What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Crabtree -- torn Achilles? (1 Viewer)

I'm looking at Crabtree as if he were the exact same player he is today, but one year older.
Here's where i have some issue, you're basically saying he will for certain return at 100% from this injury like it never happened when he returns.

You downgraded him from 9 to 14 due to the missed season, but are completely disregarding the achilles tear.
You stripped a bit of context. When I said that I viewed Crabtree as the same player, but a year older, I was referring specifically to the concept of whether I weight this season more heavily than next season.

The age discount I applied to Crabtree was pretty negligible. If Michael Crabtree was just a 27-year old WR with his past history (top 10 draft pick coming off a WR14 finish in an up-and-coming offense, including an absolutely monstrous tear after the new QB was installed) instead of a 26-year old WR, he'd still probably be in my top 10. I don't really view 26-year-olds as all that different from 27-year-olds, value-wise. The additional drop is due to the risk of Crabtree not returning at full strength- a risk I consider small (maybe 10-20%), but significant enough to make the difference between a WR1 and a strong WR2.

Medicine advances. There are few recent examples of players NOT returning strong from Achilles tears.

As I said, I'm not a doctor, but Jene Bramel is. If he says that I shouldn't assume the injury is career-changing, then I won't. At least not until I get more information to the contrary.
But as I read it, he didn't go so far as to say that you should assume the opposite, that it is settled that it won't be a career changing injury (which seems to be your position by dropping him only from #9 to #14).

Here is Bramel's exact quote:

Jene Bramel‏@JeneBramel35m

I'm not saying Crabtree is sure bet to recover to full form. Just noting that immediate rxn shouldn't be that full recovery is a longshot.
He used stronger language in his article on the subject. The final sentence reads "But recent history has proven that Crabtree's injury shouldn't be considered a career-changer yet."

There is NO WAY I could have him at 14 right now. That is a VERY optimistic ranking knowing he likely doesnt play at all this year, and probably isn't at his best in 2014 either.
I've seen this said several times now. We don't know that Crabtree probably isn't at his best in 2014. In fact, I would suggest the opposite- it's overwhelmingly likely that Crabtree will be at his best in 2014. If Suggs can return in 6 months, and Demaryius Thomas can return in 7 months, then I'd be reasonably confident Crabtree could do it in 16 months. Michael Crabtree's doctors, the only people with any direct knowledge of Crabtree's injury, are putting the early timetable at 6 months. Jim Harbaugh, who certainly has been briefed on all of the particulars, told reporters today that he expects Crabtree to play in 2013. I think a full recovery within 16 months should be practically a fait accompli. My ranking reflects this belief. If new information comes to light which calls this belief into question, Crabtree's ranking will continue to decline. As of right now, based on the combination of information I have received from doctors (Achilles injuries aren't as troubling as reported, plenty of players have returned to form from them, microsurgical procedures have made huge advancements making outcomes in this surgery different than they were even 5 years ago), and team officials (the surgery went well, the timetable for recovery is 6-7 months, Crabtree is likely to play in 2013), I feel comfortable with a ranking of WR14.

 
Here is Bramel's exact quote:

Jene Bramel‏@JeneBramel35m

I'm not saying Crabtree is sure bet to recover to full form. Just noting that immediate rxn shouldn't be that full recovery is a longshot.
He used stronger language in his article on the subject. The final sentence reads "But recent history has proven that Crabtree's injury shouldn't be considered a career-changer yet."
The key word is yet...and before that he said (not surprising that you omitted this passage):

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Crabtree is a lock to return to form and regain the consistency he'd begun to show last year. Even if his injury is proven to be only a partial tear, the potential for scarring, pain, and loss of explosiveness and range of motion are all reasons for concern for a wide receiver that must get off the line of scrimmage with power and change direction quickly to run routes effectively.
And OT, why can't you respond to people individually instead of this multiple poster response at once thing? It makes it very difficult to carry on the continuity of the discussion when I have to edit out what 5 other people are saying that is unrelated to the point I raised with you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it comes down to a few variables:

- Was 2012 his true level or were 2010-2011 more representative of his expected output going forward? In other words, what is his level?

- Can he get back to his best? He will play again eventually, but will he be as effective? A torn Achilles is one of the few injuries that worries me.

- Will he be at increased risk of future injury? I have no reason to believe so, but I'm not a doctor and I don't know what the injury might mean for his future health/durability.

Bear in mind that Crabtree has battled minor foot injuries for years. This seems unrelated, but he might be a guy who's more brittle than average.

I wouldn't rush to accept the first crappy offer that floats into your inbox, but I wouldn't be buying either. I sold him straight up for Pitta in a 1.5 PPR for TE league where TE/WR count towards the same starting slots. I'm not thrilled with the value there, but I have a contender in that league and not enough depth to sit on 10-16 weeks of 0.

If you don't have the luxury of waiting, I'd poke around and see what you can get. My gut reaction is that he goes from being an option in the WR7-WR10 range to the WR17-WR27 range. There are some interesting candidates in that area like Josh Gordon, Cecil Shorts, Justin Blackmon, and Mike Williams who might be worth a sniff.

Otherwise you're probably better off staying put. If nothing else, his value should creep up a little bit as he nears a return to the field.

 
It really doesn't matter who they bring in, this is a big blow to the SF offense. They really don't have anyone else like Crabtree that can get consistent separation. Big loss.

 
Here is Bramel's exact quote:

Jene Bramel‏@JeneBramel35m

I'm not saying Crabtree is sure bet to recover to full form. Just noting that immediate rxn shouldn't be that full recovery is a longshot.
He used stronger language in his article on the subject. The final sentence reads "But recent history has proven that Crabtree's injury shouldn't be considered a career-changer yet."
The key word is yet...and before that he said (not surprising that you omitted this passage):

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Crabtree is a lock to return to form and regain the consistency he'd begun to show last year. Even if his injury is proven to be only a partial tear, the potential for scarring, pain, and loss of explosiveness and range of motion are all reasons for concern for a wide receiver that must get off the line of scrimmage with power and change direction quickly to run routes effectively.
And OT, why can't you respond to people individually instead of this multiple poster response at once thing? It makes it very difficult to carry on the continuity of the discussion when I have to edit out what 5 other people are saying that is unrelated to the point I raised with you.
My interpretation of Bramel's article and tweets is "We don't have enough information to be making specific predictions on Crabtree, but Achilles injuries are not the boogeyman that they're portrayed as". I'm not ranking Crabtree as if he has a 100% chance to regain his prior form (if I were, as I said, he'd still be in my top 10). I am ranking him as if he has an 80-90% chance of regaining his prior form. If we get specific information that causes me to re-evaluate that estimate, I will do so, but I tend to default to being very conservative with player movement until given a reason not to be.

As far as replying to multiple people at once... I think it's one of those "you can't please everyone" things. I've had people complain in the past about littering a thread with replies when I replied individually, and I've had people thank me for limiting my replies to one thread. I totally understand and empathize with how it can make replying more unwieldy, though.

 
As far as replying to multiple people at once... I think it's one of those "you can't please everyone" things. I've had people complain in the past about littering a thread with replies when I replied individually, and I've had people thank me for limiting my replies to one thread. I totally understand and empathize with how it can make replying more unwieldy, though.
Individual questions in separate posts directed to you, should require individual responses in separate posts. That really isn't asking too much from a staffer here IMO. I shouldn't have to edit out all this unrelated crud from other people in order to carry on a discussion with you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is NO WAY I could have him at 14 right now. That is a VERY optimistic ranking knowing he likely doesnt play at all this year, and probably isn't at his best in 2014 either.
I've seen this said several times now. We don't know that Crabtree probably isn't at his best in 2014. In fact, I would suggest the opposite- it's overwhelmingly likely that Crabtree will be at his best in 2014. If Suggs can return in 6 months, and Demaryius Thomas can return in 7 months, then I'd be reasonably confident Crabtree could do it in 16 months. Michael Crabtree's doctors, the only people with any direct knowledge of Crabtree's injury, are putting the early timetable at 6 months. Jim Harbaugh, who certainly has been briefed on all of the particulars, told reporters today that he expects Crabtree to play in 2013. I think a full recovery within 16 months should be practically a fait accompli. My ranking reflects this belief. If new information comes to light which calls this belief into question, Crabtree's ranking will continue to decline. As of right now, based on the combination of information I have received from doctors (Achilles injuries aren't as troubling as reported, plenty of players have returned to form from them, microsurgical procedures have made huge advancements making outcomes in this surgery different than they were even 5 years ago), and team officials (the surgery went well, the timetable for recovery is 6-7 months, Crabtree is likely to play in 2013), I feel comfortable with a ranking of WR14.
Thomas and Suggs had partial tears though. If I'm not mistaken, Crabtree suffered a full tear. I think a full tear is far worse than a partial tear with regards to coming back.

 
There is NO WAY I could have him at 14 right now. That is a VERY optimistic ranking knowing he likely doesnt play at all this year, and probably isn't at his best in 2014 either.
I've seen this said several times now. We don't know that Crabtree probably isn't at his best in 2014. In fact, I would suggest the opposite- it's overwhelmingly likely that Crabtree will be at his best in 2014. If Suggs can return in 6 months, and Demaryius Thomas can return in 7 months, then I'd be reasonably confident Crabtree could do it in 16 months. Michael Crabtree's doctors, the only people with any direct knowledge of Crabtree's injury, are putting the early timetable at 6 months. Jim Harbaugh, who certainly has been briefed on all of the particulars, told reporters today that he expects Crabtree to play in 2013. I think a full recovery within 16 months should be practically a fait accompli. My ranking reflects this belief. If new information comes to light which calls this belief into question, Crabtree's ranking will continue to decline. As of right now, based on the combination of information I have received from doctors (Achilles injuries aren't as troubling as reported, plenty of players have returned to form from them, microsurgical procedures have made huge advancements making outcomes in this surgery different than they were even 5 years ago), and team officials (the surgery went well, the timetable for recovery is 6-7 months, Crabtree is likely to play in 2013), I feel comfortable with a ranking of WR14.
Thomas and Suggs had partial tears though. If I'm not mistaken, Crabtree suffered a full tear. I think a full tear is far worse than a partial tear with regards to coming back.
It will take longer than a partial tear, but he is still quite likely to be back to full strength in 2014.

This is also assuming he rehabs pretty hard. But that is a whole different discussion for those who think he is "lazy"

 
Not sure why Suggs keeps being brought up here as a positive- it's nice that he came back quickly, but he wasn't nearly as productive. Time will tell if he gets back there or not.

 
As far as replying to multiple people at once... I think it's one of those "you can't please everyone" things. I've had people complain in the past about littering a thread with replies when I replied individually, and I've had people thank me for limiting my replies to one thread. I totally understand and empathize with how it can make replying more unwieldy, though.
Individual questions in separate posts directed to you, should require individual responses in separate posts. That really isn't asking too much from a staffer here IMO. I shouldn't have to edit out all this unrelated crud from other people in order to carry on a discussion with you.
I empathize. The new forum software is brutal for dealing with multiple quote blocks, and the last thing I want to do is discourage conversation, either intentionally or unintentionally. Still, it's something of a lose-lose situation. If I pack everyone into one reply, then the people who are responding are inconvenienced. If I break everyone out into separate replies, then the people who are reading the thread but not responding to me directly are inconvenienced. I have over the years tried both methods, and have received complaints from both groups. It's a question of whether I should make things as easy as possible for the one guy engaged in the conversation, or the hundreds of guys following along. I find that my current method tends to ruffle fewer feathers, although I don't think it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I know a lot of people who would just prefer option number three- that I just give up and post less. ;)

I will make an effort going forward to ensure that when I'm responding to you, I reply in a separate post. Fair?

 
Why would doctors say 6 months recovery time for this? I think he has a good chance at getting back to full speed but is 6 months really viable? I would have thought it would basically be a year or so.

 
Haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned. Bengals CB Leon Hall tore his Achilles late in the 2011 season (mid-November) and was ready to go for training camp in July. He also had a great 2012 season and did not seem to have lost a step at all. CB is arguably even tougher than WR to come back from for this particular injury.

Plus, Hall had been saying all spring he was back and running and indicated I believe in May or so that he was feeling pretty much back to normal. About 6 months after his injury.

Based upon Leon Hall's timeline, it is possible that Crabtree could return late in 2013. Plus, it seems like there is a great chance Crabtree should be back to normal by 2014.

 
Here is an article from last March indicating that 4 months after his torn Achilles Leon Hall was running, working on his back pedal, etc. He had no need to rush things since it was the offseason, so no idea how early he would have been ready to play a game if need be, but probably a decent indication that 2013 is a legit possibility for Crabtree:

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/03/21/12/Leon-Hall-making-progress-in-Achilles-re/landing_bengals.html?blockID=692536

"In six weeks I made a lot of inroads," Hall said. "Having cleats on and getting back on the field, I'm encouraged by that. I'm still not where I want to be four months in but it does feel good when I am running, backpedaling and doing side-to-side stuff."

 
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...arbaugh-michael-crabtree-shouldnt-miss-season

Jim Harbaugh: Michael Crabtree shouldn't miss season
By Chris Wesseling

Around the League Writer

When news of Michael Crabtree's Achilles tendon tear first surfaced Wednesday, the immediate suspicion was that the San Francisco 49ers' top receiver would end up sitting out the entire 2013 NFL season.

Niners coach Jim Harbaugh refuted that notion, telling reporters Crabtree isn't expected to miss all 16 games.

Harbaugh confirmed that Crabtree has undergone surgery for a complete tear of his right tendon, according to Bay Area News Group.

Even as recently as a decade ago, a complete tear was a career-threaterning injury, especially for an offensive skill-position player. Surgical techniques and accelerated rehab schedules have advanced Achilles recoveries in recent years, as evidenced by Denver Broncos wide receiver Demaryius Thomas' Pro-Bowl caliber play over the past year and a half.

Thomas cautions, however, that expectations should be reeled in for a Crabtree contribution in 2013.

"It's a little difficult. You've just got to take your time," Thomas said Wednesday afternoon. "He's a great player, and I'm sure he's going to work hard to get back. But it's difficult at first, because it took a while for me to be able to do anything."

Thomas' mid-February surgery in 2011 gave him a three-month head-start on Crabtree. Thomas said he didn't feel 100 percent again until seven months after suffering the injury. He didn't become a significant factor again for the Broncos until close to the 10-month mark.

A similar timetable for Crabtree would keep him out of game action until Thanksgiving, with the likelihood of returning in a minor role for the remainder of the regular season as well as the playoffs. Crabtree sounded optimistic about such a return, tweeting: "I go hard for my friends family and fans, just felt like I let everybody down.. But I'll be back ready!! I promise! #yungcrab"

While Crabtree's injury is sobering news for the 49ers' 2013 Super Bowl outlook, they can take solace in the fact that Thomas hasn't missed a step since returning to the Broncos. In fact, he actually has improved, emerging as one of the NFL's most explosive post-catch wide receivers.

Follow Chris Wesseling on Twitter @ChrisWesseling.
 
Haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned. Bengals CB Leon Hall tore his Achilles late in the 2011 season (mid-November) and was ready to go for training camp in July. He also had a great 2012 season and did not seem to have lost a step at all. CB is arguably even tougher than WR to come back from for this particular injury.Plus, Hall had been saying all spring he was back and running and indicated I believe in May or so that he was feeling pretty much back to normal. About 6 months after his injury.Based upon Leon Hall's timeline, it is possible that Crabtree could return late in 2013. Plus, it seems like there is a great chance Crabtree should be back to normal by 2014.
Complete tear or partial tear??? Makes a difference.

 
As far as replying to multiple people at once... I think it's one of those "you can't please everyone" things. I've had people complain in the past about littering a thread with replies when I replied individually, and I've had people thank me for limiting my replies to one thread. I totally understand and empathize with how it can make replying more unwieldy, though.
Individual questions in separate posts directed to you, should require individual responses in separate posts. That really isn't asking too much from a staffer here IMO. I shouldn't have to edit out all this unrelated crud from other people in order to carry on a discussion with you.
I empathize. The new forum software is brutal for dealing with multiple quote blocks, and the last thing I want to do is discourage conversation, either intentionally or unintentionally. Still, it's something of a lose-lose situation. If I pack everyone into one reply, then the people who are responding are inconvenienced. If I break everyone out into separate replies, then the people who are reading the thread but not responding to me directly are inconvenienced. I have over the years tried both methods, and have received complaints from both groups. It's a question of whether I should make things as easy as possible for the one guy engaged in the conversation, or the hundreds of guys following along. I find that my current method tends to ruffle fewer feathers, although I don't think it's perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I know a lot of people who would just prefer option number three- that I just give up and post less.

I will make an effort going forward to ensure that when I'm responding to you, I reply in a separate post. Fair?
Thanks, but I don't want special treatment.

If you really are interested in not discouraging conversation, then IMO you should respond individually to all posts, as otherwise that only leaves the option of bumping the entire group posting or the difficulty of editing multiple blocks in the new format and I think a certain percentage of people just won't take the time and trouble to do that (I rarely respond to your multiple messages for that reason).

My observation is that your multiple responses kill more discussions than continue them And if things are broken into individual discussions, people can scroll past the ones they are not interested in (as they do now with all other exchanges they don't care for in this forum).

Just my

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is Bramel's exact quote:

Jene Bramel‏@JeneBramel35m

I'm not saying Crabtree is sure bet to recover to full form. Just noting that immediate rxn shouldn't be that full recovery is a longshot.
He used stronger language in his article on the subject. The final sentence reads "But recent history has proven that Crabtree's injury shouldn't be considered a career-changer yet."
The key word is yet...and before that he said (not surprising that you omitted this passage):

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Crabtree is a lock to return to form and regain the consistency he'd begun to show last year. Even if his injury is proven to be only a partial tear, the potential for scarring, pain, and loss of explosiveness and range of motion are all reasons for concern for a wide receiver that must get off the line of scrimmage with power and change direction quickly to run routes effect

ively.
And OT, why can't you respond to people individually instead of this multiple poster response at once thing? It makes it very difficult to carry on the continuity of the discussion when I have to edit out what 5 other people are saying that is unrelated to the point I raised with you.

My interpretation of Bramel's article and tweets is "We don't have enough information to be making specific predictions on Crabtree, but Achilles injuries are not the boogeyman that they're portrayed as". I'm not ranking Crabtree as if he has a 100% chance to regain his prior form (if I were, as I said, he'd still be in my top 10). I am ranking him as if he has an 80-90% chance of regaining his prior form. If we get specific information that causes me to re-evaluate that estimate, I will do so, but I tend to default to being very conservative with player movement until given a reason not to be.

As far as replying to multiple people at once... I think it's one of those "you can't please everyone" things. I've had people complain in the past about littering a thread with replies when I replied individually, and I've had people thank me for limiting my replies to one thread. I totally understand and empathize with how it can make replying more unwieldy, though.

Would you pay WR14 prices for Michael Crabtree right now?

While I understand the point you are trying to make about future seasons being just as valuable as the present season, one must remember that our immediate future is competing in the 2013 season and beyond that we are really speculating about what will happen. I'm not saying that dynasty owners need to sell out to win during every current season and not heed the future but surely your WR15-WR20 would be a better risk for your dynasty team than Crabtree right now.

 
Here is an article from last March indicating that 4 months after his torn Achilles Leon Hall was running, working on his back pedal, etc. He had no need to rush things since it was the offseason, so no idea how early he would have been ready to play a game if need be, but probably a decent indication that 2013 is a legit possibility for Crabtree:

http://www.foxsportsohio.com/03/21/12/Leon-Hall-making-progress-in-Achilles-re/landing_bengals.html?blockID=692536

"In six weeks I made a lot of inroads," Hall said. "Having cleats on and getting back on the field, I'm encouraged by that. I'm still not where I want to be four months in but it does feel good when I am running, backpedaling and doing side-to-side stuff."
Every case is different, but Hall wasn't cleared to participate in camp until 8 months after his surgery. It's possible that's only because it was the offseason, but maybe not. It's also worth noting that he missed a couple of games early last year with an injury to the same leg, which may or may not have been related.

 
Here's a small study I just conducted of players with achilles injuries. How they performed pre and post injury.

Players with torn achilles:

Greg Ellis DL(2006)

Suffered injury 9th year in the NFL. Averaged 6.5 sacks per year before the injury and 9 sacks per year in the 3 years after the injury.

Jon Beason LB(2011)

Suffered injury 5th year in the NFL. Suffered knee/shoulder injuries in 2012.

Takeo Spikes LB(2005)

Suffered injury in 8th year in the NFL. Had 96 or more tackles in each of his first 7 years in the NFL. Had 96 or more tackles in only 3 of last 7 years after the injury.

Antwan Odom DE(2009)

Suffered injury in 6th year in the NFL. Didn't record a sack and only played in 4 games after injury.

Marlin Jackson DB(2010)

Suffered injury in 6th year in the NFL. Didn't play in a game after the injury.

Leon Hall CB(2011)

Suffered injury in 5th year in the NFL. Averaged 4.5 INT's prior to injury, had 2 last season(post injury).

Terrell Suggs OLB (2012, Partial tear) http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828f82e5/article/terrell-suggs-labels-achilles-injury-a-partial-tear

Suffered injury in 9th year in the NFL. Averaged just over 9 sacks per season before injury, had 4 sacks in 12 games after injury.

Jason Peters LT(2012/2012)

Hasn't played since injuries.

Mikel LeShoure RB(2011)

Suffered injury in rookie year. Averaged 3.7 YPC after injury, 3rd worst of runner near 800 yards rushing or more. Only worse were Trent Richardson and Michael Turner.

Earnest Graham RB(2011)

Suffered injury in 8th year, hasn't played since.

Lendale White RB(2010)

Suffered injury in 5th year, hasn't played since.

Demaryius Thomas WR(2011, partial from what I can find)

Suffered injury after rookie season. Had one okay and one great season after injury.

Andre Brown RB(2009)

Suffered injury his rookie season. No notable stats until 2012 when he had over 450 total yards with 8 TDs.

Dan Marino QB(1993)

Don't really think he applies due to being a QB, but his yardage totals/ TDs weren't as good post injury(although they weren't terrible).

Jon Jansen OT(2004)

Suffered injury during his 7th season in the NFL. Started 3-4 post injury and was a backup for 1 more year.

Ron Curry WR(2004/2005)

Suffered injury during 3rd and 4th years in the NFL. Played in only 3 more seasons =2006 had 62/727/1 with 11.7 ave, 2007 had 55/717/4 with 13.0 ave, and 2008 19/181/2 with 9.5.

Lavar Arrington LB(2006)

Injured during his 7th NFL season, never played again.

Never played again= (4) Arrington, Lendale White, Earnest Graham, Marlin Jackson.

Not effective= (1) Antwan Odom

Adequate but not on the same level (determined by pre stats or expectations) = (4) Ron Curry, Jon Jansen, Dan Marino, Takeo Spikes.

To be determined= (6) Jason Peters, Mikel Leshoure, Leon Hall, Terrell Suggs, Jon Beason, Andre Brown

At or better post injury= (2) Greg Ellis, Demaryius Thomas

 
unless Jenkins can get his act together, this hurts Kaepernick big time in my eyes. I'm sure glad i haven't unloaded Romo yet in my dynasty league thinking that Kaep was gonna be my guy from here on out.
I wouldn't be so fast to say this, the niners have good wrs and also drafted this kid named Quinton Patton, learn his name and get familiar with him because he's a goody, don't forget Boldin, Manningham, Aj Jenkins who was basically a redshirt and our friend V. Davis.. Kaep should be fine.

 
Fred Davis tore his mid-season last yr and hes full go this season. I'd send some low-ball offers during rookie drafts
@Rotoinfo_NFL 17m

#Redskins: Fred Davis-TE: Redskins TE Fred Davis said he hopes to be ready for mini-camp in June. http://bit.ly/121zkDB
Fred Davis (Achilles') was catching passes and running routes as the Redskins opened OTAs Thursday.

Like Robert Griffin III (knee), Davis was not in uniform and worked off to the side. It's still encouraging to see him pivoting and moving well seven months after blowing out his heel. Beat writer Chris Russell said Davis "looks better than I thought." The pass-catching tight end says he's at 90 percent now and expects to be 100 percent by June's minicamps. May 23 - 11:36 AM

Source: Chris Russell on Twitter
 
Dr. Octopus said:
Adam Harstad said:
squistion said:
Adam Harstad said:
squistion said:
Here is Bramel's exact quote:

Jene Bramel‏@JeneBramel35m

I'm not saying Crabtree is sure bet to recover to full form. Just noting that immediate rxn shouldn't be that full recovery is a longshot.
He used stronger language in his article on the subject. The final sentence reads "But recent history has proven that Crabtree's injury shouldn't be considered a career-changer yet."
The key word is yet...and before that he said (not surprising that you omitted this passage):

To be clear, I'm not arguing that Crabtree is a lock to return to form and regain the consistency he'd begun to show last year. Even if his injury is proven to be only a partial tear, the potential for scarring, pain, and loss of explosiveness and range of motion are all reasons for concern for a wide receiver that must get off the line of scrimmage with power and change direction quickly to run routes effectively.
And OT, why can't you respond to people individually instead of this multiple poster response at once thing? It makes it very difficult to carry on the continuity of the discussion when I have to edit out what 5 other people are saying that is unrelated to the point I raised with you.
My interpretation of Bramel's article and tweets is "We don't have enough information to be making specific predictions on Crabtree, but Achilles injuries are not the boogeyman that they're portrayed as". I'm not ranking Crabtree as if he has a 100% chance to regain his prior form (if I were, as I said, he'd still be in my top 10). I am ranking him as if he has an 80-90% chance of regaining his prior form. If we get specific information that causes me to re-evaluate that estimate, I will do so, but I tend to default to being very conservative with player movement until given a reason not to be.

As far as replying to multiple people at once... I think it's one of those "you can't please everyone" things. I've had people complain in the past about littering a thread with replies when I replied individually, and I've had people thank me for limiting my replies to one thread. I totally understand and empathize with how it can make replying more unwieldy, though.
Would you pay WR14 prices for Michael Crabtree right now?

While I understand the point you are trying to make about future seasons being just as valuable as the present season, one must remember that our immediate future is competing in the 2013 season and beyond that we are really speculating about what will happen. I'm not saying that dynasty owners need to sell out to win during every current season and not heed the future but surely your WR15-WR20 would be a better risk for your dynasty team than Crabtree right now.
Obviously what I'd be willing to pay depends on my team makeup. If I own Andre Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Roddy White, Peyton Manning, and Tony Gonzalez, then I'm not giving up anything of value for Crabtree. If my starters are atrocious but I have three firsts this year and four next year, I'd pay closer to top-10 prices for Crabtree (in this hypothetical, I would be willing to give any one of those first rounders, regardless of where it was in this year's draft or how bad the team was for next year's draft).In general, though, if I feel like I have an average squad with an average chance of making the playoffs or winning a championship, and my team's overall age profile is likewise pretty average... then yeah, I'd pay WR14 prices for Crabtree. I'd trade any pick in this year's rookie draft for him, if that's what it took to get the deal done (my highest rated rookie this year is Austin, who I have at WR15, one spot behind Crabtree). I'd trade Andre, Roddy, or Mike Wallace for Crabtree (to name the three veterans ranked immediately after him). If that's what it took to get the deal done, and if that's what I determined was my best use of resources (i.e. I couldn't trade Andre for another player I had rated even higher still), then I'd go ahead and pull the trigger on that.

The nice thing is, often times, that's not what it's going to take to land Michael Crabtree. Right now, a lot of owners are willing to sell him for substantially less than the #1 overall rookie pick or a top-20 veteran WR, so you can buy him cheaper and reap larger margins on the trade.

I know the old saying that the only year you can win is the one you're currently playing, but imagine this is 2016 and we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Would the 2016 version of you wish you'd tightened your belt and accepted a little bit of a short term loss to land a top player? I suspect that the 2016 version of myself would wish exactly that. I suspect this, because I know the 2013 version of myself is mad at the 2011 version of myself for not making offers for Jamaal Charles immediately after he got injured. And he's mad at the 2008 version of myself for not buying low on an injured Tom Brady. Sure, the 2008 version of myself would have been hurt and had to scramble to make up for the lost value, but the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 versions of myself would have recouped the investment many times over.

 
Faust said:
Sounds like optimism right now, as a lot obviously depends on Crab's recovery and rehab.The big issue will probably come after week 6, when anyone on the PUP list (where Crab will presumably be) has to be activated, put on IR or released within a 3-week window. If he's not looking recovered, his season may end right there.
San Francisco will likely take advantage of the new IR rules. Each team can put one player on IR as "designated for return". After he's been on the list for at least 8 weeks, he can be reactivated at any time. If San Francisco goes this route, then they could reactivate him at any time after midseason. If they place Crabtree on the PUP, instead, then it suggests he's way ahead of schedule and they think he might be ready by midseason, and they'd rather save their one "designated for return" spot for someone else.
 
Hard to envision Crabby coming back and being productive this year. Complete achilles tears are tough on anyone but even more so on a WR.

 
Hard to envision Crabby coming back and being productive this year. Complete achilles tears are tough on anyone but even more so on a WR.
I won't say its impossible for him to get on the field this year, but I will say its impossible for him to be at the physical level he was at the end of last season if he were to come back at all this year. If he came back he COULD be productive for fantasy purposes, but it would have to be wrapped around a bunch of luck and bad defense.
 
Adam Harstad, on 23 May 2013 - 20:33, said:

zamboni, on 23 May 2013 - 19:55, said:

Faust said:
Sounds like optimism right now, as a lot obviously depends on Crab's recovery and rehab.The big issue will probably come after week 6, when anyone on the PUP list (where Crab will presumably be) has to be activated, put on IR or released within a 3-week window. If he's not looking recovered, his season may end right there.
San Francisco will likely take advantage of the new IR rules. Each team can put one player on IR as "designated for return". After he's been on the list for at least 8 weeks, he can be reactivated at any time. If San Francisco goes this route, then they could reactivate him at any time after midseason. If they place Crabtree on the PUP, instead, then it suggests he's way ahead of schedule and they think he might be ready by midseason, and they'd rather save their one "designated for return" spot for someone else.
I believe there is a caveat on this that the player can only be put on this after the start of the season.
 
Obviously what I'd be willing to pay depends on my team makeup. If I own Andre Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Roddy White, Peyton Manning, and Tony Gonzalez, then I'm not giving up anything of value for Crabtree. If my starters are atrocious but I have three firsts this year and four next year, I'd pay closer to top-10 prices for Crabtree (in this hypothetical, I would be willing to give any one of those first rounders, regardless of where it was in this year's draft or how bad the team was for next year's draft).In general, though, if I feel like I have an average squad with an average chance of making the playoffs or winning a championship, and my team's overall age profile is likewise pretty average... then yeah, I'd pay WR14 prices for Crabtree. I'd trade any pick in this year's rookie draft for him, if that's what it took to get the deal done (my highest rated rookie this year is Austin, who I have at WR15, one spot behind Crabtree). I'd trade Andre, Roddy, or Mike Wallace for Crabtree (to name the three veterans ranked immediately after him). If that's what it took to get the deal done, and if that's what I determined was my best use of resources (i.e. I couldn't trade Andre for another player I had rated even higher still), then I'd go ahead and pull the trigger on that.The nice thing is, often times, that's not what it's going to take to land Michael Crabtree. Right now, a lot of owners are willing to sell him for substantially less than the #1 overall rookie pick or a top-20 veteran WR, so you can buy him cheaper and reap larger margins on the trade.I know the old saying that the only year you can win is the one you're currently playing, but imagine this is 2016 and we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Would the 2016 version of you wish you'd tightened your belt and accepted a little bit of a short term loss to land a top player? I suspect that the 2016 version of myself would wish exactly that. I suspect this, because I know the 2013 version of myself is mad at the 2011 version of myself for not making offers for Jamaal Charles immediately after he got injured. And he's mad at the 2008 version of myself for not buying low on an injured Tom Brady. Sure, the 2008 version of myself would have been hurt and had to scramble to make up for the lost value, but the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 versions of myself would have recouped the investment many times over.
That's the thing, we don't have the benefit of hindsight. What if trading AJ or White for Crabtree now costs you a championship? What if Crabtree is never the same player?

With hindsight, it's easy to pick guys you wish you had bought low on when they were injured (although we aren't even talking about buying low, we're talking giving up #14 WR value here). It's also easy to pick guys you should be glad you didn't, like Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Cadillac Williams, Jahvid Best, Daunte Culpepper, etc. Without that crystal ball, I don't see how you "win" by paying best case scenario value for him.

 
Adam Harstad, on 23 May 2013 - 20:33, said:

zamboni, on 23 May 2013 - 19:55, said:

Faust said:
Sounds like optimism right now, as a lot obviously depends on Crab's recovery and rehab.The big issue will probably come after week 6, when anyone on the PUP list (where Crab will presumably be) has to be activated, put on IR or released within a 3-week window. If he's not looking recovered, his season may end right there.
San Francisco will likely take advantage of the new IR rules. Each team can put one player on IR as "designated for return". After he's been on the list for at least 8 weeks, he can be reactivated at any time. If San Francisco goes this route, then they could reactivate him at any time after midseason. If they place Crabtree on the PUP, instead, then it suggests he's way ahead of schedule and they think he might be ready by midseason, and they'd rather save their one "designated for return" spot for someone else.
I believe there is a caveat on this that the player can only be put on this after the start of the season.
Correct, he would have to make the 53 man roster before he's put on short-term IR. After Sept. 4 they can put him on short-term IR and replace him with a different player on the roster.

It's possible but I'm skeptical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope. They already have the guy capable of filling the void, name's Ricardo Lockette. Physically and athletically resembles Julio Jones (look it up), and has been both working hard with and rooming with Colin Kaepernick this offseason. They don't need those washups. They need the young talent they have to step-up.

In deep dynasty leagues pick this guy up before word gets out on him. I did earlier today.

paging Mr. Moss Brandon Lloyd please pick up the red phone
 
Nope. They already have the guy capable of filling the void, name's Ricardo Lockette. Physically and athletically resembles Julio Jones (look it up), and has been both working hard with and rooming with Colin Kaepernick this offseason. They don't need those washups. They need the young talent they have to step-up.In deep dynasty leagues pick this guy up before word gets out on him. I did earlier today.
He's 27. He's out of a small college. He was undrafted. He has a total of 2 receptions in his NFL career. He is known as "a track guy." And the article linked says he's hoping to make the 53 man roster. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he can fill any void let alone the one left by Crabtree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously what I'd be willing to pay depends on my team makeup. If I own Andre Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Roddy White, Peyton Manning, and Tony Gonzalez, then I'm not giving up anything of value for Crabtree. If my starters are atrocious but I have three firsts this year and four next year, I'd pay closer to top-10 prices for Crabtree (in this hypothetical, I would be willing to give any one of those first rounders, regardless of where it was in this year's draft or how bad the team was for next year's draft).In general, though, if I feel like I have an average squad with an average chance of making the playoffs or winning a championship, and my team's overall age profile is likewise pretty average... then yeah, I'd pay WR14 prices for Crabtree. I'd trade any pick in this year's rookie draft for him, if that's what it took to get the deal done (my highest rated rookie this year is Austin, who I have at WR15, one spot behind Crabtree). I'd trade Andre, Roddy, or Mike Wallace for Crabtree (to name the three veterans ranked immediately after him). If that's what it took to get the deal done, and if that's what I determined was my best use of resources (i.e. I couldn't trade Andre for another player I had rated even higher still), then I'd go ahead and pull the trigger on that.The nice thing is, often times, that's not what it's going to take to land Michael Crabtree. Right now, a lot of owners are willing to sell him for substantially less than the #1 overall rookie pick or a top-20 veteran WR, so you can buy him cheaper and reap larger margins on the trade.I know the old saying that the only year you can win is the one you're currently playing, but imagine this is 2016 and we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Would the 2016 version of you wish you'd tightened your belt and accepted a little bit of a short term loss to land a top player? I suspect that the 2016 version of myself would wish exactly that. I suspect this, because I know the 2013 version of myself is mad at the 2011 version of myself for not making offers for Jamaal Charles immediately after he got injured. And he's mad at the 2008 version of myself for not buying low on an injured Tom Brady. Sure, the 2008 version of myself would have been hurt and had to scramble to make up for the lost value, but the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 versions of myself would have recouped the investment many times over.
That's the thing, we don't have the benefit of hindsight. What if trading AJ or White for Crabtree now costs you a championship? What if Crabtree is never the same player? With hindsight, it's easy to pick guys you wish you had bought low on when they were injured (although we aren't even talking about buying low, we're talking giving up #14 WR value here). It's also easy to pick guys you should be glad you didn't, like Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Cadillac Williams, Jahvid Best, Daunte Culpepper, etc. Without that crystal ball, I don't see how you "win" by paying best case scenario value for him.
Fantasy football is nothing but a bunch of "what-ifs". Everything we do is about playing the odds, making moves that we think have the best chance of getting us a title. If we make a trade that decreases our odds of winning by 1% this year and increases our odds of winning by 10% next year, then by its very nature there's a risk that that trade costs us a championship without ever getting us another one in return. One of my dynasty leagues allows trades in the playoffs, and one of the championship game participants traded a 2nd rounder for Denver's defense. His old defense wound up outscoring Denver that week, and his move to "upgrade" his defense cost him a championship. That's a risk you run. All you can do is make the best decision you can with the information you have and hope the odds work out in your favor.Also, it should be clear that I do not think WR14 is "best case scenario" value for Michael Crabtree. Crabtree was on a 1400/13 pace with Kaepernick last year. His "best case scenario" is a half decade of top-5 production. I had him at WR9 before his injury. WR14 represents a discounted price for me. We all agree that some discount is warranted, we're just disagreeing about what size that discount should be.
 
Obviously what I'd be willing to pay depends on my team makeup. If I own Andre Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Roddy White, Peyton Manning, and Tony Gonzalez, then I'm not giving up anything of value for Crabtree. If my starters are atrocious but I have three firsts this year and four next year, I'd pay closer to top-10 prices for Crabtree (in this hypothetical, I would be willing to give any one of those first rounders, regardless of where it was in this year's draft or how bad the team was for next year's draft).In general, though, if I feel like I have an average squad with an average chance of making the playoffs or winning a championship, and my team's overall age profile is likewise pretty average... then yeah, I'd pay WR14 prices for Crabtree. I'd trade any pick in this year's rookie draft for him, if that's what it took to get the deal done (my highest rated rookie this year is Austin, who I have at WR15, one spot behind Crabtree). I'd trade Andre, Roddy, or Mike Wallace for Crabtree (to name the three veterans ranked immediately after him). If that's what it took to get the deal done, and if that's what I determined was my best use of resources (i.e. I couldn't trade Andre for another player I had rated even higher still), then I'd go ahead and pull the trigger on that.The nice thing is, often times, that's not what it's going to take to land Michael Crabtree. Right now, a lot of owners are willing to sell him for substantially less than the #1 overall rookie pick or a top-20 veteran WR, so you can buy him cheaper and reap larger margins on the trade.I know the old saying that the only year you can win is the one you're currently playing, but imagine this is 2016 and we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Would the 2016 version of you wish you'd tightened your belt and accepted a little bit of a short term loss to land a top player? I suspect that the 2016 version of myself would wish exactly that. I suspect this, because I know the 2013 version of myself is mad at the 2011 version of myself for not making offers for Jamaal Charles immediately after he got injured. And he's mad at the 2008 version of myself for not buying low on an injured Tom Brady. Sure, the 2008 version of myself would have been hurt and had to scramble to make up for the lost value, but the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 versions of myself would have recouped the investment many times over.
That's the thing, we don't have the benefit of hindsight. What if trading AJ or White for Crabtree now costs you a championship? What if Crabtree is never the same player? With hindsight, it's easy to pick guys you wish you had bought low on when they were injured (although we aren't even talking about buying low, we're talking giving up #14 WR value here). It's also easy to pick guys you should be glad you didn't, like Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Cadillac Williams, Jahvid Best, Daunte Culpepper, etc. Without that crystal ball, I don't see how you "win" by paying best case scenario value for him.
Fantasy football is nothing but a bunch of "what-ifs". Everything we do is about playing the odds, making moves that we think have the best chance of getting us a title. If we make a trade that decreases our odds of winning by 1% this year and increases our odds of winning by 10% next year, then by its very nature there's a risk that that trade costs us a championship without ever getting us another one in return. One of my dynasty leagues allows trades in the playoffs, and one of the championship game participants traded a 2nd rounder for Denver's defense. His old defense wound up outscoring Denver that week, and his move to "upgrade" his defense cost him a championship. That's a risk you run. All you can do is make the best decision you can with the information you have and hope the odds work out in your favor.Also, it should be clear that I do not think WR14 is "best case scenario" value for Michael Crabtree. Crabtree was on a 1400/13 pace with Kaepernick last year. His "best case scenario" is a half decade of top-5 production. I had him at WR9 before his injury. WR14 represents a discounted price for me. We all agree that some discount is warranted, we're just disagreeing about what size that discount should be.
Of course fantasy football is about the odds, I just think the odds you are applying here are way out of whack. Using your scenario of a team with an average chance to win a championship, if you take that team and trade away AJ or White for Crabtree, the odds of that team winning a championship this year go down by much more than 1% IMO. I think you can make a strong case that the odds of winning a championship next year go down, not up by 10%. I think you could make a reasonable case that even if Crabtree wasn't injured at all, your odds of winning in the next year or two would go down with that trade, not up. Etc.

You can keep cherry picking scenarios if you'd like, but I really don't see how using a 1 week defensive scoring outcome has any relevance to this at all. We all know that any player can outscore another in any given week, never mind something as unpredictable from week to week as a defense. Apples to oranges doesn't do that justice.

The best case scenario remark was in regards to his recovery- you said that you are assuming that he comes back as exactly the same player, then modified that somewhat. If you really believe that he was going to put together a half-decade of top-5 production, you would have had him higher than #9 pre-injury, no? Of course it's possible that he could do that, but it certainly isn't more likely now that he tore his achilles.

I agree with the last line, but I think the reasons for the drop, and only dropping him 5 places to WR 14, is what most people disagree with. You aren't just getting a player a year older, you likely are going at least 1 full year with essentially zero production out of that player, with a giant question mark after that. A missed season, combined with the possibility that he is never the same (with a slight chance that he's no where near the same), is worth more of a drop than that IMO.

 
Obviously what I'd be willing to pay depends on my team makeup. If I own Andre Johnson, Adrian Peterson, Roddy White, Peyton Manning, and Tony Gonzalez, then I'm not giving up anything of value for Crabtree. If my starters are atrocious but I have three firsts this year and four next year, I'd pay closer to top-10 prices for Crabtree (in this hypothetical, I would be willing to give any one of those first rounders, regardless of where it was in this year's draft or how bad the team was for next year's draft).In general, though, if I feel like I have an average squad with an average chance of making the playoffs or winning a championship, and my team's overall age profile is likewise pretty average... then yeah, I'd pay WR14 prices for Crabtree. I'd trade any pick in this year's rookie draft for him, if that's what it took to get the deal done (my highest rated rookie this year is Austin, who I have at WR15, one spot behind Crabtree). I'd trade Andre, Roddy, or Mike Wallace for Crabtree (to name the three veterans ranked immediately after him). If that's what it took to get the deal done, and if that's what I determined was my best use of resources (i.e. I couldn't trade Andre for another player I had rated even higher still), then I'd go ahead and pull the trigger on that.The nice thing is, often times, that's not what it's going to take to land Michael Crabtree. Right now, a lot of owners are willing to sell him for substantially less than the #1 overall rookie pick or a top-20 veteran WR, so you can buy him cheaper and reap larger margins on the trade.I know the old saying that the only year you can win is the one you're currently playing, but imagine this is 2016 and we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight. Would the 2016 version of you wish you'd tightened your belt and accepted a little bit of a short term loss to land a top player? I suspect that the 2016 version of myself would wish exactly that. I suspect this, because I know the 2013 version of myself is mad at the 2011 version of myself for not making offers for Jamaal Charles immediately after he got injured. And he's mad at the 2008 version of myself for not buying low on an injured Tom Brady. Sure, the 2008 version of myself would have been hurt and had to scramble to make up for the lost value, but the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 versions of myself would have recouped the investment many times over.
That's the thing, we don't have the benefit of hindsight. What if trading AJ or White for Crabtree now costs you a championship? What if Crabtree is never the same player? With hindsight, it's easy to pick guys you wish you had bought low on when they were injured (although we aren't even talking about buying low, we're talking giving up #14 WR value here). It's also easy to pick guys you should be glad you didn't, like Priest Holmes, Terrell Davis, Cadillac Williams, Jahvid Best, Daunte Culpepper, etc. Without that crystal ball, I don't see how you "win" by paying best case scenario value for him.
Fantasy football is nothing but a bunch of "what-ifs". Everything we do is about playing the odds, making moves that we think have the best chance of getting us a title. If we make a trade that decreases our odds of winning by 1% this year and increases our odds of winning by 10% next year, then by its very nature there's a risk that that trade costs us a championship without ever getting us another one in return. One of my dynasty leagues allows trades in the playoffs, and one of the championship game participants traded a 2nd rounder for Denver's defense. His old defense wound up outscoring Denver that week, and his move to "upgrade" his defense cost him a championship. That's a risk you run. All you can do is make the best decision you can with the information you have and hope the odds work out in your favor.Also, it should be clear that I do not think WR14 is "best case scenario" value for Michael Crabtree. Crabtree was on a 1400/13 pace with Kaepernick last year. His "best case scenario" is a half decade of top-5 production. I had him at WR9 before his injury. WR14 represents a discounted price for me. We all agree that some discount is warranted, we're just disagreeing about what size that discount should be.
Of course fantasy football is about the odds, I just think the odds you are applying here are way out of whack. Using your scenario of a team with an average chance to win a championship, if you take that team and trade away AJ or White for Crabtree, the odds of that team winning a championship this year go down by much more than 1% IMO. I think you can make a strong case that the odds of winning a championship next year go down, not up by 10%. I think you could make a reasonable case that even if Crabtree wasn't injured at all, your odds of winning in the next year or two would go down with that trade, not up. Etc.

You can keep cherry picking scenarios if you'd like, but I really don't see how using a 1 week defensive scoring outcome has any relevance to this at all. We all know that any player can outscore another in any given week, never mind something as unpredictable from week to week as a defense. Apples to oranges doesn't do that justice.

The best case scenario remark was in regards to his recovery- you said that you are assuming that he comes back as exactly the same player, then modified that somewhat. If you really believe that he was going to put together a half-decade of top-5 production, you would have had him higher than #9 pre-injury, no? Of course it's possible that he could do that, but it certainly isn't more likely now that he tore his achilles.

I agree with the last line, but I think the reasons for the drop, and only dropping him 5 places to WR 14, is what most people disagree with. You aren't just getting a player a year older, you likely are going at least 1 full year with essentially zero production out of that player, with a giant question mark after that. A missed season, combined with the possibility that he is never the same (with a slight chance that he's no where near the same), is worth more of a drop than that IMO.
I think you're reading a lot of examples I'm giving and misunderstanding them to be specific beliefs about this specific situation. When I say that I would decrease my odds of winning it all this year by 1% to increase them next year by 10%, I am offering that as an example of the concept, not as my specific predictions for how the Andre-for-Crabtree swap would play out (although it's worth pointing out that a perfectly average team has an 8.3% chance of winning it all, so losing Andre wouldn't decrease their odds by more than a couple percent). When I say that Crabtree's best case scenario is five years of top-5 finishes, I'm not saying that's what I expect out of him (as you point out, if I expected that, I'd have him a lot higher than 9th), I'm just saying that I feel like that is a reasonable upside.

Looking at the Andre-for-Crabtree situation more specifically... Andre Johnson will be 32 this year. I don't really have any age concerns for him this year or next year, but after that I think his age starts to become a significant concern. Take a look at Reggie Wayne today to get a glimpse of what the perceptions will be surrounding Andre in two seasons. Next year, meanwhile, Crabtree will be 27- five years younger than Andre this year. Yes, you're going to give up a lot of VBD this year, but I think the VBD difference next year will be much smaller (If I were making extremely early projections, I'd have Andre at WR5 and Crabtree at WR10). And after that, you'll have four or five years to recoup any lost VBD. If you place much higher weights on immediate seasons than future seasons, it makes sense to prefer Andre. I don't- I weight current seasons only very slightly more valuable than future seasons, and feel like Crabtree will have plenty of opportunity to recoup the cost.

Even if I think Crabtree has just an 80% chance of returning to the heights I initially thought he would reach, the math still works out. Andre is projected to play N more seasons, Michael is projected to play N+5 more seasons, which we multiply by 80% to account for the injury risk, and we get 0.8N + 4 more seasons worth of value for Crabtree, which is still substantially larger than N for all values of N less than 20.

Now, obviously, this is a radically simplified version of the calculations involved. You have to figure out how much each season is worth. You have to calculate the value of roster spots. You have to look at the rest of your roster and figure when your window of contention is (since VBD is wasted on a non-contending team), and weight individual seasons based on that. You're looking at incredibly complex calculations involving dozens of variables, and there's no way for me to just post a simple formula and say "therefore Crabtree > Andre QED". Nor should fantasy football ever just boil down to entering a series of inputs into a calculation and mindlessly parroting what it says. Fantasy football in general, and dynasty leagues most especially, are more art than science (even if you can use science to improve the art). When I look at Andre Johnson, I see a 32 year old HoF-caliber talent (though I don't think he'll make the HoF) on a declining offense. When I look at Crabtree, I see a 27-year old on an up-and-coming offense who has elite pedigree (top 10 pick) and has flashed elite upside (1400/13 pace with Kaepernick last season). Obviously there's a lot more risk involved with Crabtree. He hasn't proven he's that elite player yet. There is a very real chance that the injury means he'll never have a chance to do so. The upside, though, is off-the-charts huge. Landing a perennial top-10 WR at age 27 would pay huge dividends, by far big enough to justify the risk for me.

I also think it's a major mistake to look at Andre as some sort of asset without risk, too. Randy Moss only accumulated 92 career VBD starting at age 32. Torry Holt didn't earn a single point of VBD after age 32. Isaac Bruce had 59 VBD after 32. Rod Smith had 87 VBD, while Jimmy Smith (one of the best "old man WRs" of all time) got 129. Yes, Terrell Owens had 288 VBD, and Jerry Rice had 529, but a lot of really, really good WRs- HoF-caliber WRs- have fallen off very steeply with age. To put those VBDs in perspective, all of those guys except for Rice (Harrison, Holt, Moss, Bruce, Smith, Smith, and Owens) averaged 96 more VBD once they hit 32 years old. That's roughly comparable to the VBD that Amani Toomer provided after age 27 (101 VBD). Plaxico Burress added 147 VBD after 27. Eddie Kennison had 74. Michael Crabtree doesn't have to turn into a Hall of Famer to make up the VBD difference. Even a pretty good WR has a good chance to acquire 100 VBD after age 27. And for trade purposes, a 27-year old Crabtree should hold his value pretty well, while a single bad season is all it would take to tank Andre Johnson's market.

So, to bring this train into the station, we've got two very different assets, both of which carry their own risks and payoffs. How each owner values them is going to depend heavily on the weights they place on those risks and payoffs. Obviously I like my weights. I don't expect everyone to agree with them (in fact, I expect hardly anyone to agree with them- I'm well aware that I'm flying in the face of conventional wisdom on this), but I do hope I'm able to convince anyone that they are at least rational and reasonable. I'm not just ranking Crabtree there just to shock, or because I haven't fully considered the implications of the ranking. I feel like I've evaluated his risk profile, and while it's bigger than the risk profile of several other players in that area (who, to be honest, are all plenty risky in their own right), I feel like the potential reward justifies the gamble.

In my mind, ranking Crabtree there is no different than ranking Tavon Austin in that area. Rookie WRs are very unlikely to accumulate any VBD in their first year, so Austin is not much different from Crabtree in that regard (sure, 10-20% chance is not a 0% chance, but it's still very low). Meanwhile, rookies are much, much riskier than injured vets- the bust rate is huge, and the risk is magnified for Austin, who has a physical profile unlike anyone else in the league. Now, the potential payoff if he hits is huge- a 22-year old top-10 draft pick who turns into a stud can be a franchise-defining player. But ranking Austin that high is just a function of recognizing that the delay and the risk is offset by the potential reward. Ditto that for Crabtree.

 
When I say that Crabtree's best case scenario is five years of top-5 finishes, I'm not saying that's what I expect out of him (as you point out, if I expected that, I'd have him a lot higher than 9th), I'm just saying that I feel like that is a reasonable upside.
I understand your analysis, but one thing I think you're ignoring is the development of other WR's on the roster due to Crabtree being out. What made Crabtree has top 5 potential was how much Kaepernick locked onto him once he became the starter. If VD, Jenkins or someone else develop a similar chemistry with him what happens to Crabtree's massive share of the targets he was getting? There's also concern for me that the 49ers use a high pick on WR next year to prepare not to re-sign Crabtree. A lot of ins and outs you seem to be ignoring aside from his recovery.

 
27 isn't old for an NFL receiver, it may well mean he's entering his prime. Calvin Johnson is older than that, would you trade him in a dynasty league because of his advancing age? Look at how many top level receivers are in their 30s these days. "he's out of a small college, undrafted." Yes, that is why he was undrafted, he was a project coming out of college. He's been in the league since 2010 now however, and has no doubt learned a few things along the way. "A track guy." You'll tend to be known as that when you become a national champion in track the way he did back in college. However he played football too and has committed to it since college. "The article" says he's hoping to win a spot on the 53 man roster. That's the opinion/viewpoint of the writer. Coach Harbaugh however has had nothing but praise for him, as did Greg Roman of the niners scout team last year, who said he made impressive catches. Harbaugh has made it clear that he's in competition with Jenkins and Patton for the starting position opposite Boldin. He is the most athletically gifted of the three, neither of whom themselves have an NFL reception yet either. Of course Patton is a rookie so that goes without saying, but he is also poorly athletic despite his solid hands. Anyways I'm not saying that he's a shoe-in to make it, but being the most athletic receiver on the team and best buddies with Kaepernick who has been aiding his development on a daily basis is nothing to sneeze at, particularly in deep dynasty leagues.

Another article about the same: http://football22.myfantasyleague.com/2013/view_news_article?L=12423&ID=854467KFFL

Nope. They already have the guy capable of filling the void, name's Ricardo Lockette. Physically and athletically resembles Julio Jones (look it up), and has been both working hard with and rooming with Colin Kaepernick this offseason. They don't need those washups. They need the young talent they have to step-up.
In deep dynasty leagues pick this guy up before word gets out on him. I did earlier today.
He's 27. He's out of a small college. He was undrafted. He has a total of 2 receptions in his NFL career. He is known as "a track guy." And the article linked says he's hoping to make the 53 man roster. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he can fill any void let alone the one left by Crabtree.
 
27 isn't old for an NFL receiver, it may well mean he's entering his prime. Calvin Johnson is older than that, would you trade him in a dynasty league because of his advancing age? Look at how many top level receivers are in their 30s these days. "he's out of a small college, undrafted." Yes, that is why he was undrafted, he was a project coming out of college. He's been in the league since 2010 now however, and has no doubt learned a few things along the way. "A track guy." You'll tend to be known as that when you become a national champion in track the way he did back in college. However he played football too and has committed to it since college. "The article" says he's hoping to win a spot on the 53 man roster. That's the opinion/viewpoint of the writer. Coach Harbaugh however has had nothing but praise for him, as did Greg Roman of the niners scout team last year, who said he made impressive catches. Harbaugh has made it clear that he's in competition with Jenkins and Patton for the starting position opposite Boldin. He is the most athletically gifted of the three, neither of whom themselves have an NFL reception yet either. Of course Patton is a rookie so that goes without saying, but he is also poorly athletic despite his solid hands. Anyways I'm not saying that he's a shoe-in to make it, but being the most athletic receiver on the team and best buddies with Kaepernick who has been aiding his development on a daily basis is nothing to sneeze at, particularly in deep dynasty leagues.

Another article about the same: http://football22.myfantasyleague.com/2013/view_news_article?L=12423&ID=854467KFFL

Nope. They already have the guy capable of filling the void, name's Ricardo Lockette. Physically and athletically resembles Julio Jones (look it up), and has been both working hard with and rooming with Colin Kaepernick this offseason. They don't need those washups. They need the young talent they have to step-up.

In deep dynasty leagues pick this guy up before word gets out on him. I did earlier today.
He's 27. He's out of a small college. He was undrafted. He has a total of 2 receptions in his NFL career. He is known as "a track guy." And the article linked says he's hoping to make the 53 man roster. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he can fill any void let alone the one left by Crabtree.
My point isn't that 27 is too old. It's that he's 27 and hasn't done anything.

 
Adam, I think it's safe to say we just see things pretty differently when it comes to Crabtree. As you said, everyone is going to have different weightings and calculations for determining value, and I just think yours are overly optimistic for him. Obviously it's likely that Crabtree will play longer than AJ (although I think you underestimate the chances that he does not due to injury), but I don't think total VBD is the best way to look at it. As a fantasy owner, I want difference makers, guys who are going to give me big advantages even if it's for a short period of time. For example, give me 3 years of top 10 production over 10 years of top 30 production, even if that player ends up with more career VBD.

You believe Crabtree has "off-the-charts huge upside", and I just don't see it. Calvin, AJ Green, Julio, Dez, Marshall, D. Thomas, Fitzgerald, and, yes, Andre Johnson, are guys who I would put in that category. I don't think Crabtree is even in that conversation (although I admit I could be wrong). I also don't see how you can be so sure that AJ is on a declining offense, when they scored more points than they ever have last season, and Crabtree is on an up and coming one, when he's only under contract until 2014 and his QB has played half a season. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, that one or both of those statements are true, but both are far from a lock. You leave out the possibility that his QB finds someone else to lock into while he's out, or that defenses figure him out some as they see more of him. You point out that Crabtree was a top 10 pick who has flashed elite upside, but ignore the fact that AJ was drafted even higher and has more than flashed elite upside, he's delivered it. It doesn't matter that you should have bought low on Charles or Brady (even if you want to ignore the guys who were injured who were busts), or how many VBD Issac Bruce, Rod Smith, or Amani Toomer produced after a certain age. What matters is what happens from here on out with these two specific players.

I do agree about Austin (and rookies in general), many people severely overvalue them before they even step onto an NFL field. I wouldn't rank him that high, nor take him over AJ in a start-up, either.

Basically, I think you were a bit too high on Crabtree to begin with, and I don't think you are discounting his value due to this injury quite enough, leaving you to have him even more overvalued now (IMO). I didn't mean to imply that you haven't thought it out, just a difference of opinion. I enjoyed the discussion even if we don't agree.

 
Crazysight, on 25 May 2013 - 17:05, said:27 isn't old for an NFL receiver, it may well mean he's entering his prime. Calvin Johnson is older than that, would you trade him in a dynasty league because of his advancing age? Look at how many top level receivers are in their 30s these days. "he's out of a small college, undrafted." Yes, that is why he was undrafted, he was a project coming out of college. He's been in the league since 2010 now however, and has no doubt learned a few things along the way. "A track guy." You'll tend to be known as that when you become a national champion in track the way he did back in college. However he played football too and has committed to it since college. "The article" says he's hoping to win a spot on the 53 man roster. That's the opinion/viewpoint of the writer. Coach Harbaugh however has had nothing but praise for him, as did Greg Roman of the niners scout team last year, who said he made impressive catches. Harbaugh has made it clear that he's in competition with Jenkins and Patton for the starting position opposite Boldin. He is the most athletically gifted of the three, neither of whom themselves have an NFL reception yet either. Of course Patton is a rookie so that goes without saying, but he is also poorly athletic despite his solid hands. Anyways I'm not saying that he's a shoe-in to make it, but being the most athletic receiver on the team and best buddies with Kaepernick who has been aiding his development on a daily basis is nothing to sneeze at, particularly in deep dynasty leagues.
Lockette is a little bigger than Jenkins but athletically they are nearly identical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top