Buy or Sell: LeSean McCoy as a top 3 dynasty RB (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

An interesting conversation has picked up legs in the Start-up thread. I would like to move it to it's own thread, as not to take away from the other.

Buy or Sell LeSean McCoy as a top 3 dynasty back in (full 1.0) PPR formats? (Calvin indluded as he was mentioned. Being a WR, it would depend on the format. Ignore if needed)

I am a buyer.

My reasoning is pretty simple: He is 22 years old and coming of a top 3 (PPG and total) season. I personally don't know why much more explanation is needed than that.

The list of names that have been suggested as better options include:

Adrian Peterson: 3+ years older. Scored less in 2010. Doesn't know who his QB is going to be. More tread.

CJ2K: 3+ years older. Scored less in 2010. Doesn't know who his QB is going to be. More tread.

Foster: Conceded. In a better position to score fantasy points over the next 3 years.

Rice: I don't understand this argument at all. McCoy looked better, performed better, and scored more points, more consistently.

Calvin Johnson: In start 2 RB/WR, I don't see any argument for a WR that scores less points being taken over a RB in a 14 team league.

Jamaal Charles: I think Charles is the better football player (as I do ADP, CJ, etc). But, especially PPR, that is not always a valid reason to rank on player over another. McCoy didn't get a lot more touches than Charles, so they both have room for an increase in their workload. Both were ridiculously effective with the ball in their hands. I just think that McCoy is more likely to have a full load, but it is close.

Either I am completely missing something, or the Shark Pool is a season behind. Help me find out which it is.

 

[Donsmith753]

While I didn't come in here expecting to agree. I can't find any reason why not. I'm in.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Jamaal Charles: I just think that McCoy is more likely to have a full load, but it is close.

It's a catch 22 with McCoy though. If Vick is there, he won't get a full load, but he will be very effective with his 17 or 18 touches because the defense keys on Vick. If Vick is hurt or not there, he'll get more of a full load, but he'll be less effective. I'd much rather have Charles with a full load than McCoy with a full load.

 

[adrenaline]

I would consider him around the 5 spot. I would take ADP, CJ2K, Foster & Charles over him for sure. ADP & CJ2K are studs in their prime, 26 is young enough that I wouldn't take a lesser RB just because he's 3 years younger. ADP was better before the Vikes had a QB, you looked at Foster over the next 3 years during which ADP & CJ2K will still be prime. Charles the potential is just too much to pass up (for me).

 

[footballsavvy]

As long as Andy Reid is there, McCoy is a top 3 dynasty back in my opinion. Consistent 70+ reception backs are hard to come by, and extremely valuable. Sure, there will be better backs than him every year, but they will come and go.

 

[eakfootball]

I would put him 4th or 5th.

 

[Concept Coop]

I would consider him around the 5 spot. I would take ADP, CJ2K, Foster & Charles over him for sure. ADP & CJ2K are studs in their prime, 26 is young enough that I wouldn't take a lesser RB just because he's 3 years younger. ADP was better before the Vikes had a QB, you looked at Foster over the next 3 years during which ADP & CJ2K will still be prime. Charles the potential is just too much to pass up (for me).

I would not argue McCoy over AP as an NFL RB. I think AP is the best in the NFL. That said, I don't think it is wise to say McCoy is a "lesser RB" when we are talking PPR formats. He scored more points than AP. The only set of projections out (PFT) have McCoy scoring more next season in PPR formats. I don't think that is a stretch considering that McCoy did it last year and has the more stable situation. If two players are a toss up, when it comes to scoring points, 3+ years is huge. In 3.5 years when ADP is riding off into the sunset, McCoy will be as old and have less tread than ADP does now. I think the same argument applies to CJ, even though he does have more potential when it comes to receptions (than ADP).

 

[Concept Coop]

As long as Andy Reid is there, McCoy is a top 3 dynasty back in my opinion. Consistent 70+ reception backs are hard to come by, and extremely valuable. Sure, there will be better backs than him every year, but they will come and go.

Exactly.It is also hard to ingnore the way McCoy scores points, and how that could prolong his career. He is the anti-Marion Barber. He needs less touches, and takes less hits per touch.

 

[r0llin_game]

Coulda made a pole

 

[FUBAR]

I might be wrong, but I'm more confident in McCoy's talent and potential to put up top 5 stats most years moving forward than Foster or any RB other than CJ or AD.

Buy.

 

[Concept Coop]

Coulda made a pole

I decided not to. I think most people would just click "sell", without contributing to the conversation. I would rather have that conversation.EDIT: See below

 

[Dez]

Sell Mortimer...sell sell sell!

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Love McCoy. I labeled him a potential top-5 dynasty RB last off-season, and when I joined my first league and took over a team, immediately traded Austin for McCoy, Crabtree, and what turned out to be the 1.3.

Haven't looked back, and it would be nearly impossible to pry him from me now.

 

[adrenaline]

I would consider him around the 5 spot. I would take ADP, CJ2K, Foster & Charles over him for sure. ADP & CJ2K are studs in their prime, 26 is young enough that I wouldn't take a lesser RB just because he's 3 years younger. ADP was better before the Vikes had a QB, you looked at Foster over the next 3 years during which ADP & CJ2K will still be prime. Charles the potential is just too much to pass up (for me).

I would not argue McCoy over AP as an NFL RB. I think AP is the best in the NFL. That said, I don't think it is wise to say McCoy is a "lesser RB" when we are talking PPR formats. He scored more points than AP. The only set of projections out (PFT) have McCoy scoring more next season in PPR formats. I don't think that is a stretch considering that McCoy did it last year and has the more stable situation. If two players are a toss up, when it comes to scoring points, 3+ years is huge. In 3.5 years when ADP is riding off into the sunset, McCoy will be as old and have less tread than ADP does now. I think the same argument applies to CJ, even though he does have more potential when it comes to receptions (than ADP).

McCoy has had 1 good season, ADP gets it done every year with or without QB. I can't agree that McCoys situation matters, I believe that McCoy is just as likely to have a lesser year than last as to having as good or better. Every season there are RBs that are hyped & fail.

 

[lynx4ben]

We need a poll: top 3, top 5, top 7, top 10

I'd have to check but I think I have him in the top 5 or 7. Not top 3.

 

[Concept Coop]

Poll added.

 

[loose circuits]

top 3 for me...broke down and traded Nicks for him this offseason

 

[eaglesfan7]

Right now it's tough to decide on him. We're really only looking at one full year of production so he could be a one-year wonder or continue to be a stud. I'll go with stud but I can understand if some people doubt him.

 

[Concept Coop]

McCoy has had 1 good season, ADP gets it done every year with or without QB. I can't agree that McCoys situation matters, I believe that McCoy is just as likely to have a lesser year than last as to having as good or better. Every season there are RBs that are hyped & fail.

I see where you are coming from. I just think that waiting for a guy to do it a 2nd year sets you behind a year. I feel more comfortable watching the games, looking at the numbers, and deciding what I think will happen moving forward. Nothing I saw suggested that McCoy is a one-year-wonder. He looked electric, quick, fast, balanced, decisive et cetera.

 

[adrenaline]

Poll forced me to pin it down I'm probably at 7 with him, Eagles just don't run enough. I look at DMac & if Bush is gone I'd take him. Rice, if McGahee is gone might get a few more TD opportunities & he's done it for more than 1 season.

Edit to add I see where you're coming from also & I don't fault you.If everyone picked the same this wouldn't be fun.

 

[finito]

I have him at 8. I could see him doing better than there for sure, but there are a few guys I think will see more touches.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I'd place McCoy right around the top 10 bubble. Very good RB with a few negatives working against him, moreso than traditional workhorse RB's. I wouldn't argue over someone wanting to place him as high as #4 or #5 in dynasty if it was PPR, but the way the Eagles are currently constructed I believe he will always find a way to come up short in the TD department.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I would consider him around the 5 spot. I would take ADP, CJ2K, Foster & Charles over him for sure. ADP & CJ2K are studs in their prime, 26 is young enough that I wouldn't take a lesser RB just because he's 3 years younger. ADP was better before the Vikes had a QB, you looked at Foster over the next 3 years during which ADP & CJ2K will still be prime. Charles the potential is just too much to pass up (for me).

I would not argue McCoy over AP as an NFL RB. I think AP is the best in the NFL. That said, I don't think it is wise to say McCoy is a "lesser RB" when we are talking PPR formats. He scored more points than AP. The only set of projections out (PFT) have McCoy scoring more next season in PPR formats. I don't think that is a stretch considering that McCoy did it last year and has the more stable situation. If two players are a toss up, when it comes to scoring points, 3+ years is huge. In 3.5 years when ADP is riding off into the sunset, McCoy will be as old and have less tread than ADP does now. I think the same argument applies to CJ, even though he does have more potential when it comes to receptions (than ADP).

From a lot of your postings, it always seems that you are overly reliant on last year's numbers when discussing the dynasty prospects/value of players. If you look, things change rather dramatically from year to year. That's not to say that considering McCoy a top 3 dynasty back is worng (because frankly who really knows) - but just pointing out that he finished ahead of Peterson last season fails to take into account Peterson's stability and consistency. If we were "guaranteed" that Peterson would be a top 5 back fro thr next four-five seasons, but never finish as the #1 back, he should still be ranked as the #1 back (provided that we had no knowledge as to what the other backs would do of course).As to McCoy. Prior to last season I was very unimpressed by his rookie season where he seemed to dance around and make moves just for the sake of making moves and was way down on him. Admittedly last season he impressed me as he ran much more decisively and with more power than I expected. He has great quickness and now hits the holes hard when they are there. I have him ranked as my #10 back right now (which is still obviously rather good) as I'm just more impressed with the backs I have above him and just feel safer with them. That's not to say that I'm right or wrong, just opinion.Keep in mind that receptions could be a volitle stat, so even in pppr leagues we can't elevate a back above his talent level strictly because he has a great number of receptions one year. Take a look and you'll see guys that had 70+ one year, and fell back to the pack the next year. Off the top of my head I remember in the Philly-Washington game after Vick went down, Kolb came in and all he did was dump off to McCoy. McCoy has 12 (?) receptions in that game alone, which was clearly an anomoly due to a cold inexperinced QB entering the game unexpectedly. Of course those 12 receptions do count, and he had other big games as well, but I hope you see my point.Bottom line is that if you think McCoy is a top 3 RB than he is as far as your concerned, but not everyone will think that way. However I'd gather that most will at least put him somewhere in the top 10, so choosing him near the top of a start up league is still a good choice and good value.

 

[Concept Coop]

In PPR formats, it is not as much about talent as it is in standard formats. That is a cork that some like and some don't. I think Peterson will produce more raw numbers. But when you sit down and start projecting numbers for the following season and beyond, those reception totals really start to add up. They are the reason Peterson's value in PPR is not what it is in non-PPR.

I will take a look at receptions totals coming back down to earth, if you give me some names that you have looked at. But I doubt those players played in an Andy Ried offense.

 

[Football Critic]

My top 10 for PPR is currently...

Adrian Peterson

Chris Johnson

LeSean McCoy

Arian Foster

Ray Rice

Jamaal Charles

Maurice Jones-Drew

Rashard Mendenhall

Steven Jackson

Darren McFadden

 

[lynx4ben]

I have McCoy at 7 right now but in tier one. I have a seven player tier one that includes: CJ, ADP, Foster, Rice, MJD, McCoy, Charles. I don't see much difference between these players.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

In PPR formats, it is not as much about talent as it is in standard formats. That is a cork that some like and some don't. I think Peterson will produce more raw numbers. But when you sit down and start projecting numbers for the following season and beyond, those reception totals really start to add up. They are the reason Peterson's value in PPR is not what it is in non-PPR.

I will take a look at receptions totals coming back down to earth, if you give me some names that you have looked at. But I doubt those players played in an Andy Ried offense.

I'm guessing they didn't.Here's a few players that had an extremely high reception total at least one season that shot up their value in ppr leagues, that "fell off" in subsequent years:

Marion Barber (55-26-11)

Reggie Bush (88-73-52-47-34)

Matt Forte (63-57-51)

Tim Hightower (63-21)

Steven Jackson (90-38-40-51-46)

Ray Rice (78-63)

I'm sure there are many more, and I'm sure you'll be able to list a few that consitently had high reception totals. My only point is that McCoy isn't a lock to surpass 70 receptions every year, just because he did it once.

I know Westbrook did it numerous times, but if you look beyond the numbers a little the Eagles have much greater talent at WR (Jackson-Maclin) now than they did when Westbrook was so heavily relied on (Pinkston, Trash, Mitchell, etc.)

With all that said McCoy should be a consisten point producer in ppr leagues which is why he gets a top 10 ranking by most, so by no means am I trying to disparage him, just adding some perspective.

 

[dmac37]

Sell, I traded him for Ray Rice. I'm a big fan of Rice and for some reason I don't trust McCoy long term.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I traded Ray Rice for him over the offseason so obviously like him a lot. Reason was three fold:

1. Hes the youngest top back in the game at 22. Hes younger than a number of rookies coming out this year. Think theres still room for improvement which is scary. Look at the huge jump he made between year 1 and year 2. And i was one of those guys who was down on him after his rookie year. Watched a lot of Eagle games to see Vick and i just came away so impressed with Mccoy.

2. In Reids offense hes a lock for 70 receptions each year. Makes his floor very high as the receptions and yards from them will make him a lock to flirt with 1700-1800 yards year in year out.

3. I like backs who don't get 350 carries a year and still put up top numbers. Some will disagree with this and love the workhorse guys but in my experience, with a few exceptions, they don't last long. I now prefer guys like Charles, Mccoy, Westbrook and Faulk in the day etc who have their carries limited and don't get more than 250 carries a year but carry for a high average. Like guys who carry in spots and dont taken the beating other guys take. Much rather have a guy who gets 300 points on 250 carries and 70 receptions than a guy who gets it on 370 carries and 20 receptions.

 

[todisco1]

2. In Reids offense hes a lock for 70 receptions each year. Makes his floor very high as the receptions and yards from them will make him a lock to flirt with 1700-1800 yards year in year out.3. I like backs who don't get 350 carries a year and still put up top numbers. Some will disagree with this and love the workhorse guys but in my experience, with a few exceptions, they don't last long. I now prefer guys like Charles, Mccoy, Westbrook and Faulk in the day etc who have their carries limited and don't get more than 250 carries a year but carry for a high average. Like guys who carry in spots and dont taken the beating other guys take. Much rather have a guy who gets 300 points on 250 carries and 70 receptions than a guy who gets it on 370 carries and 20 receptions.

I think it's a very dangerous assumption to make that any RB is a "lock" for 70 catches a year. It is mentioned above that Westbrook had horrible WRs he was playing with -- McCoy has terrific WRs and a decent enough TE. I don't think it's anywhere near a lock that he goes for 70 a year. He may, but he may not. You mention that workhorse types don't last as long, but both Westrbook and Faulk were essentially finished as fantasy producers by age 30, the same age most workhorse RBs tend to wear down. Now they both had bad knees, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a runningback of that nature who lasted significantly longer than the average "workhorse". IMO there isn't a huge correlation between number of carries and longevity. The odds of a Jamaal Charles or McCoy lasting into their mid-thirties is just as slim as an Adrian Peterson IMO. Just my .02. As for McCoy being a top 3, I see it, but I'd put him around 8-9, though the group he's in is clustered fairly close together.

 

[fruity pebbles]

2. In Reids offense hes a lock for 70 receptions each year. Makes his floor very high as the receptions and yards from them will make him a lock to flirt with 1700-1800 yards year in year out.3. I like backs who don't get 350 carries a year and still put up top numbers. Some will disagree with this and love the workhorse guys but in my experience, with a few exceptions, they don't last long. I now prefer guys like Charles, Mccoy, Westbrook and Faulk in the day etc who have their carries limited and don't get more than 250 carries a year but carry for a high average. Like guys who carry in spots and dont taken the beating other guys take. Much rather have a guy who gets 300 points on 250 carries and 70 receptions than a guy who gets it on 370 carries and 20 receptions.

I think it's a very dangerous assumption to make that any RB is a "lock" for 70 catches a year. It is mentioned above that Westbrook had horrible WRs he was playing with -- McCoy has terrific WRs and a decent enough TE. I don't think it's anywhere near a lock that he goes for 70 a year. He may, but he may not. You mention that workhorse types don't last as long, but both Westrbook and Faulk were essentially finished as fantasy producers by age 30, the same age most workhorse RBs tend to wear down. Now they both had bad knees, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a runningback of that nature who lasted significantly longer than the average "workhorse". IMO there isn't a huge correlation between number of carries and longevity. The odds of a Jamaal Charles or McCoy lasting into their mid-thirties is just as slim as an Adrian Peterson IMO. Just my .02. As for McCoy being a top 3, I see it, but I'd put him around 8-9, though the group he's in is clustered fairly close together.

I'll give you the longevity, it was probably the weakest of the 3 arguments. As for receptions, i guess nobody is a lock to do anything but i can't think of another RB with a greater probability of hitting 70 receptions than Mccoy. Yes Westbrook had lousy WRs but he was hitting north of 70 catches a year in most seasons and that was with him typically only playing 12-13 games a year. He could have hit 100 in a few of those seasons if he played a full boat. Mccoy hit 78 this year in 15 games.

 

[Steed]

2. In Reids offense hes a lock for 70 receptions each year. Makes his floor very high as the receptions and yards from them will make him a lock to flirt with 1700-1800 yards year in year out.3. I like backs who don't get 350 carries a year and still put up top numbers. Some will disagree with this and love the workhorse guys but in my experience, with a few exceptions, they don't last long. I now prefer guys like Charles, Mccoy, Westbrook and Faulk in the day etc who have their carries limited and don't get more than 250 carries a year but carry for a high average. Like guys who carry in spots and dont taken the beating other guys take. Much rather have a guy who gets 300 points on 250 carries and 70 receptions than a guy who gets it on 370 carries and 20 receptions.

You mention that workhorse types don't last as long, but both Westrbook and Faulk were essentially finished as fantasy producers by age 30, the same age most workhorse RBs tend to wear down. Now they both had bad knees, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a runningback of that nature who lasted significantly longer than the average "workhorse". IMO there isn't a huge correlation between number of carries and longevity. The odds of a Jamaal Charles or McCoy lasting into their mid-thirties is just as slim as an Adrian Peterson IMO. Just my .02.

The once in a decade RBs usually age gracefully into their 30s. Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, LT, Barry Sanders, Curtis Martin. I think it's a safe assumption Peterson is included with them.

 

[Tau837]

From a lot of your postings, it always seems that you are overly reliant on last year's numbers when discussing the dynasty prospects/value of players.

I've noticed the same thing.

 

[thriftyrocker]

The once in a decade RBs usually age gracefully into their 30s. Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, LT, Barry Sanders, Curtis Martin. I think it's a safe assumption Peterson is included with them.

Barry retired at 30. LT looked washed up at 30. ED had his last 1000 yard season at 29. OJ, Earl Campbell, blah blah. Don't think Curtis is once in a decade. There are very good guys who defy time like Thomas Jones and Fred Taylor, and Martin belongs more with those guys than Barry Sanders.

 

[Steed]

The once in a decade RBs usually age gracefully into their 30s. Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, LT, Barry Sanders, Curtis Martin. I think it's a safe assumption Peterson is included with them.

Barry retired at 30. LT looked washed up at 30. ED had his last 1000 yard season at 29. OJ, Earl Campbell, blah blah. Don't think Curtis is once in a decade. There are very good guys who defy time like Thomas Jones and Fred Taylor, and Martin belongs more with those guys than Barry Sanders.

I didn't say they were studs in those years but they still put up good numbers. Barry had 1491 yards his last year and HUGE years directly before that, he still had legs. LT still put good numbers even washed up 2009-12 TDs, 2010-1200 total yards. Agree with you on C-Mart, but for his swan song he lead the league in rushing his age 31 season.

 

[Go deep]

2. In Reids offense hes a lock for 70 receptions each year. Makes his floor very high as the receptions and yards from them will make him a lock to flirt with 1700-1800 yards year in year out.

3. I like backs who don't get 350 carries a year and still put up top numbers. Some will disagree with this and love the workhorse guys but in my experience, with a few exceptions, they don't last long. I now prefer guys like Charles, Mccoy, Westbrook and Faulk in the day etc who have their carries limited and don't get more than 250 carries a year but carry for a high average. Like guys who carry in spots and dont taken the beating other guys take. Much rather have a guy who gets 300 points on 250 carries and 70 receptions than a guy who gets it on 370 carries and 20 receptions.

I think it's a very dangerous assumption to make that any RB is a "lock" for 70 catches a year. It is mentioned above that Westbrook had horrible WRs he was playing with -- McCoy has terrific WRs and a decent enough TE. I don't think it's anywhere near a lock that he goes for 70 a year. He may, but he may not. You mention that workhorse types don't last as long, but both Westrbook and Faulk were essentially finished as fantasy producers by age 30, the same age most workhorse RBs tend to wear down. Now they both had bad knees, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a runningback of that nature who lasted significantly longer than the average "workhorse". IMO there isn't a huge correlation between number of carries and longevity. The odds of a Jamaal Charles or McCoy lasting into their mid-thirties is just as slim as an Adrian Peterson IMO. Just my .02.

As for McCoy being a top 3, I see it, but I'd put him around 8-9, though the group he's in is clustered fairly close together.

I'll give you the longevity, it was probably the weakest of the 3 arguments. As for receptions, i guess nobody is a lock to do anything but i can't think of another RB with a greater probability of hitting 70 receptions than Mccoy. Yes Westbrook had lousy WRs but he was hitting north of 70 catches a year in most seasons and that was with him typically only playing 12-13 games a year. He could have hit 100 in a few of those seasons if he played a full boat. Mccoy hit 78 this year in 15 games.

He had 90 receptions in 2007 and played 15 games, his next highest was 77, also in 15 games. He only had one other 70 catch season and that was 73 in 13 games. Thats only three 70 catch seasons in 9 years(8 with Philly). Even if we assume that Mccoy is the next Westbrook(which i think is a conclusion peolpe are too quick to jump to) i still wouldnt expect 70 catch season to be the norm.

That said, i do lik Mccoy, and wouldnt mind having him as my #1 RB in a PPR dynasty, but i think he is clearly behind the top 4(Calvin, Chris Johnson, AD, Charles, and then in a group with 5 others(MJD, Mcfadden, Rice, Andre, Nicks), although at this point i would probably prefer all 5 of those guys to Mccoy. I might prefer Mccoy to AJ or Nicks depending on starting reqirements mostly due to the fact that with the exception of Javid Best, there is a significant drop to the next tier of RB's. The drop in the WR talent isnt nearly as large.

 

[Concept Coop]

Is this a question anymore? The guy is 22.

 

[EBF]

I am probably wrong here, but...

I kinda think Dion Lewis could be just as productive as McCoy if given the same workload.

That's the one thing that scares me with McCoy. He's a good player, but the Eagle offense under Reid is such that any quick-footed back who can catch the ball and make defenders miss in space should put up silly FF stats.

I still like McCoy a lot from a dynasty perspective because he seems to have a lockdown on the job and he's one of the absolute difference makers at RB in PPR leagues (and he's not too shabby in non-PPR either). I would just be slightly paranoid about Lewis eating into his touches or about the Eagles eventually selling high and shipping him off to another team ala Clinton Portis. Those aren't scary scenarios because though there would still be plenty of time to flip him for another elite player.

In short, he looks like a pretty great investment for the next couple years at least.

I'm a big Dion Lewis fan though.