dynasty rankings and years (1 Viewer)

[fsufan]

I asked this question in one of the dynasty ranking threads. I thought it would be a good topic for decision.when ranking players for dynasty, how many years down the road do you look at?I look at no more than 3 years, just to much change in the NFL these days. Fear & Loathing responded with the below response, I thought it was a

I play to fly the championship banner every year and let other teams worry about the future. Too much can change too quickly in the NFL due to unforeseen circumstances that are out of your control. I basically build a young nucleus and make sure my starting lineup is filled with players I expect to perform well in the current season. The rest of my roster will be a healthy balance of veterans and youngsters at various stages of their careers, but I'm constantly reassessing my non-nucleus players based on perceived trade value. As long as you have a good mixture, you don't have to follow a set rule of looking "X amount of years down the road." If I had Shaun Alexander as my #1 RB last year, I would have made certain I was looking down the road for my #2 RB. If I have Larry Fitzgerald as my #1 WR, then it's not as important to worry about the future with my #2 WR. An aging veteran like Marvin Harrison or T.O. may be a better fit than a talented young WR loaded with more potential than results.I know that doesn't really answer your question, but that's because there really is no systematic answer to your question. When I rank dynasty players, I don't have a set rule for all players looking at 3 years down the road or 5 years down the road. I evaluate the talent, situation and track record for each player and see who comes out on top. Then go down one at a time from there.

 

[jurb26]

I think you need to greatly differ your approach on time frames from position to position in dynasty leagues. There is just to much gap between what players at say QB have to learn than players at RB.

When I look at drafting rookie QBs on my dynasty team, I try to look 4 years down the road. The 1st thing I consider is my overall feelings towards the QB's talent. Great/talented players usually will rise to the top at some point or other. I also look at the team they have landed on and what kind of coaching/support system the player is going to see. How that young talent is developed (for QBs) is more critical than any other position in football IMO. There is just too much to learn and absorb in the NFL to realistically think you have a strong gage on the players abilities prior to 4 years if you ask me. Most of these guys will probably not even play in years 1 or 2 despite a few exceptions. Even the exceptions (rookies who start 1st year) take about 2 years to really get a feel for as they are again, learning still.

For RBs, it's a far different story. RBs normally adapt very quickly to the NFL. It is a far more instinctive position and immediate returns of visions of those returns (FF-wise) should present themselves earlier. I would tend to use a 2 year window of RBs because of this. Even with a guys like LJ (who was behind Holmes) of Holmes (behind Lewis) we could see that there were strong signs of return on investment and they could play in the NFL at a high level. Of course their maybe exceptions and circumstances that cause a longer window, but generally I would stick to 2 years.

For WRs, I think a 3 year window is best. WRs really struggle at picking up the NFL game a lot of times. NFL Ds are far more complex than the ones they diagnosed in college and the playbooks they have to learn are as well. There is nothing worse than a football player who is "thinking" on the field. You want them to react. When they simply react, they are allowing their god given gifts and athletic ability take charge. We see over and over again how rare it is for rookie WRs to come in (ala Moss/Boldin) and make impacts. There are valid reasons for this.

The truth of the matter is FF is a game of immediate returns for a lot of people. Unfortunately, in dynasty leagues there is an element of waiting that can not be avoided. Some positions and players will cause you to wait longer than others.

 

[NorrisB]

This is how I tend to handle age, if I have an older player on my roster Im ok with that only if they're cracking my starting lineup on a regular bases, once that production dips, and the younger players are producing as well as the older guy, then I tend to release them and move on, I had this situation with Derrick Mason last year, his production slipped to where it was fairly even with my worst starting receiver (Reggie Williams) so I ended up releasing him. I have no problem in keeping older players as long as their productive, alot of times teams go for the all under 25 team, and usually they regret it as they dont have the veterans in their starting lineup to carry the team while the young guys develop.

Another thing you have to look at is when you plan on making a SB push, I thought one of my teams wasnt ready to make a push so I traded off SA for a younger guy that would be more productive for me when Im going to make that SB run.

I think the key is when managing older players is that they have to be able to crack your starting lineup on a continual bases. And it has to make sense for when your going to make your sb push.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

This is how I tend to handle age, if I have an older player on my roster Im ok with that only if they're cracking my starting lineup on a regular bases, once that production dips, and the younger players are producing as well as the older guy, then I tend to release them and move on, I had this situation with Derrick Mason last year, his production slipped to where it was fairly even with my worst starting receiver (Reggie Williams) so I ended up releasing him. I have no problem in keeping older players as long as their productive, alot of times teams go for the all under 25 team, and usually they regret it as they dont have the veterans in their starting lineup to carry the team while the young guys develop.Another thing you have to look at is when you plan on making a SB push, I thought one of my teams wasnt ready to make a push so I traded off SA for a younger guy that would be more productive for me when Im going to make that SB run. I think the key is when managing older players is that they have to be able to crack your starting lineup on a continual bases. And it has to make sense for when your going to make your sb push.

Nicely said. I can't stand having a clearly past his prime vet take up valuable space on my bench. If he's still startable on a semi-regular basis, he's earning his keep. Once I figure out he's no longer the fastest gun in the West, it's time to move on to another young punk.

 

[3nOut]

This question shows why dynasty discussions/rankings are useless without context. One person may rank a certain WR, for example, at #10 while someone else may rank that same player at #20. The first person, however, bases his rankings on a 3-year term while the second uses a 5-year term. A discussion and/or argument ensues while in the meantime they may be both be right and may be arguing over nothing. Its all relative value. Thats why dynasty rankings MUST indicate what timeframe they are using. If FBGs have a dynasty ranking, they should have a 3-yeaqr ranking, a 4-year ranking, etc. This would also be useful in helping others determinewhen a good time would be to sell their players. In the case above, maybe I'd be keeping that WR for three years then start shopping him year four at "sell-high" prices.

 

[FantasyTrader]

This question shows why dynasty discussions/rankings are useless without context. One person may rank a certain WR, for example, at #10 while someone else may rank that same player at #20. The first person, however, bases his rankings on a 3-year term while the second uses a 5-year term. A discussion and/or argument ensues while in the meantime they may be both be right and may be arguing over nothing. Its all relative value. Thats why dynasty rankings MUST indicate what timeframe they are using. If FBGs have a dynasty ranking, they should have a 3-yeaqr ranking, a 4-year ranking, etc. This would also be useful in helping others determinewhen a good time would be to sell their players. In the case above, maybe I'd be keeping that WR for three years then start shopping him year four at "sell-high" prices.

This is flawed. By definition, dynasty rankings should be based on an individual player's Expected Value over the remainder of the average career by a player at that position (all things being equal - no significant injury hx. to factor in, etc). If I'm ranking S.A. in terms of 3 more years expected production vs. someone ranking him based on 1.5-2 more years production (which he has based on historical stats of RB longevity) then I'm wrong, period.

 

[BroadwayG]

Two years, tops.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Any rule of thumb can be violated, but as a general thought I go:

Year 1: 40%

Year 2: 30%

Year 3: 20%

Year 4: 10%

So if you ask how much does the first 2 years matter? I say 70% or so.

My rankings are basically a 4 year outlook, but so much changes in 3 years that Year 4 is minimized.

So 90% for 3 years works well too.

 

[redman]

This question shows why dynasty discussions/rankings are useless without context. One person may rank a certain WR, for example, at #10 while someone else may rank that same player at #20. The first person, however, bases his rankings on a 3-year term while the second uses a 5-year term. A discussion and/or argument ensues while in the meantime they may be both be right and may be arguing over nothing. Its all relative value. Thats why dynasty rankings MUST indicate what timeframe they are using. If FBGs have a dynasty ranking, they should have a 3-yeaqr ranking, a 4-year ranking, etc. This would also be useful in helping others determinewhen a good time would be to sell their players. In the case above, maybe I'd be keeping that WR for three years then start shopping him year four at "sell-high" prices.

This is flawed. By definition, dynasty rankings should be based on an individual player's Expected Value over the remainder of the average career by a player at that position (all things being equal - no significant injury hx. to factor in, etc). If I'm ranking S.A. in terms of 3 more years expected production vs. someone ranking him based on 1.5-2 more years production (which he has based on historical stats of RB longevity) then I'm wrong, period.

I disagree. You have to discount any projection, the farther out in time it is, both because you'll have to wait to enjoy the benefit of the player's productivity, and because the projection is less certain the farther ahead you make it. Some people put a lot more emphasis on the upcoming season than do others. It's not a "wrong" approach, but those players may tend to overpay for players who can help them now, and may too freely trade away players who will develop over time (hopefully). There's more than one way to skin this cat.

 

[redman]

Any rule of thumb can be violated, but as a general thought I go:Year 1: 40%Year 2: 30%Year 3: 20%Year 4: 10%So if you ask how much does the first 2 years matter? I say 70% or so. My rankings are basically a 4 year outlook, but so much changes in 3 years that Year 4 is minimized.So 90% for 3 years works well too.

I like this approach. I've never reduced my multi-year values to numbers, but this seems to match up well with my intuitive approach.

 

[fsufan]

I think you need to greatly differ your approach on time frames from position to position in dynasty leagues. There is just to much gap between what players at say QB have to learn than players at RB. When I look at drafting rookie QBs on my dynasty team, I try to look 4 years down the road. The 1st thing I consider is my overall feelings towards the QB's talent. Great/talented players usually will rise to the top at some point or other. I also look at the team they have landed on and what kind of coaching/support system the player is going to see. How that young talent is developed (for QBs) is more critical than any other position in football IMO. There is just too much to learn and absorb in the NFL to realistically think you have a strong gage on the players abilities prior to 4 years if you ask me. Most of these guys will probably not even play in years 1 or 2 despite a few exceptions. Even the exceptions (rookies who start 1st year) take about 2 years to really get a feel for as they are again, learning still. For RBs, it's a far different story. RBs normally adapt very quickly to the NFL. It is a far more instinctive position and immediate returns of visions of those returns (FF-wise) should present themselves earlier. I would tend to use a 2 year window of RBs because of this. Even with a guys like LJ (who was behind Holmes) of Holmes (behind Lewis) we could see that there were strong signs of return on investment and they could play in the NFL at a high level. Of course their maybe exceptions and circumstances that cause a longer window, but generally I would stick to 2 years.For WRs, I think a 3 year window is best. WRs really struggle at picking up the NFL game a lot of times. NFL Ds are far more complex than the ones they diagnosed in college and the playbooks they have to learn are as well. There is nothing worse than a football player who is "thinking" on the field. You want them to react. When they simply react, they are allowing their god given gifts and athletic ability take charge. We see over and over again how rare it is for rookie WRs to come in (ala Moss/Boldin) and make impacts. There are valid reasons for this.The truth of the matter is FF is a game of immediate returns for a lot of people. Unfortunately, in dynasty leagues there is an element of waiting that can not be avoided. Some positions and players will cause you to wait longer than others.

I do look at QBs 4 to 5 years down the road. Like to have my weekly starter, backup and a future starter.

 

[Riffraff]

Non-studs:

QBs = 6-8 years out

WRs = 5-7 years out

RBs = 2-5 years out

Studs:

Until they drop or I foresee a beneficial trade.

My squads will never be confused with the "under 25" teams. I like the mixture of veterans with some youth sprinkled in.

I also factor in NFL coaching. Most coaches do not last 4 years, so I alter my impressions of players along with projected coaching changes.

 

[fsufan]

I also give a guy a 2 to 3 window once he becomes a full time starter. Once he has the starting job and he does not produce I will try to trade him or cut him. Example, Barlow. I had him since he was a rookie. Once he got the full time job in SF for 2 years and did not produce I traded him. Same with T. Bell.

 

[Biabreakable]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl=

Core concept 50% for the current season (2007) 33% to the next season (2008) and 17% to the season after that (2009).

While this method of projecting takes account for a 3 year window (that moves forward each year) it also places most of the weight on year one and two. So similar in many respects to a 2 year projection with 83% of the weight placed on the current and next season. Those are the seasons that matter when you want to win. And this method should protect your projections from getting overly focused on the future.

This is only one of many methods one can use. The discussion in the linked thread covers several different philosophies and ways one can apply them.

I do use the above core concept for veteran players however it is only one method. Right now I am in the midst of a rookie draft. I am not applying this concept to rookie players who take time to develop. If I did that would place too great and emphasis on situation over talent.

Also contained in this thread is a begining of trend analysis for Rbs that I intend to revisit when I have time and explore other positions in the same way.

 

[3nOut]

You guys are making my point. There are so many ways to rank your dynasty players. Unless your method is specified any discussion on the topic is usless.