This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I have always felt that way. It hasn't helped either that I have had 3 leagues fold in the last 2 years.
However, the saving grace was that in 2 of those leagues I won the championship in the first year, so I ended up turning a profit while those with the 5-6 year strategy had great looking teams, but lost money on the venture. Unfortunately, unless you run the league yourself you have no guarantee it will last long enough to validate your long term strategy.This may not be a popular opinion, but it is about building the prettiest roster. Building “pretty” rosters is highly underrated and seems to be constantly picked on and mocked as an inferior endeavor. In my experience, winning a championship with “win now” vets (I would now include Adrian Peterson in this group) is very hit or miss. There are always a number of good teams trying the same thing (particularly in the startup year) and who wins comes down to chance at the end (and often its not even one of the very good teams that ends up with the title). Winning one championship in 3 years and then ending up with an old or otherwise mediocre roster is hardly satisfying to me. I’d rather play redraft if that is the goal. Even worse, if you pick Adrian Peterson over Trent Richardson or Doug Martin and you don’t end up winning, the long term ramifications can be disastrous (as you end up with an untradeable old RB once your 3 year run at a championship is done and no title under your belt).'squistion said:
I think one needs to spend time finding the right dynasty league. Both of mine are over 10 years old and there are several players still on their original draft rosters. As one could guess, those that drafted for the long haul have won the majority of years (PManning, Brady, Brees, Reggie Wayne, Tony Gonzalez, Ray Lewis- all top picks). If enough owners have the 2-3 year time horizon mind set, the league will certainly fail. Might as well play redraft and save the trouble.If I were to draft today, my first picks would be a young WR (Green/Jones) followed by young star QB (RG3/Luck/Cam). With a solid long term core, I would then go after the bottom tier RB's to round out the roster. That strategy worked in both leagues for over a decade. Drafting AD/Foster/Rice early reminds me of the folks that went after Faulk/Terrell Davis/Edge back in the day. In all cases, they are the ones without $.I have always felt that way. It hasn't helped either that I have had 3 leagues fold in the last 2 years.
But it's not just looking at 5-6 years from now in terms of a player. It's also in terms of trade value.Dynasty rosters turn over - fair enough. I agree with you, in fact.But barring catastrophic injury, and going by what we've seen so far, ADP will be worth a LOT less than Richardson or Martin in two years (both of whom will still be worth a ton.) Is ADP going to outscore those two over the next two years by enough to make that worthwhile? I don't think so.
I personally consider plenty players to be a lock, in terms of playing 5-6 years. Zero RBs, but players in general - sure.
I feel fairly confident that Richardson will still be worth a ton in 2 years. I'm not very confident in predicting the same for Martin, which is why I'd probably take T-rich over ADP, but would be less likely to do so with Martin.
My dynasty league I started in 1997 had 8 of the original 10 owners and the 2 that took over are still there. Guess our expectations for leageus we play in are different.
Read about 4 posts up. I meant players in the NFL.
So is our reality.
No, no, you don't understand. It is not 2-3 years and all players then self-destruct due to age related issues, or those owners either win or quit the league by that time.A 2-3 year strategy is always looking at the next 2-3 years from whatever the time frame one is currently in, and rosters are adjusted accordingly via trades, the rookie draft and the waiver wire.
I think what he's suggesting is that the teams with a 2-3 year mindset will grow old and suck, and the owners will give up and ragequit. It's a faulty premise, though- regardless of what strategy everyone uses, some teams will become good while some will become bad. There are no more studs in leagues where everyone uses a 6 year window than in a league where everyone uses a 3 year window, so on aggregate the teams will be no better. The key to keeping people from ragequitting is to make sure there's a path back to respectability for the bad teams, which is why rookie draft picks are usually awarded from worst to first.
I think what helix is suggesting is that if “enough” owners (not all owners) disregard the future (not that I think a 2-3 year approach disregards the future), you’ll have more than the typical amount of owners dropping out when the future arrives. In many leagues, you have that one, maybe two, team(s) that approach the league this way and end up leaving as a result (and often times, you can identify those owners in a startup draft that will leave in a year or two). Replacing one or two teams (even bad ones) is normally not a major issue. If 4 or 5 teams approach the league this way, the remaining 7-8 teams end up with all the studs and the other 4 or 5 become barren (i.e., the disparity becomes greater than normal) and replacing them becomes a bigger deal. Again, though, while I don’t approach leagues using a 2-3 year view, I don’t equate that approach as being a disregard for the future.'SSOG said:
The above is an accurate assessment of my comment. Regardless of approach, the best way I have found to keep a league stable outside of picking the right owners is to require a significant deposit upfront (say 3 years worth of fees). This makes owners think twice about selling everything to win now. Like I stated, my 2 leagues have been in existence for over 10 years and only 3 owners have been replaced (out of 24). Good leagues are worth their weight in gold-
I think requiring to have to pay 3 years of dues upfront is absurd. I play to win now, but I have never quit any dynasty league that I joined - but I have had several that quit on me, and it wasn't because too many owners played a short term strategy.
Thank you squistion for reminding me why I don't post often. I was simply relaying what has worked in my dynasty experience. Calling it out as absurd is a strong statement. Since your are god here, enjoy-
No more a strong statement than what you posted above: "If enough owners have the 2-3 year time horizon mind set, the league will certainly fail".
Im not in this but here's a forum mock start-up. http://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=42641
6.01 Hillman6.04 BJE7.01 VereenA good reminder that often times the experts are just like everyone else, with the addition of a webpage.Edit: FYI Jeff, you are absolutely crushing that draft so far.
Thanks jonboltz. I really wish this wasn't a mock. Maybe we'll decide to keep it, who knows?
I don't hate the team, actually. A lot of bad picks, but Green in the first, Griffin in the 3rd, and Fitz in the 4th gives him some quality pieces to work with, and McFadden is a decent high-upside gamble. His real problem is the lack of coherence in his drafting strategy. Is he looking to win immediately, as the Turner/BJGE/Bradshaw/Fitzgerald picks would suggest? Because if so, what on earth is he doing taking Robert Griffin over Drew Brees?It's almost like he created a set of dynasty rankings that was 30-40 players deep, then said "screw it" and used some free online redraft rankings for the rest.
That 8th round has some of the worst dynasty startup picks I can remember. Per normal, Jeff is one of the few that didn't #@$% the bed. There are some picks here that I will remember if I ever stumble upon those websites.
Despite the reach for DMC, he was doing OK in the early rounds. The BGJE and Turner picks are just truly terrible, terrible selections in a startup with the rest of the talent on the board.I didn't love the RBs on the board when DMC was up, and would have insta-picked Gronk there. Based on the talent that was present at the time he was drafting, I would have went BPA every pick, and while I would have been really thin at RB, I'd have a lot of talent to trade.
Yeah, he definitely went off the rails after Fitz. I'm just saying, with a core like Griffin, Green, DMac, and Fitz, I doubt his team will become a complete abomination. He at least got some quality pieces early that will hold up for a while while he tries to figure out everything else. In some ways, it's better to start your draft with Green and Griffin and then blow it later than it is to start with Peterson or Foster and then find quality value late. He's got a pretty forgiving window right out the gate. As an aside, the entire draft got RB-stupid in a hurry. 10 of the top 14 (11 of the top 16) were RBs. You already mentioned DMac over Gronk, but picks like Foster over Calvin, Lynch over Marshall, CJ and Jones-Drew over Harvin and Dez, Forte over Demaryius, Wilson over Cobb, Griffin, Luck, Brees, or Nicks, Sproles over Andre, Gore over Jordy or VJax, Hillman and Ballard (!!!) over Blackmon, BJGE over Wallace, Moreno over Peyton or Gordon... The draft was riddled with people taking old RBs over comparably-aged or younger WRs who were every bit their equal as a difference maker. That's inexcusable, especially in a league with these particulars (ppr, start up to 4 WRs). I mean, Andre scored more last year than Sproles has ever at any point in his career (by a significant margin), and I'd bet on Johnson having a lot more left in the tank, too.
Am I missing something or is Andre not taken yet and it's in the 5th round? Good to know people value him so low. I think he proved this year that he's got plenty left in the tank. He's an absolute freak athletically and Schaub has been feeding him the ball the second half of the season. I would be glad to take him in the 4th in a start-up. Even if he loses a step in a year or two, he's got the big body to remain a possession receiver for several more years after that. I can't imagine taking someone like Sproles or any other aging RB over AJ.
:X Busch league. Reminds me of when I took William Green over Peyton Manning in my first startup draft (a league where passing yards/TDs are scored the same as rushin/receiving).
Can you or someone expand upon the values of QBs in a dynasty startup?I'm in a 14tm, 25roster, PPR, with all TD's same value. With the larger amount of teams, and same value QB touchdowns as other touchdowns.... I'm considering guys like Luck and Newton in 1st round.
You should start looking for leagues that require deposits of at least half a season worth of dues. These leagues attract owners more willing to stick around due to self selection. Plus, they make it way easier to find a couple replacement owners if needed. Shameless plug, but I am starting a dynasty league that is doing a slow auction startup beginning in mid February. I am insisting on a deposit from all owners to help insure the league lasts.I have always felt that way. It hasn't helped either that I have had 3 leagues fold in the last 2 years.
I can agree with you on most of these, but a couple I can see (like Lynch over Marshall) based on the starting roster requirements of the league and the draft slot of the owner. In a start 2 RB league some people want to try to make the playoffs the first year and to do that you usually need 2 solid starting RBs. For instance, the guy who took Lynch (and Spiller) was drafting 1.12/2.01 and the draft was not going to come back around to him until 3.12. The RBs available at 3.12 were (taken in order) Sproles, Gore, Leshoure, Mathews, Hillman and Ballard, while the WRs were Nicks (who he took) plus T. Smith, Fitz, Crabs, A. Johnson, White, Nelson and Welker.
It's going to depend a lot on your scoring system. The fact that all TDs are scored the same gives a slight bump to the importance of having a good QB. And if passing yards count the same as rushing/receiving, it becomes a huge bump. In general though, QB is a low priority position for me. Most leagues only start 1 QB, but 2-3 RBs and 3-4 WRs. This means that in a standard 10-14 team league only about 30-40% of NFL starting QBs will be starting for a FF team in your league, whereas 60-100% of RBs will be starting and probably 50+% of the WRs. In other words, the demand for RBs and WRs will be higher. Lots of teams will useful QBs on their bench that they'll be willing to spare for help at other positions. On the flipside, you won't find too many teams with a real surplus at RB or WR. So you can pretty much always trade for a fringe top 10-15 at minimal cost, but you'll generally have to pay a lot more to get even a borderline starter at RB or WR. The equation changes a lot in a start 2 QB league or a league with only 1 required spot for a starting RB, but in general I don't prioritize the QB position. I usually wait until the 5th-8th round to get my starter.
I agree with EBF. I'm doing a startup right now (all TDs are 6 points). Start 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 TE, and a flex. QBs started rushing off the board, but I held off and continued building my skill positions. Everyone but me had a QB by the 5th round. I waited until the 8th round and snagged Tony Romo, who I think is a great target because he's perpetually underrated (as SSOG would attest).
Generally I have found that the Dynasty leagues I have done the best in are the ones where I owned one of the top QBs and that has held true where the scoring has been QB friendly and where it has not (although there have been exceptions - I won a league with Freeman in 2010). In the altenative, I have tried QBBC, but would usually pick the wrong QB to start.
And for the most part, there is not that much injury risk going with a top QB. The first and second tier QBs are usually pretty durable (in 2012 of the top 10 fantasy QBs all played 16 games except RG3 with 15). So you usually just need to concern yourself with a bye week fill in. Also being set at the QB position frees up some roster space for some developmental players, particularly WRs that might take a season or two to mature.I usualy try to get my QB in the first five rounds. And yes, you can wait and hope to get a QB like Romo a bit later but sometimes another owner has the same strategy and grabs him before you do leaving the choices available players like Eli, Big Ben, Dalton or Flaco.
Good young QBs are extremely valuable in dynasty, which is the great positional equalizer. In redraft, first ballot HoF QBs are never as valuable as first ballot HoF RBs, because the RBs put up a lot more VBD in a single season. In dynasty, though, factoring in career lengths, an elite QB can easily close the gap. Comparing the first two players that came to mind (I promise I didn't check beforehand), Marshall Faulk had 1162 career VBD. Peyton Manning has... 1137 and counting. Faulk's was more valuable because it came over a more compact timeframe, but Peyton still has several more years to run up the score. At the end of the day, HoF talents at all positions wind up being comparably valuable. QBs also have an added advantage of safety, since they miss fewer games, and their longer careers means you can wait until you're certain a guy is an elite talent, and they'll still have plenty of career left in front of them. At this point, we're probably equally certain of Rodgers's and Peterson's greatness, but Rodgers has a lot more left in him. In a 14 teamer, I'd take Rodgers or Newton in the first or Griffin or Luck in the second without much hesitation.
According to pfr, Lynch was 4th this year with 130 VBD, while Marshall was 8th with 98 VBD. But PFR doesn't use PPR scoring, which skews things heavily away from Lynch (who has only topped 30 receptions once in 6 years, way back in 2008), and towards Marshall (who has averaged 103 receptions per 16 games across three franchises over the last 6 years). Point being, I don't think Lynch does more to help him win now than Marshall does. I understand positional scarcity, but in PPR, when you can potentially start 4 WRs, you can live with weakness at the rb2 position (especially with as far as quality WRs were falling). I would much rather have Spiller and Marshall and take my chances with a Sproles or a Gore (if I'm trying to win now) or punting the rb2 position entirely and grabbing a Dujuan Harris type late. And if a Mathews falls, so much the better. The fact that he already got one RB at the turn just makes it worse, because going RB/RB closes you off to value (if a great RB falls and you're drafting from the turn, it's hard to grab him because you'll be screwed and essentially only wind up with one non-RB who wasn't drafted in the 6th or later). Consider these 4 possible rosters: Spiller/Sproles/Marshall/Nicks, Spiller/Mathews/Marshall/Nicks, Spiller/Marshall/Nicks/Andre, Griffin (or Luck, or Brees)/Spiller/Marshall/Fitzgerald. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but going RB/WR would have given him the flexibility to take BPA at the 3/4 turn, and could have resulted in some amazing rosters that were stocked with young talent, or massive contenders to win immediately. If you open up RB/WR, then at the next turn, you can do anything- QB/RB, QB/WR, RB/RB, RB/WR, WR/WR- hell, you could even take a TE if for some unfathomable reason one of the big 3 fell to you. Opening up RB/RB makes QB/RB and RB/WR much weaker plays at the 3/4, and makes RB/RB flat out unconscionable.
Anybody else having a problem with the link?
Yep, won't open to draft, just says oops.
I'm not in the league but I searched it on MFL and got the link:http://football99.myfantasyleague.com/2012/options?L=61369&O=17
David Wilson at RB11 (22 overall) seems like courting disaster to me. He might wind up being worth it, but anytime I see a relative unknown who spent the beginning of his career in a timeshare going in the 2nd round of startups, I have post-traumatic flashbacks to Lawrence Maroney and Kevan Barlow. I'd feel much more comfortable with Morris or Ridley there, or even better, skipping the RB entirely and landing Cam Newton (who I have graded as a solid first) or Percy Harvin (who I have as a fringe first/second). I also love Kaep, and qb6 is not unreasonable, but taking him IMMEDIATELY after the Griffin/Newton/Brees tier is crazy. There's a gap there. Don't chase runs, and don't allow recency bias to blind you to the fact that even 8-game studs have huge risks associated. Overall, though, I love the draft, and I love the ballsy owners sticking to their boards, consensus-be-damned.
JMHO, whether or not it is foolhardy to project out 5-6 years at some positions, how well you did in your initial draft 5 years ago likely dictated the sorts of bargaining chips you had (or did not have) that led to your 5th year roster. If you look at your roster today, no doubt it was put together by trading away guys you did draft, or becoming hamstrung through player aging/retirement. If you went in not trying to predict the future, and invested heavily in veteran producers, the likelihood of a poor 5th year roster is high. Even when missing on unproven younger guys, the approach often rewards via high future draft picks.
