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!
Frankly I'm not even a big Ridley supporter, as I've stated in other threads that I see a realistic possibility that Vereen passes him on the depth chart during the next season - but my statement was to further jwb's response to EBF's "disparaging" players because they weren't diffference makers.
The point you make helps RBs like Ridley who produce. The WR field is growing with options, the RB field is shrinking. If I get a moment, I run the VBD so we can look at it. But, in general, more and more teams are producing 2+ productive WR options, and more and more teams are are unable to provide a single fantasy starter at RB.
Not sure what you're saying here. If I am undestanding you, you are making a point for situational context. I don't think that is fair, really; of course a good WR is more important than a good RB to a team who is not in the hunt. But RB2 has been a very vital position in winning championships in my leagues. The gap bewteen the champions and fringe playoff rosters is very often at the RB2 spot.
There aren't a lot of difference makers in the league at any given time, so of course they aren't the only ones who have value. People talk a lot about superstar players being the way to win championships, but in my experience depth is also an important factor. A player like Derrick Mason who can give you several years of WR2-WR3 numbers is extremely valuable in FF. I didn't mean to suggest that Ridley has no value. In a start 2 RB league, he's going to give you an edge every week as your second back. But if you're rolling him out there as your RB1, you're bleeding points. That's all I'm really saying. He's a decent player, but unlikely to ever become much more than what we saw this past season. In the first 3-4 rounds of a dynasty draft I'd probably be more inclined to gamble on players who are closer to the top of their positions. I'd rather grab a Cam Newton or Jimmy Graham, knowing that it's hard to find players of their caliber whereas RBs of Ridley's ability level enter the league every season.
In PPR, Ridley's production (per game)is about equal to WR25-30 most years, so Floyd only has to be a solid fantasy WR3 to outscore Ridley. Some value may be there if Ridley keeps his job and if a league requires 2Rbs.
Even if you think there's a decent chance Vereen passes Ridley, the trade in question netted both backs, so it's moot. I'm one of the most talent-centric, situation-blind posters on this board. I'm sure others could gladly attest to that. With that said, there are still limits to talent-centric eval. The simple fact is that Floyd plays for one of the most putrid passing teams in recent NFL history. He shares the field with arguably the best WR in the league, a noted target hog with years left in his prime. What is Floyd's path to fantasy relevance, here? Even if he's great, do you think he's stealing looks from Larry? And even if he does, do you think Arizona can support two fantasy receivers? What's his upside when best case scenario for him leaves him as the clear #2 on a mediocre or worse passing team?I liked Floyd a lot last year before the draft, but he landed in one of those situations that no amount of talent could possibly transcend. Honestly, if we're looking at underperforming first round WRs, I'd rather have Jenkins than Floyd. Floyd is a roster albatross.
Not talking baselines but rather the spread between WR12 vs RB12 (which Ridley did not reach), will be around where it is now going forward (40 point difference as in 2012 vs the smaller spreads in years prior). A 40 point difference is significant.
I’m saying the opposite. To exaggerate in order to make a point, a good RB2 (200 points for argument purposes) is a dime a dozen for the better teams, a serviceable RB3 (185 points) as well (where they are not so in the league as a whole). The value of an additional RB2 or the RB2 on their team is less than the typical VBD calculation suggests, because a good team’s replacement level RB (its RB3) produces much better than the baseline RB for the league as a whole. This is true for a WR as well, although the replacement WR on such good team, in my experience, is not much better than the replacement RB if at all. As such, not counting age/longevity, the player that scores more points will most likely be the more valuable to the better team. When in doubt, take the player that will score more, regardless of position. That said, I think the RB of equal production as the WR is slightly more valuable to that better team, but only slightly. Certainly, a 40 point production difference more than makes up for it.
I don't understand what you're saying. A good team wouldn't need Stevan Ridley? Or would value him less because they already have a (or 3) baseline RB(s)?
Jenkins over Floyd? I’ll leave that one alone. Would you have believed this time last year that Jacksonville would have room for 2 quality WRs? And yet, still with no quality QB there, owners are salivating over the prospects of Shorts and Blackmon (perhaps justifiably so). Things change fast in the NFL. A QB change (very possible), a coaching change (already happened)...who knows? Even just Floyd’s regular development (and playing time) could change things dramatically, particularly since defenses will always be focusing their attention on Fitz. It was fine to dismiss his potential for 2012 early in the season when it became clear that Arizona sucked, it may even be fine to dismiss it for 2013 (I wouldn’t, but it would not be unreasonable to do so). But for 2014 and beyond, anything can happen (for most teams, good or bad) and I’d prefer to gamble on Floyd’s talent than on Ridley/Vereen making a difference.
On the contrary, Floyd is exactly the type of player that savvy owners should be trying to acquire. A player with Pro Bowl potential at CFL prices. When all of the reasons why you shouldn't buy a player have nothing to do with the player himself, it's usually a sign that he might be undervalued. The situational factors will burn off over time and if the player is good enough, he will emerge eventually. Looking at Floyd...- His QBs are garbage. That's not actually a bad thing. It means there's nowhere to go but up. - He has no opportunity. Fitzgerald turns 30 soon and Roberts is a free agent after next season. - He wasn't productive. 45 catches on 86 targets is actually good for a rookie with junk at QB. The thing is, the poor QB play and lack of opportunity actually obscured his talent. So while it suppressed his production, it has also kept his perceived value down. Meaning you're getting him for a discount because his results don't mirror his ability or potential. You grab a guy like this in the 8th-10th round of a startup and he could very easily be worth twice that in two years. You have to have the vision to see the talent through the haze. FWIW, I don't know that Floyd is destined for stardom. He's got kind of a long-legged build and doesn't look like the best route runner because of it, but there's enough there to make me think he has a chance to be successful. If I could get him for a reasonable price I would certainly consider it, but most of the owners in my leagues aren't jumping ship.
I agree with all of this. But in the context of that trade, I don't think he alone was ever looked at as a difference maker. And yes, I know all about the downside of Ridley being your RB1 (BBIII)
I guess I'm saying this debate is really for another thread. In reading the things you wrote (and from my trade the other day), it seemed to me that you were somewhat knocking guys because they weren't cornerstone players.To restate, a good team would not value Ridley as much relative to a WR as VBD would suggest because their replacement player is better than the baseline player of the league as a whole. While that team might value Ridley over an equal scoring WR, it would not do so by as much as VBD would suggest. As such, a 225 point scoring WR is worth more to a better team than a 200 point scoring RB, whereas your VBD calculation may say otherwise. Choosing a WR that scores 40 points more than a RB would be a slam dunk.
Here are the rosters Post trade at affected positions. Team AQBCousins, K Foles, N Henne, C Smith, A Stafford, M Wilson, WRBGoodson, M Harris, D Ivory, C McCoy, L Pead, I Richardson, D Ridley, S Vereen, S Wilson, DWRAlexander, D Criner, J Decker, E Gordon, J Harvin, P Hill, S Sanders, E Tate, GTeam BManning, E Ponder, C PryorrbJennings, R Jones-Drew, M McFadden, D Morris, A Royster, EwrAmendola, D Baldwin, D Blackmon, J Floyd, M Hankerson, L Hawkins, A Jackson, V Jenkins, A Morgan, J Nicks, H
I don't know how we could qualify what a good team is, without a specific roster. And once we go that in depth, what is the point? We are no longer talking value but roster management. I will say that I don't think many rosters have too many good RBs. And we cant forget that VBD doesn't display just how valuable a RB is. VBD assumes that a replacement value player is neutral accross all positions. We know that's not the case. QB12, or TE12 are a lot more affordable than RB24, as they should be. RB is the hardest position to get even baseline production from. There is a reason guys like Andre Brown, Rashad Jennigns, etc, go high in the waiver process, while equally productive WRs are on the wire.
What's right with the shark pool
I am team A. Without turning this into an AC forum thing. I knewTeam B really liked Dmac. I was interested in Wilson due to the unique scoring system for a qb who canscore ruching TD's. Plus he always impressed me in college. Team B wanted to trade Wilson, Sanders, and Hankerson for Dmac and Floyd. I was not comfortable doing this as I was unable to acquire bryce brown resonably (guy turned down 1.11 for him), and not sure if wilson becomes the man in new york this year. If Mccoy is injured I have no RB. So I needed a rb in return. We settled on the above trade. Also We start 1qb,1rb,3wr,1te with a flex at rb,wr,te. I agree with EBF completely onFloyd. I had just acquired him 2 days earlier for lafell and pick 2.06. I did not want to trade him. However I felt I could due to my wr depth,I wanted russell, and generally felt it was a solid deal for my team. Sanders may have a decent year with wallace likely out of there and may out perform floyd for the next couple of years. Although, in dynasty I prefer Floyd over sanders. And that is the logic, or lack of, behind this deal.
Again, I'm with you. Talent will almost always trump situation. ALMOST always. Situation still has to count for something, and Floyd's is as bad as they come. Putrid offense? Check. Terrible ownership? Check. History of futility? Check? Terrible roster/cap situation? Check. HoF talent on the other side dominating looks? Check. Toughest defensive division in the league? Check. If Floyd were Larry Fitzgerald, I'd still be bullish on him... But he's not. He was a very good prospect- not a great one, and certainly not a transcendent one. He's not anywhere near good enough for me to ignore that massive suck sandwich in which he has landed.
You're assuming injury risk for RBs is 0. Furthermore, you are assuming owners believe the injury risk for RBs is 0.
Just a different way of looking at things. My point is, the question of whether a RB is more valuable than a WR (or vice versa) only comes into play when I have a better team that can contend for a title. My better teams contending for a title already have a Steven Ridley or comparable player(s) where position scarcity does not affect such teams nearly as much as it does for other teams (where a RB2 might dramatically increase points but not enough to win a championship anyway).As such, I’d much rather have the player that scores 40 more points than the other, regardless of whether that player is a RB or a WR.
One reason is that the expected production of those RBs on a ppg basis, while starting, can be very high (thus, potentially difference making). The expected ppg production is higher than the ppg production of other waiver wire WRs (who are not difference making).
Just keeping it simple for purposes of discussion, as there is injury risk for both WR and RB. I'd make an adjustment for it in favor of RB, but not to the point where a RB that scores 219 is valued close to a WR that scores 260.
2012 PPR#12 RB - 200 points; 52VBD#12 WR - 242 points; 53 VBD
You must be excluding game 16, correct? What were the baselines you used?If this were correct, then this furthers my point that VBD, calculated in this way, does not accurately depict value of RB relative to WR. Are you really of the opinion that a WR that outscores a RB by 42 points is equal in value to that RB?
Did forget week 17, and it actually makes the VBD 62 for both of them. Baseline: 24/24, same as FBG uses. If you wanted to adjust that to 24/36(ish), the VBD is 62 to 91. The truth is somewhere in bewteen that area. I have found that using VBD somewhere around 14/36/40/8 usually works for me, in most standard leagues, but it's not an exact scienct. But I honestly do feel that positional points are not created equal and should be greatly slanted towards the RB. Look at the startable options in the WR3-5 range. These guys all come in below baseline, so they don't count when we measure VBD. But clearly, there is more start-worthy players in this group than the same group for RBs. 34 Roberts, Andre ARI 15 4 29 0 64 759 5 0 172.8 35 Floyd, Malcom SD 14 0 0 0 56 814 5 0 167.4 36 Rice, Sidney SEA 16 2 6 0 50 748 7 0 167.4 37 Moore, Denarius OAK 15 1 -5 0 51 741 7 0 166.6 38 Nelson, Jordy GB 12 0 0 0 49 745 7 0 165.5 39 Harvin, Percy MIN 9 22 96 1 62 677 3 1 163.3 40 Gordon, Josh CLE 16 0 0 0 50 805 5 1 160.5 41 Tate, Golden SEA 15 3 20 0 45 688 7 1 157.8 42 Avery, Donnie IND 16 4 9 0 60 781 3 0 157.0 43 Bowe, Dwayne KC 13 0 0 0 59 797 3 1 156.7 44 Kerley, Jeremy NYJ 16 5 8 0 56 827 2 3 151.5 45 Wright, Kendall TEN 15 1 4 0 64 626 4 1 151.0 46 Gibson, Brandon STL 16 0 0 0 51 691 5 0 150.1 47 Amendola, Danny STL 11 2 8 0 63 666 3 2 148.4 48 Moss, Santana WAS 16 3 14 0 41 573 8 1 147.7 49 Bess, Davone MIA 13 0 0 0 61 778 1 0 144.8 50 Alexander, Danario SD 10 0 0 0 37 658 7 0 144.8 51 Little, Greg CLE 16 2 15 0 53 647 4 0 143.2 52 Washington, Nate TEN 16 0 0 0 45 729 4 0 141.9 53 Nicks, Hakeem NYG 13 0 0 0 53 692 3 0 140.2 54 LaFell, Brandon CAR 14 3 35 0 44 677 4 0 139.2 55 Garcon, Pierre WAS 10 1 2 0 45 644 4 0 133.6 56 Heyward-Bey, Darrius OAK 15 2 16 0 41 606 5 0 133.2 57 Hawkins, Andrew CIN 14 6 30 0 51 533 4 0 131.3 58 Givens, Chris STL 15 3 12 0 42 698 3 0 131.0 59 Stokley, Brandon DEN 15 0 0 0 45 544 5 0 129.4 60 Britt, Kenny TEN 14 0 0 0 45 589 4 1 127.9 61 Jackson, DeSean PHI 11 3 -7 0 45 700 2 0 126.3 62 Avant, Jason PHI 14 0 0 0 53 648 0 0 117.8
So here we have two trades involving Sanders and a rookie 2nd rounder, with a couple small value differences on each side.Is this how most people are valuing Sanders at this point?I understand the slight excitement about what could happen with Wallace leaving, but I'm not sure that's actually the best-case scenario for Sanders. Besides that, he strikes me as kind of an average possession receiver. What's your thought process, Coop? I can understand taking the shot in the dark for just a pick downgrade (2nd to 3rdd). What picks are those? Looks like I got about market value, maybe a little better.
In my deal, the league includes devy players, so the draft pool is watered down some. This 2nd rounder is worth less than it would be in traditional leagues.As for Sanders' value, I like him as a player more than I like him as a fantasy option. I think he is best suited for the slot, and I would be very surprised if Pitt didn't bring in a bigger WR option to pair next to Brown, should Wallace leave. Ben is one of the top 7 or so QBs in my league, but he's not a guy whose slot option I would look to invest in, like, say, Manning, Brady, or Brees. I think he is worth a late 2nd rounder, in most leagues.
Am I crazy for liking Vereen over the 1.08?
If I am reading the draft correctly, any RB you are drafting around there is about the same level of talent. Here you at least know the situation now.
Vereen ain't even worth the 2.08.
I prefer Vereen as well
I do, too.
very few blue chippers in rookie drafts this year
Surely.
If someone offers you a first for Vereen the only thing you should think about is not breaking your finger hitting the 'accept' button too hard.Well there is always the chance that who you pick might be a bust. But then, at worst, you are trading Vereen for himself, two years younger.
If that's the worst possible outcome you can envision then sure, it's a no brainer I guess. But you're saying there is a 0% chance that Vereen ever turns into a fantasy starter, and I disagree.
I was going for humor. I don't believe there is a 0% chance, at all. If Woodhead leaves, he would move up a spot right there. If Ridley gets injured, he then moves into the pass-catching part of a committee and certainly be someone to use as a flex and possibly very low end RB2 in a PPR league. However, I'd put a lot more faith in whoever you draft at 1.08 having a much easier path into a starting lineup. There will likely be at least 3-4 decently ranked RBs following the draft, and certainly more than 4 WRs taken in the first two rounds (likely more like 7-8).
Good trade for you. You got the best player, by far, and probably didn't hurt your depth in a meaningful way.A deal I've just done that I'm delighted with. Standard scoring, 26 man rosters, start 3 RBs and 3 WRsTeam A (me) gaveujuan HarrisChris Givens (STL)CelekTeam B gave:Jordy Nelson
I would snap that. How much bigger can Wilson get? $10 for a 300-touch running back in a high-powered offense? You're nuts.
