Dynasty Question: List of players you value more than #1 overall pick (1 Viewer)

[Skeletore Eh]

Stafford is overrated right now for the same reason that Ben was underrated after his rookie year. When people in FF circles evaluate QBs, they tend to only look at the total stats and not the manner in which those stats were obtained. Statements like this don't necessarily mean much without the proper context:

That average alone paces him for 4,300 yds and 32 TDs per season

Those are great stats, but they don't necessarily tell you how well the player played. Think of it in baseball terms. If Player A hits 25 home runs in a season and Player B hits 20 home runs, then is Player A clearly the better home run hitter? No, because we're missing important information. If Player A hit 25 home runs in 500 at-bats and Player B hit 20 home runs in 200 at-bats, the picture looks a lot different. The total stats don't tell the whole story. Stafford was not an elite QB on a per-throw basis. He just benefited from an ENORMOUS number of pass attempts. He threw the ball 663 times this past season. To put that into perspective, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and even Drew Brees have NEVER thrown the ball that many times in a single season. I find it highly likely that Stafford's attempts will drop in future seasons. When that happens, will he still be an elite FF QB?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, he was not spectacular on a per-throw basis. There were many better QBs in the NFL this past year. The reason he looks like a great FF player on paper is because he chucked the ball a ton and because a lot of those completions happened to take place in the end zone. I don't think he will approach 663 pass attempts and 41 passing TDs every season. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he never matches those figures again in his career. So in order to remain elite, he will probably have to improve his per-throw efficiency. That's certainly possible, but is it something we can assume he'll do? No. While it's possible that he could take the next step and become a truly elite QB, he could just as easily level off or regress ala Cutler/Palmer. Those guys were trendy top 5 dynasty QB picks once upon a time too. And guess what? They were never great on a per-throw basis either. People just looked at the total stats and ignored how they got there.

The main thing I like about Stafford is the system. Lots of QBs would fare well throwing the ball 600+ times with Megatron in the red zone. Getting those extra 6-7 TDs from Calvin every year will help Stafford's numbers. The player himself hasn't proven to be elite though. No way I would take him in the top 12 of a dynasty startup. Wouldn't take him in the first three rounds. His ppg will drop next season and you'll be kicking yourself for passing on elite WR/RB when you could've just grabbed Philip Rivers or Eli Manning from the mid rounds and gotten nearly the same production at QB. Elite QBs are overrated in general right now. Go all the way back to 2010 and you'll see that the ppg difference between the elite and the fringe top 10 guys is pretty thin.

Well, you've been wrong about Stafford for 4 years now so I guess I wouldn't expect that to change now. If Stafford is simply a product of the system, explain why his record as a starter has been so much better than Det's record w/o him the past 3 years. Also, explain why his QB rating has improved 3 years in a row since entering the NFL, just like it did when he was at Georgia. I love how so many act as though a 23 year old QB who hasn't even played a full 2 seasons in the NFL yet has already reached his peak simply because Megatron is there. Here's the thing, Megatron's success and career year are just as tied to Stafford as Stafford's was to Megatron. The comparison to Big Ben is silly. It's no coincidence that Big Ben has not replicated the YPA numbers of his 2 seasons in any other season. It's because he threw the ball more and when you do, it's more difficult to do. In Big Ben's 1st 2 seasons he only passed the ball a ridiculously low amount of times per game of 21. In those seasons he averaged 8.9 YPA. Since then, he has averaged over 31 attempts per game and his YPA has dropped to a rate of 7.8. Coincidence, I think not. By the way, Stafford's was 7.6 last yer with 41 attempts per game. Not that big a deal when you actually put the numbers into perspective. During the 4 game stretch when he was nursing an injured thumb his YPA was 7.1. When healthy, it was 7.8.

These same arguments have come up in various other Stafford threads and they simply don't hold much weight. So Stafford benefited from Megatron and that gave him 6-7 more TDs. OK, well take those TDs away and he is still a top 5 QB this past year who passed for 34 TDs. That's still 5th in the NFL. While you're at it, just go ahead and take away all 16 of Megatron's TD's and that still leaves Stafford with 25, or 10th in the NFL. This notion that Stafford is only good because of Megatron is simply false. Perhaps Megatron is what makes him elite, but the same can be said for Megatron. He is only elite because of Stafford. The bottom line is that they are together and look to be staying together for a long time. Stafford is 23 years old and getting better with every year. He still has not played a full season healthy and yet still was able to produce elite results.

Calvin may not have been the unanimous wr1 without stafford, but I'd say he was still elite

 

[EBF]

You didn't really address the key points. 41 passing TDs is not a realistic expectation going forward. It's a flukishly high number. Peyton Manning only topped that once in his career. Ditto Tom Brady. So even though I think Calvin is going to give Stafford a 6-7 TD boost annually, I still see his TD numbers regressing significantly. Nobody is going to throw for 40 TDs every season. Peyton Manning might be the best passer ever and he only averaged 30.6 TD passes per year. The same holds true for his yards. You can come up with all the excuses you want. Fact is, Stafford was merely "solid" and not "elite" from a yards per attempt standpoint. Out of all the QBs with 200+ passing attempts last season, these players did better than his 7.6 yards per toss:Aaron Rodgers - 9.2Tom Brady - 8.6Matt Schaub - 8.5Eli Manning - 8.4Carson Palmer - 8.4Drew Brees - 8.3Tony Romo - 8.0Philip Rivers - 7.9Ben Roethlisberger - 7.9Cam Newton - 7.8Michael Vick - 7.8Kevin Kolb - 7.7There are a couple surprises on this list, but all of the players that I would consider to be "elite" NFL and FF QBs did better than Stafford. The reason his numbers look good on paper is because he threw the ball so much. I feel pretty safe saying that he's not going to average 663 pass attempts per season. In fact, there's a pretty good chance that he'll never again match that total in his career. Peyton's career average is 554. He only topped 600 once in his entire 13 year starting career. You reduce Stafford's attempts by 50-100 and suddenly his numbers look a lot more pedestrian. And I believe his attempts WILL drop as the team's defense improves and, more importantly, as they stabilize their RB situation. Season-ending injuries to their top two backs crippled their rushing attack and likely played a large role in their over-reliance on Stafford.My argument against him is pretty simple. His TD production was somewhat of a fluke. His yards were the result of high opportunities, not great play. When his TD numbers regress and his pass attempts drop, so will his FF output unless he improves his per throw effectiveness. He might do that. He might not. The latter possibility is what prevents him from being an elite FF QB right now. The funny thing about this statement...

Well, you've been wrong about Stafford for 4 years now so I guess I wouldn't expect that to change now.

...is that it could just as easily apply to you. You've always believed that he's an elite QB, so you're inclined to emphasize the data points that support that position (yards and TDs) and downplay the ones that don't (YPA). You've made a lot of excuses for Stafford. I don't buy them all. For me, YPA has always been the best indicator of QB performance. In that regard Stafford was not elite.Pass attempts will vary from season to season, but elite players don't usually lose their ability over night. I would rather pay a reduced cost for a more effective QB like Rivers or Schaub than spend a first round dynasty pick to find out if Stafford is truly an elite player or just the next Jay Cutler/Carson Palmer. I'll be surprised if he scores significantly more ppg over the next 3-4 years than much cheaper options like Rivers and Eli. Hence why he's nowhere near the first round of my board.

 

[Sabertooth]

Stafford is overrated right now. He only averaged 7.6 yards per pass attempt. That's lower than Brees, Brady, Eli, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Newton, Rivers, Romo, Vick, Schaub, and Palmer. The reason his stats look so good is because he lead the NFL in pass attempts. He played well, but not great. It's the system that was great. Don't get me wrong, I think he has a pretty strong case for being a top 5 dynasty QB. He's still young with room for improvement. And the friendly system isn't going anywhere any time soon, with players like Calvin, Young, and Pettigrew likely in it for the long haul. On the other hand, the Lions might run more in future seasons when they don't have the RB crisis that hit them this year (Best and Leshoure both out for the season). Right now I would say he's a good player who put up great stats in a great system. In order to seriously consider him as a top 10 dynasty pick, I would have to believe that he's a great player. He hasn't proven that to me yet. He has had one strong season inflated by the Calvin factor and a high number of pass attempts. Sometimes these guys take the next step and become truly elite QBs like Peyton and Brady. Other times you end up with more of a Cutler or Palmer. I think Stafford's value is roughly in the middle of those two poles. For me he's more of a 3rd-4th round pick in most startup drafts. I wouldn't even consider him in the top 20 unless it was a QB heavy league.

Stafford is easily the youngest QB of the guys you listed other than Newton and he fought through a thumb injury on his throwing hand this year that greatly hindered his success for 4 games, 9 of his 16 INTs came in that 4 game stretch. He is a great player. If you can't see that by now then I guess you never will. He only needs to prove more durable. When's he's been healthy, he's been great. Add to it that he's still only 23 years old, yes 23, I would in no way give him up for the 1st pick and roll the dice on a rookie.To date in Stafford's career he has averaged 270 passing yds passing and just over 2 TDs per game. He's done this while being injured every year thus far and still being one of the youngest starting QBs in the NFL today. That average alone paces him for 4,300 yds and 32 TDs per season. Like him or not, those are elite numbers.

Take Calvin out o the mix and Stafford is no better than Jay Cutler.

Even if we assume this is true, why would we take away Johnson when he is still there and likely will be for a long time?

I was speaking to Stafford's skill. But now that you mention it, Calvin has a contract coming up, he could hold out this year or next.

 

[jurb26]

You didn't really address the key points. 41 passing TDs is not a realistic expectation going forward. It's a flukishly high number. Peyton Manning only topped that once in his career. Ditto Tom Brady. So even though I think Calvin is going to give Stafford a 6-7 TD boost annually, I still see his TD numbers regressing significantly. Nobody is going to throw for 40 TDs every season. Peyton Manning might be the best passer ever and he only averaged 30.6 TD passes per year. The same holds true for his yards. You can come up with all the excuses you want. Fact is, Stafford was merely "solid" and not "elite" from a yards per attempt standpoint. Out of all the QBs with 200+ passing attempts last season, these players did better than his 7.6 yards per toss:Aaron Rodgers - 9.2Tom Brady - 8.6Matt Schaub - 8.5Eli Manning - 8.4Carson Palmer - 8.4Drew Brees - 8.3Tony Romo - 8.0Philip Rivers - 7.9Ben Roethlisberger - 7.9Cam Newton - 7.8Michael Vick - 7.8Kevin Kolb - 7.7There are a couple surprises on this list, but all of the players that I would consider to be "elite" NFL and FF QBs did better than Stafford. The reason his numbers look good on paper is because he threw the ball so much. I feel pretty safe saying that he's not going to average 663 pass attempts per season. In fact, there's a pretty good chance that he'll never again match that total in his career. Peyton's career average is 554. He only topped 600 once in his entire 13 year starting career. You reduce Stafford's attempts by 50-100 and suddenly his numbers look a lot more pedestrian. And I believe his attempts WILL drop as the team's defense improves and, more importantly, as they stabilize their RB situation. Season-ending injuries to their top two backs crippled their rushing attack and likely played a large role in their over-reliance on Stafford.My argument against him is pretty simple. His TD production was somewhat of a fluke. His yards were the result of high opportunities, not great play. When his TD numbers regress and his pass attempts drop, so will his FF output unless he improves his per throw effectiveness. He might do that. He might not. The latter possibility is what prevents him from being an elite FF QB right now. The funny thing about this statement...

Well, you've been wrong about Stafford for 4 years now so I guess I wouldn't expect that to change now.

...is that it could just as easily apply to you. You've always believed that he's an elite QB, so you're inclined to emphasize the data points that support that position (yards and TDs) and downplay the ones that don't (YPA). You've made a lot of excuses for Stafford. I don't buy them all. For me, YPA has always been the best indicator of QB performance. In that regard Stafford was not elite.Pass attempts will vary from season to season, but elite players don't usually lose their ability over night. I would rather pay a reduced cost for a more effective QB like Rivers or Schaub than spend a first round dynasty pick to find out if Stafford is truly an elite player or just the next Jay Cutler/Carson Palmer. I'll be surprised if he scores significantly more ppg over the next 3-4 years than much cheaper options like Rivers and Eli. Hence why he's nowhere near the first round of my board.

I did address your key point, 41 TDs. I even allowed you take take away the 6-7 TDs you are saying are "fluky" due to Clavin. W/o those TDs, Stafford was still an elite fantasy producer last year. Even if you take away ALL of Calvin's TD's (which is silly) he still threw for the 10th most TDs of any QB last year. Since when does Stafford, or any QB for that matter, have to throw for 40+ TDs annually to be considered elite? Furthermore, when did I ever say that is what he would do? I said he averages 2 TDs per game over his career thus far. A career marked with several injuries to date and Stafford has shown improvement every year. At a 2 TD per game pace, that is 32 TDs per year. That number easily places him in the top 5 of fantasy QBs. OK, so now you want to take away 50-100 of Stafford's attempts and you say he will look "pedestrian." Did you actually do this and run the numbers before you made the statement? I did and here is what they look like if you use his per attempt average for the year and take away 100 attempts (the high end of your number); 4,279 yds and 35 TDs. That is "pedestrian?" People are acting as though Stafford simply padded stats in the final to game as well. Not you, but others have mentioned this. Stafford entered the final 2 weeks of the season having already accumulated 4,200 yds and 33 TDs. Sure, he blew the doors off of things the final 2 game and passed for nearly 900 yds and 8 TDs, but lets not act as though he needed to so that to post an impressive season. It just isn't so.You keep trying to go back to this point of him not throwing the ball so much and I've never argued against that. Of course he will not throw the ball 600+ times year after year. You are acting as though he needs to however and the numbers simply don't support that. He could have thrown 100 less times last year and still been a top 5 QB. You also seem to want to ignore the fact that Stafford is still only 23 years old and will improve. How many 23 year old QBs have accomplished anything close to what Stafford has thus far? The list is small. Does his environment have something to do with that, of course it does. Playing with Calvin is clearly an advantage and so is playing in a dome at least 9 times a year. Is it the only reason for his performance, of course not. He was an elite prospect coming out of college, drafted #1 overall and has shown franchise QB ability in his 1st 3 years.What excuses have I made for Stafford? What excuses need to be made in the 1st place? The guy just posted one of the best fantasy seasons ever for a QB and he did it at age 23. I've simply pointed out the injuries and challenges he's faced and overcome to do it. You can ignore the fact that his 4 game stretch playing with an injured thumb on his throwing hand made any impact, but again the numbers support it. By you're own measure Stafford was 7.1 YPA in the games nursing that injury and 7.9 YPA all other games. That is not an excuse, it's reality. I hope Det does start throwing the ball less and gets an improved running game. While the gaudy passing attempts are nice in isolated seasons, they are not sustainable. Being so heavily reliant on the pass exposes your QB to risks and injuries. Stafford's biggest issue to date has been his ability to stay healthy and passing the ball 41 times per game doesn't help that. I'd love to see that number drop down to the 32 range as it would be better for his long term outlook and career. There is no doubt in my mind that Stafford can continue to put up top 5 fantasy numbers with 500+ attempts per year. He will not put up 5,100 yd and 40+ TD seasons at that rate, but then again he doesn't need to.

 

[EBF]

As for the OP, I had to hold my tongue for a while because I'm in a startup draft with a bunch of people from this board and Richardson was high on my list for the 1.08 pick. These are the guys I would almost certainly take for him in a trade:

Cam Newton

Aaron Rodgers

Calvin Johnson

I think he's pretty close in value to these guys:

LeSean McCoy

Ray Rice

AJ Green

Hakeem Nicks

Realistically, I would have a hard time giving up an elite RB for an elite QB in most formats, simply because a starting caliber QB is always easier to acquire in a trade. So in leagues where I own Richardson or the 1.01, I'm not sure I'd click accept if an offer of Aaron Rodgers came in, crazy as that might sound. I think 2011 QB production was a bit inflated and I think QBs are being overvalued in this year's FF drafts as a result. The same reasoning kind of applies to Gronk and Graham. I'm not sold that either of those guys will ever repeat their historic seasons and you just couldn't get me to take a TE in the 1st round of a dynasty startup.

At RB, I think Richardson is firmly in the first tier with McCoy and Rice. I think he's more talented than those players, but it remains to be seen how he'll be used. Those backs both play in very friendly systems that maximize their talent. We don't yet know if Richardson will be that lucky, but barring some type of catastrophic injury I think he'll be a very strong contender for the RB1 spot in next year's startups.

 

[Shutout]

I think there is some massive over-valuation going on here.

ADP was great of course, but I'm certain that there are a LOT of players that I would rather have than some of the guys that go 1.01 each year and I'm sure if you look back, a lot of those guys got hyped quite a bit too. No one even mentioned CJ spiller and Dez Bryant and those two were HIGH on the hype list.

Its just hard for me to buy into overall when I see MULTIPLE lists on here where people are saying they would rather have 1.01 over Arian Foster and Hakeem Nicks and guys like that. No one even mentioned Kenny Britt or others like him that are obviously very valuable and have actually played a few downs in the NFL.

I think people are going to be VERY disappoitned in guys like Richardson if this is their honest assessment.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

As for the OP, I had to hold my tongue for a while because I'm in a startup draft with a bunch of people from this board and Richardson was high on my list for the 1.08 pick. These are the guys I would almost certainly take for him in a trade:Cam NewtonAaron RodgersCalvin JohnsonI think he's pretty close in value to these guys:LeSean McCoyRay RiceAJ GreenHakeem NicksRealistically, I would have a hard time giving up an elite RB for an elite QB in most formats, simply because a starting caliber QB is always easier to acquire in a trade. So in leagues where I own Richardson or the 1.01, I'm not sure I'd click accept if an offer of Aaron Rodgers came in, crazy as that might sound. I think 2011 QB production was a bit inflated and I think QBs are being overvalued in this year's FF drafts as a result. The same reasoning kind of applies to Gronk and Graham. I'm not sold that either of those guys will ever repeat their historic seasons and you just couldn't get me to take a TE in the 1st round of a dynasty startup.At RB, I think Richardson is firmly in the first tier with McCoy and Rice. I think he's more talented than those players, but it remains to be seen how he'll be used. Those backs both play in very friendly systems that maximize their talent. We don't yet know if Richardson will be that lucky, but barring some type of catastrophic injury I think he'll be a very strong contender for the RB1 spot in next year's startups.

I'm in this same startup and had 1.04 and 1.05. I went with Newton and Shady. Honestly, if Shady was another year older, I may have gone with Richardson instead. The shelf lives of RBs is so short, that getting a guy that's 21 or 22 and that has his whole career in front of him has a lot of appeal in comparison to a 25 or 26 year old RB.

 

[Gandalf]

Stafford is overrated right now for the same reason that Ben was underrated after his rookie year. When people in FF circles evaluate QBs, they tend to only look at the total stats and not the manner in which those stats were obtained. Statements like this don't necessarily mean much without the proper context:

That average alone paces him for 4,300 yds and 32 TDs per season

Those are great stats, but they don't necessarily tell you how well the player played. Think of it in baseball terms. If Player A hits 25 home runs in a season and Player B hits 20 home runs, then is Player A clearly the better home run hitter? No, because we're missing important information. If Player A hit 25 home runs in 500 at-bats and Player B hit 20 home runs in 200 at-bats, the picture looks a lot different. The total stats don't tell the whole story. Stafford was not an elite QB on a per-throw basis. He just benefited from an ENORMOUS number of pass attempts. He threw the ball 663 times this past season. To put that into perspective, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and even Drew Brees have NEVER thrown the ball that many times in a single season. I find it highly likely that Stafford's attempts will drop in future seasons. When that happens, will he still be an elite FF QB?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, he was not spectacular on a per-throw basis. There were many better QBs in the NFL this past year. The reason he looks like a great FF player on paper is because he chucked the ball a ton and because a lot of those completions happened to take place in the end zone. I don't think he will approach 663 pass attempts and 41 passing TDs every season. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he never matches those figures again in his career. So in order to remain elite, he will probably have to improve his per-throw efficiency. That's certainly possible, but is it something we can assume he'll do? No. While it's possible that he could take the next step and become a truly elite QB, he could just as easily level off or regress ala Cutler/Palmer. Those guys were trendy top 5 dynasty QB picks once upon a time too. And guess what? They were never great on a per-throw basis either. People just looked at the total stats and ignored how they got there.

The main thing I like about Stafford is the system. Lots of QBs would fare well throwing the ball 600+ times with Megatron in the red zone. Getting those extra 6-7 TDs from Calvin every year will help Stafford's numbers. The player himself hasn't proven to be elite though. No way I would take him in the top 12 of a dynasty startup. Wouldn't take him in the first three rounds. His ppg will drop next season and you'll be kicking yourself for passing on elite WR/RB when you could've just grabbed Philip Rivers or Eli Manning from the mid rounds and gotten nearly the same production at QB. Elite QBs are overrated in general right now. Go all the way back to 2010 and you'll see that the ppg difference between the elite and the fringe top 10 guys is pretty thin.

I like the way your brain thinks. Great post.

 

[Skeletore Eh]

Rodgers

Cam is close but I'll take the 1.1

Rice

McCoy

Foster is close but I'll take the 1.1

Calvin

Fitzgerald

Julio

Green

Nicks

Gronkowski

Graham

These two are both about even with the 1.1 but I'll take the advantage they provide over every other TE

 

[Shutout]

As for the OP, I had to hold my tongue for a while because I'm in a startup draft with a bunch of people from this board and Richardson was high on my list for the 1.08 pick. These are the guys I would almost certainly take for him in a trade:

Cam Newton

Aaron Rodgers

Calvin Johnson

I think he's pretty close in value to these guys:

LeSean McCoy

Ray Rice

AJ Green

Hakeem Nicks

Realistically, I would have a hard time giving up an elite RB for an elite QB in most formats, simply because a starting caliber QB is always easier to acquire in a trade. So in leagues where I own Richardson or the 1.01, I'm not sure I'd click accept if an offer of Aaron Rodgers came in, crazy as that might sound. I think 2011 QB production was a bit inflated and I think QBs are being overvalued in this year's FF drafts as a result. The same reasoning kind of applies to Gronk and Graham. I'm not sold that either of those guys will ever repeat their historic seasons and you just couldn't get me to take a TE in the 1st round of a dynasty startup.

At RB, I think Richardson is firmly in the first tier with McCoy and Rice. I think he's more talented than those players, but it remains to be seen how he'll be used. Those backs both play in very friendly systems that maximize their talent. We don't yet know if Richardson will be that lucky, but barring some type of catastrophic injury I think he'll be a very strong contender for the RB1 spot in next year's startups.

I'm in this same startup and had 1.04 and 1.05. I went with Newton and Shady. Honestly, if Shady was another year older, I may have gone with Richardson instead. The shelf lives of RBs is so short, that getting a guy that's 21 or 22 and that has his whole career in front of him has a lot of appeal in comparison to a 25 or 26 year old RB.

If you're saying a guy is basically done by the time he is 25 or 26, why on Earth would you ever put SO much value on richardson or any other RB? I mean, we know how great Shady is playing but you are saying if he was just one year older you'd basically toss him aside. I don't get that.

 

[Shutout]

Stafford is overrated right now for the same reason that Ben was underrated after his rookie year. When people in FF circles evaluate QBs, they tend to only look at the total stats and not the manner in which those stats were obtained. Statements like this don't necessarily mean much without the proper context:

That average alone paces him for 4,300 yds and 32 TDs per season

Those are great stats, but they don't necessarily tell you how well the player played. Think of it in baseball terms. If Player A hits 25 home runs in a season and Player B hits 20 home runs, then is Player A clearly the better home run hitter? No, because we're missing important information. If Player A hit 25 home runs in 500 at-bats and Player B hit 20 home runs in 200 at-bats, the picture looks a lot different. The total stats don't tell the whole story. Stafford was not an elite QB on a per-throw basis. He just benefited from an ENORMOUS number of pass attempts. He threw the ball 663 times this past season. To put that into perspective, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and even Drew Brees have NEVER thrown the ball that many times in a single season. I find it highly likely that Stafford's attempts will drop in future seasons. When that happens, will he still be an elite FF QB?

As I mentioned in my earlier post, he was not spectacular on a per-throw basis. There were many better QBs in the NFL this past year. The reason he looks like a great FF player on paper is because he chucked the ball a ton and because a lot of those completions happened to take place in the end zone. I don't think he will approach 663 pass attempts and 41 passing TDs every season. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he never matches those figures again in his career. So in order to remain elite, he will probably have to improve his per-throw efficiency. That's certainly possible, but is it something we can assume he'll do? No. While it's possible that he could take the next step and become a truly elite QB, he could just as easily level off or regress ala Cutler/Palmer. Those guys were trendy top 5 dynasty QB picks once upon a time too. And guess what? They were never great on a per-throw basis either. People just looked at the total stats and ignored how they got there.

The main thing I like about Stafford is the system. Lots of QBs would fare well throwing the ball 600+ times with Megatron in the red zone. Getting those extra 6-7 TDs from Calvin every year will help Stafford's numbers. The player himself hasn't proven to be elite though. No way I would take him in the top 12 of a dynasty startup. Wouldn't take him in the first three rounds. His ppg will drop next season and you'll be kicking yourself for passing on elite WR/RB when you could've just grabbed Philip Rivers or Eli Manning from the mid rounds and gotten nearly the same production at QB. Elite QBs are overrated in general right now. Go all the way back to 2010 and you'll see that the ppg difference between the elite and the fringe top 10 guys is pretty thin.

I like the way your brain thinks. Great post.

While I accept your hypothesis, I reject your conclusion. Actually, everything you point out makes a lot of sense and probably IS likely that things begin to "regress towards the mean" as they say, BUT...the flip side to this is someone could counter and say that sometimes teams and players DO go through stretches that uphold these numbers. I mean, what's the arguement AGAINST the Lions just simply being this type of team? In a pass happy NFL and with the types of receiving weapons they have on this team, who is to say the Lions won't be THAT type of team?

Going into this year and coming off a few seasons where the Saints have thrown a ton, and then even making a priority to draft a big time RB, I bet most people thought that the Saints would come down off the passes a bit too. But instead, Brees broke an NFL record. Sometimes, that's just the identity of the team, despite all the common logic. The Colts pass. The Patriots pass. The Rams were like that back in their day. Pick out any chunk of time and you can always find a few teams that just ARE going to play to their strengths and right now, the strength of the Lions is a big armed QB and a dominant WR and a defense that loves to play against offenses that are passing.

The way things are in the NFL right now, I think we have to be careful befire accepting that last statement that elite QBs are over rated right now. The argument behind it was saying going back to 2010. Well, that's only a couple of seasons and I think its easy to say that if we polled football fans, even the most casual of fans would easily point out that they ahve observed these past two years as being aggressively going towards more passing. And the data seems to support it. This could very well be just a tip of the iceburg and people who have owned these elite QBs the past two years can testify soundly that having one of the top 4-5 QBs in leagues these past few years has been a HUGE advantage.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

While I accept your hypothesis, I reject your conclusion. Actually, everything you point out makes a lot of sense and probably IS likely that things begin to "regress towards the mean" as they say, BUT...the flip side to this is someone could counter and say that sometimes teams and players DO go through stretches that uphold these numbers. I mean, what's the arguement AGAINST the Lions just simply being this type of team? In a pass happy NFL and with the types of receiving weapons they have on this team, who is to say the Lions won't be THAT type of team? Going into this year and coming off a few seasons where the Saints have thrown a ton, and then even making a priority to draft a big time RB, I bet most people thought that the Saints would come down off the passes a bit too. But instead, Brees broke an NFL record. Sometimes, that's just the identity of the team, despite all the common logic. The Colts pass. The Patriots pass. The Rams were like that back in their day. Pick out any chunk of time and you can always find a few teams that just ARE going to play to their strengths and right now, the strength of the Lions is a big armed QB and a dominant WR and a defense that loves to play against offenses that are passing. The way things are in the NFL right now, I think we have to be careful befire accepting that last statement that elite QBs are over rated right now. The argument behind it was saying going back to 2010. Well, that's only a couple of seasons and I think its easy to say that if we polled football fans, even the most casual of fans would easily point out that they ahve observed these past two years as being aggressively going towards more passing. And the data seems to support it. This could very well be just a tip of the iceburg and people who have owned these elite QBs the past two years can testify soundly that having one of the top 4-5 QBs in leagues these past few years has been a HUGE advantage.

That's a fair point. People are quick to point out that it's unlikely for a player to repeat a 5000/40 season. That may have been the case when a 5000/40 season came along once every 8 years, but FOUR people did it this year.It's entirely possible that 5000/40 is the new 4000/30.

 

[Grahamburn]

While I accept your hypothesis, I reject your conclusion. Actually, everything you point out makes a lot of sense and probably IS likely that things begin to "regress towards the mean" as they say, BUT...the flip side to this is someone could counter and say that sometimes teams and players DO go through stretches that uphold these numbers. I mean, what's the arguement AGAINST the Lions just simply being this type of team? In a pass happy NFL and with the types of receiving weapons they have on this team, who is to say the Lions won't be THAT type of team? Going into this year and coming off a few seasons where the Saints have thrown a ton, and then even making a priority to draft a big time RB, I bet most people thought that the Saints would come down off the passes a bit too. But instead, Brees broke an NFL record. Sometimes, that's just the identity of the team, despite all the common logic. The Colts pass. The Patriots pass. The Rams were like that back in their day. Pick out any chunk of time and you can always find a few teams that just ARE going to play to their strengths and right now, the strength of the Lions is a big armed QB and a dominant WR and a defense that loves to play against offenses that are passing. The way things are in the NFL right now, I think we have to be careful befire accepting that last statement that elite QBs are over rated right now. The argument behind it was saying going back to 2010. Well, that's only a couple of seasons and I think its easy to say that if we polled football fans, even the most casual of fans would easily point out that they ahve observed these past two years as being aggressively going towards more passing. And the data seems to support it. This could very well be just a tip of the iceburg and people who have owned these elite QBs the past two years can testify soundly that having one of the top 4-5 QBs in leagues these past few years has been a HUGE advantage.

That's a fair point. People are quick to point out that it's unlikely for a player to repeat a 5000/40 season. That may have been the case when a 5000/40 season came along once every 8 years, but FOUR people did it this year.It's entirely possible that 5000/40 is the new 4000/30.

Exactly.The rules are so tilted toward favoring the offense and passing game. If your QB doesn't put up 300/3 on a fairly consistent basis you're way behind the rest of your league-mates who are rolling out Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Stafford, or Cam. I know when I go into a head to head matchup I'm much more concerned facing the QB with potential for a 500/5 night vs the "stud" RB/Matt Schaub combo.Running backs simply don't have the same value in fantasy football anymore. A quick glance at the top 10 from just this season should tell anyone that.

 

[EBF]

I agree to a point, but we got a lot of this "era of the stud QB" talk in 2004/2005 after Peyton and Culpepper had their career years. It didn't materialize. I see the same thing happening this year. I don't think guys like Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Stafford are going to hit these kind of numbers every year. If they drop down to 2008-2010 levels then you're looking at valuable players, but not guys who are all obviously worth a top 10 dynasty startup pick.

Part of the problem is that there are so many solid QBs in the NFL that you can just wait it out and get one cheap. It's quite easy to go out and acquire a serviceable starting QB, even in my 14 team leagues. Can't say the same about RB/WR.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I agree to a point, but we got a lot of this "era of the stud QB" talk in 2004/2005 after Peyton and Culpepper had their career years. It didn't materialize. I see the same thing happening this year. I don't think guys like Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Stafford are going to hit these kind of numbers every year. If they drop down to 2008-2010 levels then you're looking at valuable players, but not guys who are all obviously worth a top 10 dynasty startup pick. Part of the problem is that there are so many solid QBs in the NFL that you can just wait it out and get one cheap. It's quite easy to go out and acquire a serviceable starting QB, even in my 14 team leagues. Can't say the same about RB/WR.

If your premise that Qb numbers drop next year I agree but if this is a new huge Qb numbers era than I couldn't disagree more. A serviceable Qb is gonna put you at a huge disadvantage. Brees outscored the #7 Qb Romo by 150 points. Same difference as there was between Lesean Mccoy and Willis Mcgahee.

 

[Shutout]

While I accept your hypothesis, I reject your conclusion.

Actually, everything you point out makes a lot of sense and probably IS likely that things begin to "regress towards the mean" as they say, BUT...the flip side to this is someone could counter and say that sometimes teams and players DO go through stretches that uphold these numbers. I mean, what's the arguement AGAINST the Lions just simply being this type of team? In a pass happy NFL and with the types of receiving weapons they have on this team, who is to say the Lions won't be THAT type of team?

Going into this year and coming off a few seasons where the Saints have thrown a ton, and then even making a priority to draft a big time RB, I bet most people thought that the Saints would come down off the passes a bit too. But instead, Brees broke an NFL record. Sometimes, that's just the identity of the team, despite all the common logic. The Colts pass. The Patriots pass. The Rams were like that back in their day. Pick out any chunk of time and you can always find a few teams that just ARE going to play to their strengths and right now, the strength of the Lions is a big armed QB and a dominant WR and a defense that loves to play against offenses that are passing.

The way things are in the NFL right now, I think we have to be careful befire accepting that last statement that elite QBs are over rated right now. The argument behind it was saying going back to 2010. Well, that's only a couple of seasons and I think its easy to say that if we polled football fans, even the most casual of fans would easily point out that they ahve observed these past two years as being aggressively going towards more passing. And the data seems to support it. This could very well be just a tip of the iceburg and people who have owned these elite QBs the past two years can testify soundly that having one of the top 4-5 QBs in leagues these past few years has been a HUGE advantage.

That's a fair point. People are quick to point out that it's unlikely for a player to repeat a 5000/40 season. That may have been the case when a 5000/40 season came along once every 8 years, but FOUR people did it this year.It's entirely possible that 5000/40 is the new 4000/30.

Exactly.The rules are so tilted toward favoring the offense and passing game. If your QB doesn't put up 300/3 on a fairly consistent basis you're way behind the rest of your league-mates who are rolling out Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Stafford, or Cam. I know when I go into a head to head matchup I'm much more concerned facing the QB with potential for a 500/5 night vs the "stud" RB/Matt Schaub combo.

Running backs simply don't have the same value in fantasy football anymore. A quick glance at the top 10 from just this season should tell anyone that.

Yeah, I have that same line of thinking these days. Back in the day, it seems like the first thing I checked on my opponents list was if he had LT or Terrell Davis or Priest Holmes and it was those guys that put me at such a disadvantage. But now, I', looking first to see if I play Brees or Brady or Rodgers, etc, and then the second thing I look for (if it IS them) is who they play. To me, there is no doubt that if you go with the "serviceable QB" route and you bring Jason Campbell or Matt cassell to the matchup against your opponent's Brady or Brees; well, you've just brought the proverbial knofe to a gunfight". Those weeks can get out of hand quickly.

 

[Grahamburn]

I just don't see the numbers for the elite QBs decreasing too drastically unless the rules change drastically.

Hit the QB? Flag.

Hit the WR? Flag.

Touch the WR when the ball is in the air? Flag.

The defense has their hands tied, and it's becoming damn near impossible to get the offense off the field. Especially when the offense is willing to chuck it 40 times a game.

Ten guys threw for over 4,000 yards. Ten! Three of those were over 5,000 with Eli only a few short of the mark. It's not a coincidence or an outlier in my opinion. It's going to become a trend. It's a passing league. The separation is going to come from the TDs. Which QBs have the best TD potential for years to come?

I guess the argument is for Stafford being worth the 1.1 in a dynasty. He's going to be a pretty sure bet for 4,000 and 30, with obvious upside, for the next 6-8 years+.

Trent Richardson isn't that valuable unless you're absolutely positive he's the next LT.

 

[RavenLunatic]

And does that push the "sure thing" Andrew Luck to the top of rookie drafts?

 

[Grahamburn]

And does that push the "sure thing" Andrew Luck to the top of rookie drafts?

Obviously that depends on several different factors. I think you could make the argument though if you're a bit weak at QB and your league awards 6 points for a TD pass. With Bruce Arians as the coordinator now in Indy you've got to think they'll be throwing it around the yard as well.I'd probably try to trade back with someone if I wanted Luck though. People are salivating over Richardson.

 

[RavenLunatic]

And does that push the "sure thing" Andrew Luck to the top of rookie drafts?

Obviously that depends on several different factors. I think you could make the argument though if you're a bit weak at QB and your league awards 6 points for a TD pass. With Bruce Arians as the coordinator now in Indy you've got to think they'll be throwing it around the yard as well.I'd probably try to trade back with someone if I wanted Luck though. People are salivating over Richardson.

I think trading back is the only way to go to maximize the value of 1.1. If you can stay in the top 3 that is...or get the player of your choice.

 

[RavenLunatic]

It is obvious that performance declines from the top players to 2nd and 3rd tier performers at any position, but I thought it would be useful to know empirically which position (QB or RB) has a higher rate of diminishing return.

This is assuming a start one QB, start two RB league. All TDs are worth 6 points. 1 pt per 25 passing yards, 1 pt per 10 rush/rec yards. Non-PPR.

I looked just at 2011 data, and compared QB1 down to QB18...and comparing RB1 down to RB36. The idea being to see the % drop off between performance tiers.

QB1 is compared to QB6, QB12 and QB18.

QB6 is then compared to QB12 and QB18.

RB1 is compared to RB12, RB 24 and RB36

RB12 is then compared to RB24 and RB36

I wish I could import the chart I drew but what I found confirms our general assumption that the rate of decline is noticeably sharper for starting RBs than it is for QBs.

If you include WRs in the discussion it becomes even more obvious that RB is still king.

To me, this strengthens the idea of stocking up on top RB talent and utilizing a "QBBC" until you develop a top 6 QB naturally...at least using the stated scoring formal of start 1QB, 2 RB. When you can flex a RB (or WR), the value of the RB increases.

 

[EBF]

I agree to a point, but we got a lot of this "era of the stud QB" talk in 2004/2005 after Peyton and Culpepper had their career years. It didn't materialize. I see the same thing happening this year. I don't think guys like Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Stafford are going to hit these kind of numbers every year. If they drop down to 2008-2010 levels then you're looking at valuable players, but not guys who are all obviously worth a top 10 dynasty startup pick. Part of the problem is that there are so many solid QBs in the NFL that you can just wait it out and get one cheap. It's quite easy to go out and acquire a serviceable starting QB, even in my 14 team leagues. Can't say the same about RB/WR.

If your premise that Qb numbers drop next year I agree but if this is a new huge Qb numbers era than I couldn't disagree more. A serviceable Qb is gonna put you at a huge disadvantage. Brees outscored the #7 Qb Romo by 150 points. Same difference as there was between Lesean Mccoy and Willis Mcgahee.

That was 2011. 2010 and 2009 were very different.In 2010 Aaron Rodgers outscored guys like Roethlisberger, Romo, and Schaub by 2-4 ppg in my 4 pt per passing TD ppr dynasty league. Brees and Brady outscored Ben by less than .5 ppg. 2009 was similar, with Rodgers (the top ppg QB) outscoring guys like Roethlisberger, Schaub, Romo, and Rivers by just 3-4 ppg.I guess if you believe that 2011 really signaled the dawn of a new era in the NFL then you're justified in believing that top QBs will be major difference makers, but I'm not convinced that this year was anything more than an outlier. I'd put good money on virtually every one of the elite 2011 FF QBs regressing in ppg (Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Cam, Stafford). Now look at their draft positions in a startup that's happening as we speak. This is a 6 pt per passing TD league, so the QB position is somewhat more important than in most formats, but here's the draft position for some of the notable QBs:1.02 (2) - Aaron Rodgers1.04 (4) - Cam Newton 1.11 (11) - Matthew Stafford1.14 (14) - Drew Brees2.14 (28) - Tom Brady---------------------------------------------------------------7.02 (86) - Philip Rivers8.04 (102) - Tony Romo8.05 (103) - Ben RoethlisbergerNow look at the same list including the 2009-2011 ppg averages of those players in this format:1.02 (2) - Aaron Rodgers - 30.81.04 (4) - Cam Newton - N/A1.11 (11) - Matthew Stafford - N/A1.14 (14) - Drew Brees - 29.62.14 (28) - Tom Brady - 27.4---------------------------------------------------------------7.02 (86) - Philip Rivers - 24.58.04 (102) - Tony Romo - 24.38.05 (103) - Ben Roethlisberger - 23.6Brees and Rodgers give you a 5-6 ppg advantage over the likes of Rivers and Romo. In comparison, guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Jennings, and Brandon Marshall have typically outscored low end WR2s-WR3s in this format by about the same amount. Given that you can usually acquire a player like Romo or Rivers for less than an equivalent player at RB or WR, I would much rather draft a RB/WR early and wait for QB. I would much rather have a Rivers/McCoy or Romo/Rice combination than Rodgers/Hunter or Stafford/JacQuizz combo (those RBs went in the same round as Rivers and Romo). And bear in mind that this format favors QB scoring more than most. In leagues where QBs only get 4 points per passing TD, your incentive for passing on Rodgers/Brees/Brady is even greater.

 

[Grahamburn]

Brees and Rodgers give you a 5-6 ppg advantage over the likes of Rivers and Romo. In comparison, guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Jennings, and Brandon Marshall have typically outscored low end WR2s-WR3s in this format by about the same amount. Given that you can usually acquire a player like Romo or Rivers for less than an equivalent player at RB or WR, I would much rather draft a RB/WR early and wait for QB. I would much rather have a Rivers/McCoy or Romo/Rice combination than Rodgers/Hunter or Stafford/JacQuizz combo (those RBs went in the same round as Rivers and Romo). And bear in mind that this format favors QB scoring more than most. In leagues where QBs only get 4 points per passing TD, your incentive for passing on Rodgers/Brees/Brady is even greater.

Well, of course you would, but I doubt Kendall Hunter or JacQuizz Rogers were the first RBs taken by those drafters.

 

[EBF]

Most leagues start more than 1 RB. We start at least 28 RBs and 42 WRs each week, with another 14 flex spots taken up by RB/WR (or TE).

 

[Grahamburn]

Most leagues start more than 1 RB. We start at least 28 RBs and 42 WRs each week, with another 14 flex spots taken up by RB/WR (or TE).

Then I'm sure you can fill out those 6 starting roster spots with other players between drafting a stud like Stafford in the 1st and a bench player like Rogers in the 8th. I was just making the point that you're not really drafting a Stafford/Rogers combo vs a Romo/Rice combo.

 

[jurb26]

Why isn't anyone talking about career length/duration as a part of this equation? To me, the reason a guy like Stafford or Cam is so valuable is not simply because they produce points at the high end of their position. It's also because they will likely do so for nearly another 10 years. These guys are 22 and 23 years old. You are valuing RBs so much and their shelf life is significantly lower. If you have the QB position locked up for that long a run then you can easily gamble and be more aggressive at landing the hidden gems at RB. WR's also have a very long shelf life, which is why I value guys like Green and J. Jones so much. Young stud players at QB and WR are extremely valuable because they have longer careers of high level productivity. RBs are a dime a dozen and are constantly reshuffled throughout the NFL, year after year. There are exceptions of course, but even still you are lucky to get 6 years of top level production out of a RB.

 

[humpback]

Brees and Rodgers give you a 5-6 ppg advantage over the likes of Rivers and Romo. In comparison, guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Jennings, and Brandon Marshall have typically outscored low end WR2s-WR3s in this format by about the same amount. Given that you can usually acquire a player like Romo or Rivers for less than an equivalent player at RB or WR, I would much rather draft a RB/WR early and wait for QB. I would much rather have a Rivers/McCoy or Romo/Rice combination than Rodgers/Hunter or Stafford/JacQuizz combo (those RBs went in the same round as Rivers and Romo). And bear in mind that this format favors QB scoring more than most. In leagues where QBs only get 4 points per passing TD, your incentive for passing on Rodgers/Brees/Brady is even greater.

Well, of course you would, but I doubt Kendall Hunter or JacQuizz Rogers were the first RBs taken by those drafters.

And in what kind of leagues did Kendall Hunter or JacQuizz Rodgers get drafted in the same rounds as Rivers and Romo? Their ADP's weren't even close.

 

[Grahamburn]

Brees and Rodgers give you a 5-6 ppg advantage over the likes of Rivers and Romo. In comparison, guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Jennings, and Brandon Marshall have typically outscored low end WR2s-WR3s in this format by about the same amount. Given that you can usually acquire a player like Romo or Rivers for less than an equivalent player at RB or WR, I would much rather draft a RB/WR early and wait for QB. I would much rather have a Rivers/McCoy or Romo/Rice combination than Rodgers/Hunter or Stafford/JacQuizz combo (those RBs went in the same round as Rivers and Romo). And bear in mind that this format favors QB scoring more than most. In leagues where QBs only get 4 points per passing TD, your incentive for passing on Rodgers/Brees/Brady is even greater.

Well, of course you would, but I doubt Kendall Hunter or JacQuizz Rogers were the first RBs taken by those drafters.

And in what kind of leagues did Kendall Hunter or JacQuizz Rodgers get drafted in the same rounds as Rivers and Romo? Their ADP's weren't even close.

He was referring to a current dynasty draft.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

Now look at their draft positions in a startup that's happening as we speak....

Care to share a link to the draft?

 

[EBF]

Now look at their draft positions in a startup that's happening as we speak....

Care to share a link to the draft?

We'll be done soon. I'll share it then. I wouldn't mind sharing it now, but there are others who might take exception.

 

[moderated]

I took Trent Richardson at 1.07 in the above mentioned startup dynasty draft.

I might be nuts but the only players I would have taken over him for sure are Cam Newton and Calvin Johnson. Aaron Rodgers and lesean McCoy would be a toss up.

 

[humpback]

I took Trent Richardson at 1.07 in the above mentioned startup dynasty draft.I might be nuts but the only players I would have taken over him for sure are Cam Newton and Calvin Johnson. Aaron Rodgers and lesean McCoy would be a toss up.

So if you had the #3 overall, you'd really take Richardson over Rodgers, McCoy, Rice, Foster, etc? I like Richardson a lot, but it seems people are just completely discounting the risks of taking him so early. To each their own.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

7.02 (86) - Philip Rivers - 24.5

8.04 (102) - Tony Romo - 24.3

8.05 (103) - Ben Roethlisberger - 23.6

Brees and Rodgers give you a 5-6 ppg advantage over the likes of Rivers and Romo. In comparison, guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Jennings, and Brandon Marshall have typically outscored low end WR2s-WR3s in this format by about the same amount. Given that you can usually acquire a player like Romo or Rivers for less than an equivalent player at RB or WR, I would much rather draft a RB/WR early and wait for QB. I would much rather have a Rivers/McCoy or Romo/Rice combination than Rodgers/Hunter or Stafford/JacQuizz combo (those RBs went in the same round as Rivers and Romo). And bear in mind that this format favors QB scoring more than most. In leagues where QBs only get 4 points per passing TD, your incentive for passing on Rodgers/Brees/Brady is even greater.

This a a totally disingenuos way to try and make your point. Perhaps the team that takes Stafford could land a couple of RBs in the seven rounds between the picks.I do understand the main point that you were trying to make overall though.

 

[golfguy]

man some serious over valuing as usual in this place, this time of year.

the hype is full steam ahead.

give me the shiny new toy that has not proven anything at the NFL level over solid players who have 5-6 years of performance left in them.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I agree to a point, but we got a lot of this "era of the stud QB" talk in 2004/2005 after Peyton and Culpepper had their career years. It didn't materialize. I see the same thing happening this year. I don't think guys like Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Stafford are going to hit these kind of numbers every year. If they drop down to 2008-2010 levels then you're looking at valuable players, but not guys who are all obviously worth a top 10 dynasty startup pick. Part of the problem is that there are so many solid QBs in the NFL that you can just wait it out and get one cheap. It's quite easy to go out and acquire a serviceable starting QB, even in my 14 team leagues. Can't say the same about RB/WR.

If your premise that Qb numbers drop next year I agree but if this is a new huge Qb numbers era than I couldn't disagree more. A serviceable Qb is gonna put you at a huge disadvantage. Brees outscored the #7 Qb Romo by 150 points. Same difference as there was between Lesean Mccoy and Willis Mcgahee.

That was 2011. 2010 and 2009 were very different.In 2010 Aaron Rodgers outscored guys like Roethlisberger, Romo, and Schaub by 2-4 ppg in my 4 pt per passing TD ppr dynasty league. Brees and Brady outscored Ben by less than .5 ppg. 2009 was similar, with Rodgers (the top ppg QB) outscoring guys like Roethlisberger, Schaub, Romo, and Rivers by just 3-4 ppg.I guess if you believe that 2011 really signaled the dawn of a new era in the NFL then you're justified in believing that top QBs will be major difference makers, but I'm not convinced that this year was anything more than an outlier. I'd put good money on virtually every one of the elite 2011 FF QBs regressing in ppg (Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Cam, Stafford). Now look at their draft positions in a startup that's happening as we speak. This is a 6 pt per passing TD league, so the QB position is somewhat more important than in most formats, but here's the draft position for some of the notable QBs:1.02 (2) - Aaron Rodgers1.04 (4) - Cam Newton 1.11 (11) - Matthew Stafford1.14 (14) - Drew Brees2.14 (28) - Tom Brady---------------------------------------------------------------7.02 (86) - Philip Rivers8.04 (102) - Tony Romo8.05 (103) - Ben RoethlisbergerNow look at the same list including the 2009-2011 ppg averages of those players in this format:1.02 (2) - Aaron Rodgers - 30.81.04 (4) - Cam Newton - N/A1.11 (11) - Matthew Stafford - N/A1.14 (14) - Drew Brees - 29.62.14 (28) - Tom Brady - 27.4---------------------------------------------------------------7.02 (86) - Philip Rivers - 24.58.04 (102) - Tony Romo - 24.38.05 (103) - Ben Roethlisberger - 23.6Brees and Rodgers give you a 5-6 ppg advantage over the likes of Rivers and Romo. In comparison, guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Greg Jennings, and Brandon Marshall have typically outscored low end WR2s-WR3s in this format by about the same amount. Given that you can usually acquire a player like Romo or Rivers for less than an equivalent player at RB or WR, I would much rather draft a RB/WR early and wait for QB. I would much rather have a Rivers/McCoy or Romo/Rice combination than Rodgers/Hunter or Stafford/JacQuizz combo (those RBs went in the same round as Rivers and Romo). And bear in mind that this format favors QB scoring more than most. In leagues where QBs only get 4 points per passing TD, your incentive for passing on Rodgers/Brees/Brady is even greater.

Meaning you waited on a QB?

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

As for the OP, I had to hold my tongue for a while because I'm in a startup draft with a bunch of people from this board and Richardson was high on my list for the 1.08 pick. These are the guys I would almost certainly take for him in a trade:

Cam Newton

Aaron Rodgers

Calvin Johnson

I think he's pretty close in value to these guys:

LeSean McCoy

Ray Rice

AJ Green

Hakeem Nicks

Realistically, I would have a hard time giving up an elite RB for an elite QB in most formats, simply because a starting caliber QB is always easier to acquire in a trade. So in leagues where I own Richardson or the 1.01, I'm not sure I'd click accept if an offer of Aaron Rodgers came in, crazy as that might sound. I think 2011 QB production was a bit inflated and I think QBs are being overvalued in this year's FF drafts as a result. The same reasoning kind of applies to Gronk and Graham. I'm not sold that either of those guys will ever repeat their historic seasons and you just couldn't get me to take a TE in the 1st round of a dynasty startup.

At RB, I think Richardson is firmly in the first tier with McCoy and Rice. I think he's more talented than those players, but it remains to be seen how he'll be used. Those backs both play in very friendly systems that maximize their talent. We don't yet know if Richardson will be that lucky, but barring some type of catastrophic injury I think he'll be a very strong contender for the RB1 spot in next year's startups.

I'm in this same startup and had 1.04 and 1.05. I went with Newton and Shady. Honestly, if Shady was another year older, I may have gone with Richardson instead. The shelf lives of RBs is so short, that getting a guy that's 21 or 22 and that has his whole career in front of him has a lot of appeal in comparison to a 25 or 26 year old RB.

If you're saying a guy is basically done by the time he is 25 or 26, why on Earth would you ever put SO much value on richardson or any other RB? I mean, we know how great Shady is playing but you are saying if he was just one year older you'd basically toss him aside. I don't get that.

I'm not saying Ray Rice or Foster is done. What I am saying is that its likely their careers are at least half done. MJD is about a year older than those two. He just led the NFL in rushing, and fell to the mid 3rd because he's seen as having high miles and bad knees. It wouldn't shock me to see Rice or Foster in a similar spot a year from now. Just saw somewhere that RBs that finish in the top 12 have a 70% turnover rate. So if you draft a RB that was a top 12 RB in 2011, there's a 70% chance he won't repeat in 2012. Then he's got to face those same 70% odds again in 2013 and so on. Its a pretty rare athlete that can do it more than 4 times. I'd be interested to see what a probability equation would spit out for your odds in these circumstances.

I have no doubt that in rare certain circumstances you can cut a considerable % off of that 70% number. Lets use Adrian Peterson and Emmitt Smith as examples. Peterson has been the games most talented back for years. He's also built to withstand the rigors of the game. He made it 4.5 years before the dreaded ACL got him. Emmitt was not only a talented back, but had a dominating offensive line in front of him.

Why then did I invest a first in a RB? Because the true workhorse RB is about a rare a commodity as there is in fantasy right now. I think you just need to weigh the years of service you are likely to get out of that RB, vs the ability to plug in a guy like AJ Green in your lineup for the next decade.

 

[DexterDew]

I, too, am in the draft referenced in this thread and took Rodgers at 1.02 (and considered Megatron or the Big 3 RBs).

For me, it was a longevity reason and how Rodgers did vis a vis his peers the past three years. Top 2 in QB VBD the past three years. I think he will give me a consistant advantage for 5+ years.

As for the OP, in established Dynasty leagues I think the 1.01 carries a ton of value and would trade it for:

Rodgers

Cam

Foster

Rice

McCoy

CAJohnson

Fitz

Green

Nicks

Gronk

Graham (if i needed a TE only)

 

[jwb]

As for the OP, I had to hold my tongue for a while because I'm in a startup draft with a bunch of people from this board and Richardson was high on my list for the 1.08 pick. These are the guys I would almost certainly take for him in a trade:

Cam Newton

Aaron Rodgers

Calvin Johnson

I think he's pretty close in value to these guys:

LeSean McCoy

Ray Rice

AJ Green

Hakeem Nicks

Realistically, I would have a hard time giving up an elite RB for an elite QB in most formats, simply because a starting caliber QB is always easier to acquire in a trade. So in leagues where I own Richardson or the 1.01, I'm not sure I'd click accept if an offer of Aaron Rodgers came in, crazy as that might sound. I think 2011 QB production was a bit inflated and I think QBs are being overvalued in this year's FF drafts as a result. The same reasoning kind of applies to Gronk and Graham. I'm not sold that either of those guys will ever repeat their historic seasons and you just couldn't get me to take a TE in the 1st round of a dynasty startup.

At RB, I think Richardson is firmly in the first tier with McCoy and Rice. I think he's more talented than those players, but it remains to be seen how he'll be used. Those backs both play in very friendly systems that maximize their talent. We don't yet know if Richardson will be that lucky, but barring some type of catastrophic injury I think he'll be a very strong contender for the RB1 spot in next year's startups.

I'm in this same startup and had 1.04 and 1.05. I went with Newton and Shady. Honestly, if Shady was another year older, I may have gone with Richardson instead. The shelf lives of RBs is so short, that getting a guy that's 21 or 22 and that has his whole career in front of him has a lot of appeal in comparison to a 25 or 26 year old RB.

If you're saying a guy is basically done by the time he is 25 or 26, why on Earth would you ever put SO much value on richardson or any other RB? I mean, we know how great Shady is playing but you are saying if he was just one year older you'd basically toss him aside. I don't get that.

I'm not saying Ray Rice or Foster is done. What I am saying is that its likely their careers are at least half done. MJD is about a year older than those two. He just led the NFL in rushing, and fell to the mid 3rd because he's seen as having high miles and bad knees. It wouldn't shock me to see Rice or Foster in a similar spot a year from now. Just saw somewhere that RBs that finish in the top 12 have a 70% turnover rate. So if you draft a RB that was a top 12 RB in 2011, there's a 70% chance he won't repeat in 2012. Then he's got to face those same 70% odds again in 2013 and so on. Its a pretty rare athlete that can do it more than 4 times. I'd be interested to see what a probability equation would spit out for your odds in these circumstances.

I have no doubt that in rare certain circumstances you can cut a considerable % off of that 70% number. Lets use Adrian Peterson and Emmitt Smith as examples. Peterson has been the games most talented back for years. He's also built to withstand the rigors of the game. He made it 4.5 years before the dreaded ACL got him. Emmitt was not only a talented back, but had a dominating offensive line in front of him.

Why then did I invest a first in a RB? Because the true workhorse RB is about a rare a commodity as there is in fantasy right now. I think you just need to weigh the years of service you are likely to get out of that RB, vs the ability to plug in a guy like AJ Green in your lineup for the next decade.

We say this kind of stuff a lot, and yes, some positions will retain value longer, but the whole "I'm set for years" almost never seems to play out in any of the dynasty leagues I'm in (and I'm in 9, with tons of FBG's). Teams turn over quite often. It's rare to see a team stay the same year after year - even the core group changes for most teams (yes, exceptions indeed exist. I realize there are some that owned LT/etc his entire career). But more and more, I'm more apt to look at near-future value (2-4 years or so) than "entire ten year career" value.

 

[moderated]

I took Trent Richardson at 1.07 in the above mentioned startup dynasty draft.I might be nuts but the only players I would have taken over him for sure are Cam Newton and Calvin Johnson. Aaron Rodgers and lesean McCoy would be a toss up.

So if you had the #3 overall, you'd really take Richardson over Rodgers, McCoy, Rice, Foster, etc? I like Richardson a lot, but it seems people are just completely discounting the risks of taking him so early. To each their own.

Yes, if push came to shove i'd take him #3, and even consider him at #1 overall. He's the perfect RB prospect both physically and mentally. He has a legendary work ethic and won't fail due to character issues like many other top prospects have. If he fails due to talent then i will retire from this message board. Even if he gets drafted into a "bad" situation like Tomlinson to a horrible SD team or what Peterson supposedly got drafted into with the immortal Chester Taylor ahead of him on the depth chart. Great players can turn bad situations into good ones. they don't have competition as they are that good.He is a shoe in over Rice and Foster. Richardson is 3.5 - 4 years younger and those extra years are huge for a RB as the time they have to produce is short. By Richardson's 2nd season he will be producing at/near their level. By 2013 Rice and Foster are going to be discounted due to age in most people's eyes. Let's face it, once a RB hits 26-27 their value plummets as everyone knows the shelf life is coming to an end and the market for them narrows. It's worth the risk on one of the few rare RB talents. If he hits he's a 23 year old elite RB going into the 2013 season and 100% of your league mates will be interested in him. Probably wouldn't trade him, but if someone so chooses they would be able to cash him in for the mother load.Richardson is a guy ranked in the top 5 overall prospects in the entire class, he isn't a Moreno type prospect who was over-drafted and didn't sniff the overall top 10 of any reputable sources rankings.Is he as good as Adrian Peterson as a prospect? he lacks the top end speed, but he is the next best thing and a much more natural receiver out of the backfield.The only fantasy prospects i've been this high on in the recent past are Andrew Luck, Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Reggie Bush (miss, but he still held value for the first couple years).These are the chosen ones, the gifted, the freaks, the fantasy locks.

 

[Synesthesia]

I agree to a point, but we got a lot of this "era of the stud QB" talk in 2004/2005 after Peyton and Culpepper had their career years. It didn't materialize. I see the same thing happening this year. I don't think guys like Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and Stafford are going to hit these kind of numbers every year. If they drop down to 2008-2010 levels then you're looking at valuable players, but not guys who are all obviously worth a top 10 dynasty startup pick. Part of the problem is that there are so many solid QBs in the NFL that you can just wait it out and get one cheap. It's quite easy to go out and acquire a serviceable starting QB, even in my 14 team leagues. Can't say the same about RB/WR.

If Aaron Rodgers returns to his 2008-2010 levels, he'll absolutely be worth a top-10 dynasty startup pick. 5+ more years of 4500/34 production and top-3 fantasy finishes are no-brainer top-10 numbers. He averaged 100 VBD a year from 2008-2010- even if this season was a total aberration (and it probably was), 100 VBD a year from age 29-34 results in 600 more VBD. That's almost as much VBD as Priest Holmes accumulated over his entire career.

 

[EBF]

Hence why he was on my list. I like Rodgers and Newton enough to take them that high. No other QBs though.

 

[squistion]

I think you just need to weigh the years of service you are likely to get out of that RB, vs the ability to plug in a guy like AJ Green in your lineup for the next decade.

We say this kind of stuff a lot, and yes, some positions will retain value longer, but the whole "I'm set for years" almost never seems to play out in any of the dynasty leagues I'm in (and I'm in 9, with tons of FBG's). Teams turn over quite often. It's rare to see a team stay the same year after year - even the core group changes for most teams (yes, exceptions indeed exist. I realize there are some that owned LT/etc his entire career). But more and more, I'm more apt to look at near-future value (2-4 years or so) than "entire ten year career" value.

I have found that to be true from my experience. I am also in the near future value group (actually looking at 1-3 years) and have been criticized by someone here as being "short sighted" in my approach to dynasty (we also happen to be in the same league since 2003). He has repeatedly lectured people on this forum that dynasty is not about "present value, it is about future value" - and while he always has a very pretty looking team on paper for 3+ years in the future in the league we are in, he has never won anything and has yet to make the playoffs in 9 years (meanwhile I won a championship and am several hundred dollars in the black over that timespan).

The problem is, I have yet to see anyone who is good at predicting the future, even for the coming year (look at the Make Your Fearless Predictions annual thread that is run for the upcoming season and see what a miniscule number of the predictions turn out to be correct). The reason for that is there are too many unknown and unforseen variables that come into play (injuries, coaching changes, unexpected competition, trades, etc) and to think you will be set for even 3-5 years doesn't usually work out because that future rarely plays out as you envisioned it.

And by the way, I am not saying that A. J. Green is not a great dynasty investment and actually may well take him as my #1 WR in an upcoming start up draft (after I probably take the best RB on the board) it is just I am not going to predict that I will be set for the coming decade with any player because there is really no way of knowing that.

 

[humpback]

I took Trent Richardson at 1.07 in the above mentioned startup dynasty draft.I might be nuts but the only players I would have taken over him for sure are Cam Newton and Calvin Johnson. Aaron Rodgers and lesean McCoy would be a toss up.

So if you had the #3 overall, you'd really take Richardson over Rodgers, McCoy, Rice, Foster, etc? I like Richardson a lot, but it seems people are just completely discounting the risks of taking him so early. To each their own.

Yes, if push came to shove i'd take him #3, and even consider him at #1 overall. He's the perfect RB prospect both physically and mentally. He has a legendary work ethic and won't fail due to character issues like many other top prospects have. If he fails due to talent then i will retire from this message board. Even if he gets drafted into a "bad" situation like Tomlinson to a horrible SD team or what Peterson supposedly got drafted into with the immortal Chester Taylor ahead of him on the depth chart. Great players can turn bad situations into good ones. they don't have competition as they are that good.He is a shoe in over Rice and Foster. Richardson is 3.5 - 4 years younger and those extra years are huge for a RB as the time they have to produce is short. By Richardson's 2nd season he will be producing at/near their level. By 2013 Rice and Foster are going to be discounted due to age in most people's eyes. Let's face it, once a RB hits 26-27 their value plummets as everyone knows the shelf life is coming to an end and the market for them narrows. It's worth the risk on one of the few rare RB talents. If he hits he's a 23 year old elite RB going into the 2013 season and 100% of your league mates will be interested in him. Probably wouldn't trade him, but if someone so chooses they would be able to cash him in for the mother load.Richardson is a guy ranked in the top 5 overall prospects in the entire class, he isn't a Moreno type prospect who was over-drafted and didn't sniff the overall top 10 of any reputable sources rankings.Is he as good as Adrian Peterson as a prospect? he lacks the top end speed, but he is the next best thing and a much more natural receiver out of the backfield.The only fantasy prospects i've been this high on in the recent past are Andrew Luck, Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Reggie Bush (miss, but he still held value for the first couple years).These are the chosen ones, the gifted, the freaks, the fantasy locks.

Like I said, to each their own. Just want to point out that out of the guys you listed, you've got 2 hits in AP and Calvin, two complete unknowns in Luck and Richardson, and one bust in Bush. Not exactly "fantasy locks", especially considering the hits were better prospects than Richarson. Oh, and Richardson isn't ranked top 5 overall by everyone.Don't want to beat a dead horse, I think he's a great prospect as well, but you are completely disgarding many risks that come with drafting him that high. We have no idea what team he's going to be on. We have no idea how well he'll be able to protect the QB. We have no idea if he'll be able to hold up to a 16+ game NFL schedule and handle 300+ touches. We have no idea if the money will change him (he's never had millions in the bank before). Etc. I know, you're going to discount those things, but it's just a fact- we can't know those things about any prospect until they prove it. That's why I'll take a guy like Rice over Richardson every day of the week. You and EBF say "by year 2 he'll be producing the same level as Rice", but I don't have that crystal ball. It's possible, but far from a given (and I'd bet against it). Obviously if he's a stud he'll be extremely valuable due to his age, no one is denying that. It just baffles me that people say he'll be producing top 5 numbers right away, or say Blackmon is already a perennial 1000 yd. receiving, before we even have the draft.I'm not trying to change your mind, I just don't see how people ignore these things.

 

[EBF]

I don't think anyone has said he's a lock to outscore Rice. He will be lucky to match Rice's current ppg. Rice and McCoy are the two RBs I wouldn't necessarily trade for him. However, I do think he's a better RB than either of those players and I do think he's going to carry a massive value almost regardless of situation. I think Richardson has a good chance to be the first RB selected in next year's dynasty startups. There are only a handful of guys I'd trade him for in the entire league. He's never going to be the home run threat that Peterson was, but I think he's just as good as an overall prospect. Trent has a more compact build and is more gifted in the passing game. He could be the rare creature who can handle 300+ carries and 50 catches in the same season.

Ray Rice already is that guy, which is why it makes sense to take him ahead of Richardson. The downside is that Rice is 25 with 959 career carries (and A LOT in college). Much of his career has already been spent. Richardson is younger and had far fewer carries in college. Two years from now, when Rice is 27 and Richardson 24, you won't be able to trade Ray for Trent. From a startup perspective, it might make sense to go with the younger guy. If you take Rice and you don't win anything within 1-2 years, you have a depreciating commodity on your hands (look at MJD). If you take Richardson and you don't win anything, he'll probably hold the same value that he did when you drafted him.

 

[humpback]

I don't think anyone has said he's a lock to outscore Rice. He will be lucky to match Rice's current ppg. Rice and McCoy are the two RBs I wouldn't necessarily trade for him. However, I do think he's a better RB than either of those players and I do think he's going to carry a massive value almost regardless of situation. I think Richardson has a good chance to be the first RB selected in next year's dynasty startups. There are only a handful of guys I'd trade him for in the entire league. He's never going to be the home run threat that Peterson was, but I think he's just as good as an overall prospect. Trent has a more compact build and is more gifted in the passing game. He could be the rare creature who can handle 300+ carries and 50 catches in the same season. Ray Rice already is that guy, which is why it makes sense to take him ahead of Richardson. The downside is that Rice is 25 with 959 career carries (and A LOT in college). Much of his career has already been spent. Richardson is younger and had far fewer carries in college. Two years from now, when Rice is 27 and Richardson 24, you won't be able to trade Ray for Trent. From a startup perspective, it might make sense to go with the younger guy. If you take Rice and you don't win anything within 1-2 years, you have a depreciating commodity on your hands (look at MJD). If you take Richardson and you don't win anything, he'll probably hold the same value that he did when you drafted him.

Moderated said by his 2nd season he'd be producing at or near Rice (and Foster) and called him a shoe in over those guys. He said he might take him #1 overall.Just for the record, I like this post by you more than previous ones- you used "I think", "has a good chance", "he could be", "probably", "might", etc. At least those types of statements show that it isn't a lock, unlike some others. I get the trade value/depreciating asset angle as well, but that's only one factor to consider. All else being equal, you'd obviously rather have the younger guy. The problem is, we don't know that all else is going to be equal. It's still quite possible that Richardson never reaches that level of production, and I'd much rather have 3-4 years of top 3-5 RB production than 6-8 years of RB 10-15 production if that's what ends up happening.Good discussion, I just think taking a yet to be drafted rookie opens you up for far more risk than taking a proven stud (not just RB) who still has plenty of time left. Unless he becomes the next Faulk, I don't think the risk is worth the reward. Time will tell.