If your point is that "you never know year to year", or that "there are very few elite players", then everybody knows that already. But when you draft rookies in dynasty, especially with deep rosters and taxi squads, you're looking for sustained shelf life with certain positions. Peyton Manning has commanded top value in trade for the last decade. That he slipped to a ranking of 6th among QB's last year, or in 2001, means nothing in that regard.

Players in positions with long shelf lives can reemerge. Football is a game of attrition, and it's also a team sport with each player's performance dependent upon his circumstances. With certain guys you can hold onto them and wait for the talent on their teams to replenish itself. The NFL is very cyclical. Kurt Warner showed us that last year, as has Kerry Collins in recent years. Donovan McNabb is an example of a guy on a rebound in that regard given the resources his team is putting into rebuilding that offense. I don't think we've seen the last of Carson Palmer in the top 5-7 of the QB rankings.

Obviously, if you're an adept trader, then you can try to predict each year who will emerge or decline in the rankings and swing deals accordingly, but this takes a lot on faith and requires not a small amount of luck. Usually in my experience it's more sound to accumulate good talent at the positions with the longest shelf lives and hold that talent through thick and thin, using depth (hopefully) and solid WDIS analysis to win your games. These "long shelf life" positions (which I would loosely define as positions whose players can sustain or return to top level performance for 5 or more years) include QB, TE, DE, and LB. It's much rarer for players at RB, WR, DT, CB or S to do this.

Some may disagree and there's not a good brite line that easily applies to all positions, but I think this type of analysis needs to occur in dynasty. It's just not so simple as "next year or GTFO".

 

[puckalicious]

My take on Dynasty is to target 1 "stud" at QB/RB/WR that you feel has the best chance at sustained production. The rest of the positions I refresh almost every season with who I feel will be a top player THAT year only, through trades or FA pickups.

Rookies I look at 1 of 2 ways: the average talent guy in a great situation who can blow it up as a rookie then trade them for value, or a guy with alot of talent but you know you'll have to wait on his situation.

 

[mlball77]

My view is that you have to very heavily weight your projections for years 1 & 2 and after that much less. I think greater than 2 years needs to be considered, but not factored in nearly as heavily. That said, in most dynasty leagues it seems the roster size is plenty big enough to roster a few 'projects' and let them sit on your bench for a couple of years to see if they develop into the impact player you hope. So there are exceptions, but by and large, I think team owners that look too far into the future often find themselves in constant rebuilding mode.

 

[MAC_32]

I inherited a dyno team before last season that clearly did not have an eye toward the future, entering year 2 I think I may have a puncher's chance at making the playoffs (points-wise, I was actually a bit unlucky to finish 11th of 12 last year) but the odds are stacked against me. I get the point the OP (and others) are making in that many dyno owners are guilty of being too forward thinking when building their team (I agree), but to only be focused on 'the now' is not the proper way to go. That's how you end up with a team full of Sean Alexander's, Edgerrin James', Marvin Harrison's, Joey Galloway's, Zach Thomas', Jake Delhomme's, Alge Crumpler's, etc.

I made what's turned into some great moves (albeit, some were a bit lucky) to build the team back to respectability, but my depth is basically a bunch of young guys with big upside but a much greater likelihood of failure. I still have a long way to go.

I usually treat my teams by looking at a three year window and have had success in doing so, I trade a lot (probably too much), but depending on the makeup of your team different strategies should be utilized. If you're in full blown rebuilding mode 2009 should not be the window you're looking toward, 2010-2012 should be. If your team sucks and you're sitting on a Willie Parker, LT, or Brian Westbrook - trade them to the Mendenhall, Sproles, and McCoy owners while they will still provide a solid return.

 

[greyone]

Step your game up!

-Floyd "Money" Mayweather c/o Jim Rome

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

good topic, Sgt. Welcome to Footballguys. It is amazing how much things change in just one season. Last year at this time, we were wondering if Brady and Moss could duplicate the 2007 season. I think of the coaching changes in the last year and the impact of the rookies ... and I quickly come to grips that I can take nothing for granted year to year.

 

[madd futher]

My view is that you have to very heavily weight your projections for years 1 & 2 and after that much less. I think greater than 2 years needs to be considered, but not factored in nearly as heavily. That said, in most dynasty leagues it seems the roster size is plenty big enough to roster a few 'projects' and let them sit on your bench for a couple of years to see if they develop into the impact player you hope. So there are exceptions, but by and large, I think team owners that look too far into the future often find themselves in constant rebuilding mode.

Yes, I take a very similar view, kinda like a financial present value analysis model, if you will. Generally I establish my value tiers just prior to the draft, and than re-value post-draft based on situation. The final result seems to roughly weigh in at about two parts estimated NFL-translatible talent to one part situation. I've heard the argument that talent always transcends situation, and I frankly just buy it. Many situations stay fairly static for the life of the rookie contract - many don't. Career-ending (or more often, career-altering) injuries can happen to the high talent-translatible athletes as well as to the more marginal ones. Many players you may have projected with great NFL-translatible talent never reach their potential because of off-the-field issues or simply because they don't perform at the projected level after receiving some really life-changing money. the flip side is that some players you didn't rate as highly got good enough coaching and were good enough students for them to rather quickly compensate for previous technical deficiencies at their craft. You can't underestimate the value that lots of early reps can make to a player's development and therefore to his fantasy production.

There are just so many variables. And on top of that, I've read that the average NFL career is less than 4 years.

So anyone who doesn't consider both projectible talent and situation and front-end load projected current production in their rookie drafts will have a few super winners and a lot of players playing their entire careers at far below the expected performance levels when they are drafted. So, yes, I beleive you must draft for talent, BUT you must

strongly factor situation into your draft calculations, so as to 'front-load' anticipated production, valuing early (like this year's and next) expected production higher than ultimate anticipated production, similar to present value analysis.

If you are always drafting based on your talent estimation alone, too often, tommorrow never comes. You just can't wait very long to get fantasy point results.

Robiskie in a good situation as a starter this year may be much more preferable than a Maclin who might return punts and kick-offs for the next two years and perhaps might seldom see the field this year as a wide-out (this is just an example - I'm not saying Maclin won't become a full-time WR1 this year or next, but it is harder to project that he'll be on the field full time right away or next year - and by extension ever recoup enough value for the owner who may have drafted him too high.

 

[stevegamer]

While the average NFL career is 4 years, you really need to look at the average NFL career of the players you're drafting.

The 4 year average is skewed by a lot of backups who never do much more than play a couple years, possibly never starting, and guys who have early career-ending injuries. Most of those guys aren't on rosters.

Specifically, the average career length for a player at position X who starts N games in season Y is Z years. I haven't crunched these numbers lately, but I can tell you that QB's who play in 12+ games in a given season normally have careers over 5 years long. That doesn't mean they have 5 more years left, it just means they will play 5+ years in total.

For example, in 2008 there were 27 QB's who played in 12+ regular-season games. Of those 27, 16 already had 5+ years of experience. The guys with under 5 years:

4 years: Campbell, Cassel, Fitzpatrick, Orton, Rogers - I think all of these guys will be in the league this year.

3 years: Cutler - very likely to get to 5+ seasons

2 years: Edwards, Russell, Thigpen - Thigpen might not make 5 years. Edwards & Russell should, barring injury.

1 year: Flacco & Ryan - both teams seem to be set at QB for a while.

So we've got a list of 27 QB's who are very likely rostered, and it's almost certain that 90% + of them will have career of 5 or more years, and I'd expect well over half to play 7+ years, since 12 QB's were at 7 years, and while nobody is at 6 years of expeience 5 years is EManning, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Romo.

Admittedly QB has the longest shelf life. You'll find that other postions have less, and you need to draft & plan accordingly.

 

[FUBAR]

My take on Dynasty is to target 1 "stud" at QB/RB/WR that you feel has the best chance at sustained production. The rest of the positions I refresh almost every season with who I feel will be a top player THAT year only, through trades or FA pickups.

Rookies I look at 1 of 2 ways: the average talent guy in a great situation who can blow it up as a rookie then trade them for value, or a guy with alot of talent but you know you'll have to wait on his situation.

As an avid trader, I agree with this. I forget who it was - F&L perhaps? Who mentioned "core players" in a thread a while back, makes sense IMO. These don't necessarily have to be the top player at each position, but a player who will last a long time. For example, I'd have Gregg Jennings as my core WR, but not Brandon Marshall or Randy Moss. Core players stay on my team for a few years, but eventually they aren't "core" any more. Guys like Peyton, LT, Westbrook have been my stud cores, but guys like Donald Driver, Hines Ward, and Ben are lesser core players IMO - mostly for deeper leagues. The lessers aren't going to be your #1 guy for the most part, but you pretty much know they'll be solid #2s or 3s and they're usually cheap (Ben may not be the perfect example due to people being fans more so than FF)

 

[lyon812]

My take on Dynasty is to target 1 "stud" at QB/RB/WR that you feel has the best chance at sustained production. The rest of the positions I refresh almost every season with who I feel will be a top player THAT year only, through trades or FA pickups.

Rookies I look at 1 of 2 ways: the average talent guy in a great situation who can blow it up as a rookie then trade them for value, or a guy with alot of talent but you know you'll have to wait on his situation.

As an avid trader, I agree with this. I forget who it was - F&L perhaps? Who mentioned "core players" in a thread a while back, makes sense IMO. These don't necessarily have to be the top player at each position, but a player who will last a long time. For example, I'd have Gregg Jennings as my core WR, but not Brandon Marshall or Randy Moss. Core players stay on my team for a few years, but eventually they aren't "core" any more. Guys like Peyton, LT, Westbrook have been my stud cores, but guys like Donald Driver, Hines Ward, and Ben are lesser core players IMO - mostly for deeper leagues. The lessers aren't going to be your #1 guy for the most part, but you pretty much know they'll be solid #2s or 3s and they're usually cheap (Ben may not be the perfect example due to people being fans more so than FF)

Agreed. This reflects what I've been saying in the "Sleeper List" thread about people underestimating the value of quality non-superstars. Those core players are very important to longterm success. It doesn't mean you can't seek to upgrade them to studs, of course. However, a lot of times people trade away core players in pursuit of the current "It! Player", which frequently fizzles and sets them back instead of propelling them forward. I fully admit, I used to be one of those people. Learning how to value the Donald Drivers and Rudi Johnsons of the world as important components of my team, rather than being disappointed because they weren't studs, was pivotal in becoming successful.

 

[PlayaHata]

I see your point, but I don't see any dynasty owners who draft players and then just hold onto them indefinitely. Dynasty is all about depth, reloading, and making adjustments. We all strive to have perenniel top-5 studs on our rosters, but the owners who uncover the waiver wire gems, hit on a higher percentage of sleepers in their rookie draft, and trade away players on the decline for up-and-comers are the ones who will consistently win in dynasty leagues.

 

[lyon812]

I see your point, but I don't see any dynasty owners who draft players and then just hold onto them indefinitely. Dynasty is all about depth, reloading, and making adjustments. We all strive to have perenniel top-5 studs on our rosters, but the owners who uncover the waiver wire gems, hit on a higher percentage of sleepers in their rookie draft, and trade away players on the decline for up-and-comers are the ones who will consistently win in dynasty leagues.

Actually, I've been involved in a number of leagues where players have been kept for most of their career. Not indefinitely, no, but a significant amount of time. Anyway, I don't know if I was the "your" there, but you brought in some other concepts that aren't what was being discussed.All I'm saying is that people undervalue core players and that these players are pivotal to success.So of course trading away players on the decline for up-and-comers is good. Likewise, so is paying attention to waiver wire pickups. So is trading consistent performers for established studs, instead of trading solid players for unproven players that have too high of a price due to the hype train. So is taking advantage of overhyped players and trading for consistent performers. See: Tim Hightower. However, regarding the draft, you could easily replace your "hit on a higher percentage of sleepers" with "hit on the highest percentage of useful/non-bust performers in rookie drafts".People who constantly chase the Next! Big! Thing! without appreciating the value of mid-level performers are going to shoot themselves in the foot. Hell, there are some people whose rosters are in constant turnover because they're so busy focusing on the rookies that they never actually establish anything.

 

[stevegamer]

I see your point, but I don't see any dynasty owners who draft players and then just hold onto them indefinitely. Dynasty is all about depth, reloading, and making adjustments. We all strive to have perenniel top-5 studs on our rosters, but the owners who uncover the waiver wire gems, hit on a higher percentage of sleepers in their rookie draft, and trade away players on the decline for up-and-comers are the ones who will consistently win in dynasty leagues.

Actually, I've been involved in a number of leagues where players have been kept for most of their career. Not indefinitely, no, but a significant amount of time. Anyway, I don't know if I was the "your" there, but you brought in some other concepts that aren't what was being discussed.All I'm saying is that people undervalue core players and that these players are pivotal to success.

So of course trading away players on the decline for up-and-comers is good. Likewise, so is paying attention to waiver wire pickups.

So is trading consistent performers for established studs, instead of trading solid players for unproven players that have too high of a price due to the hype train.

So is taking advantage of overhyped players and trading for consistent performers. See: Tim Hightower.

However, regarding the draft, you could easily replace your "hit on a higher percentage of sleepers" with "hit on the highest percentage of useful/non-bust performers in rookie drafts".

People who constantly chase the Next! Big! Thing! without appreciating the value of mid-level performers are going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Hell, there are some people whose rosters are in constant turnover because they're so busy focusing on the rookies that they never actually establish anything.

The bolded are excellent points. I have a dynasty roster where my studs were QB, DL, DL, LB, LB, DB when I started. The studs are now QB, DL, DL, DB, DB. However, I have solid starters (DL2 or LB2-3 or DB2-3) in every other defensive spot and we start 11 IDP. The studs mentioned haven't left my roster once they arrived.

 

[sgtrobo]

actually, I wasn't really doing analysis so much as proving a point to someone who I hope read this.

This individual has been veto'ing trades like mad because he thinks what happened last year must happen this year.

someone posted a trade, and one team got Tom Brady and some change, and the other side got Westy and Jay Cutler, and he was veto'ing like mad and was absolutely livid that the commish didn't block the trade.

this is how I look at it, when it comes to players and "dynasty value"

Do I look at the player and say "damn, that dude is a stud!!!"

or

Do I look at the player and say "damn, he's in a good situation!!!"

choice A = me building my team around him

choice B = me snatching him up this year and then dropping him like a bad habit when his value peaks

it's the whole cause/effect thing. is the guy a producer primarily because of his situation, or primarily because God wanted him to be a #######' beast on the gridiron?

 

[PlayaHata]

I see your point, but I don't see any dynasty owners who draft players and then just hold onto them indefinitely. Dynasty is all about depth, reloading, and making adjustments. We all strive to have perenniel top-5 studs on our rosters, but the owners who uncover the waiver wire gems, hit on a higher percentage of sleepers in their rookie draft, and trade away players on the decline for up-and-comers are the ones who will consistently win in dynasty leagues.

Actually, I've been involved in a number of leagues where players have been kept for most of their career. Not indefinitely, no, but a significant amount of time. Anyway, I don't know if I was the "your" there, but you brought in some other concepts that aren't what was being discussed.All I'm saying is that people undervalue core players and that these players are pivotal to success.So of course trading away players on the decline for up-and-comers is good. Likewise, so is paying attention to waiver wire pickups. So is trading consistent performers for established studs, instead of trading solid players for unproven players that have too high of a price due to the hype train. So is taking advantage of overhyped players and trading for consistent performers. See: Tim Hightower. However, regarding the draft, you could easily replace your "hit on a higher percentage of sleepers" with "hit on the highest percentage of useful/non-bust performers in rookie drafts".People who constantly chase the Next! Big! Thing! without appreciating the value of mid-level performers are going to shoot themselves in the foot. Hell, there are some people whose rosters are in constant turnover because they're so busy focusing on the rookies that they never actually establish anything.

I was replying to the OP, not your post. Sorry about that. You made very good points though. For the most part to me, depth=core players, so I don't think we're that much in disagreement. I probalby emphasized roster turnover more than I should have.I try to always have a mixture of useful/non-bust performers and big upside players on my bench. I know it's been said before in other threads, but proven vets like Donald Driver, etc. are some of the most undervalued commodities in dynasty leagues, so it makes sense to try to roster a few of those types of players.

 

[puckalicious]

actually, I wasn't really doing analysis so much as proving a point to someone who I hope read this.This individual has been veto'ing trades like mad because he thinks what happened last year must happen this year.someone posted a trade, and one team got Tom Brady and some change, and the other side got Westy and Jay Cutler, and he was veto'ing like mad and was absolutely livid that the commish didn't block the trade.this is how I look at it, when it comes to players and "dynasty value"Do I look at the player and say "damn, that dude is a stud!!!"orDo I look at the player and say "damn, he's in a good situation!!!"choice A = me building my team around himchoice B = me snatching him up this year and then dropping him like a bad habit when his value peaksit's the whole cause/effect thing. is the guy a producer primarily because of his situation, or primarily because God wanted him to be a #######' beast on the gridiron?

Reason #3224321245 to never play in leagues where owners can veto a trade.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

It's about consistency more than actual year-to-year rankings.

Peyton Manning has usually not been the #1 fantasy QB, but is usually ranked as such because every year he's close to #1. Same is true with LT at RB. THAT'S what you should be looking for in dynasty drafts. Guys that will perform well consistently, even if they're not in the top 5 at their position every single year.