This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's what I was getting at. I think Washington is already better than Meggett ever was, but he's closer to Meggett than Westbrook.Leon will be lucky to have KFaulk's career. 12,000+ yards, #14 active, two 1,000 yard seasons... not great by any stretch but he was a pretty good role player. IMO, Kevin Faulk is a pretty good comparison, much closer than Westbrook.
Do you think it is possible the Rice situation might be like the Roddy White situation? Not so much that Rice needed Favre, but he needed someone OTHER than Tavaris Jackson.
Marion Barber, Rudi Johnson, Brandon Jacobs, Jerricho Cotchery, and Derrick Mason were fourth round picks. They all had very good pro careers. It's not like it's impossible for a good player to slip in the draft. Besides, the 4th round is still pretty early. The success rate for 4th round picks is something like 10%, compared to 30-35% for 2nd-3rd round picks and 40-60% for 1st rounders. It's significant, but not so huge that you should automatically rule out the possibility of an early 4th round pick like Williams being better than a late 2nd round pick like Golden Tate. When I look at a player's draft position, I try to figure out if there's an explanation for why he wasn't taken higher. When you look at many of the big late round home runs of recent years, you notice some common trends:Small School - I think that players who come from small schools are often drafted at least a round below where their talent level dictates. This is probably because personnel people are biased towards major programs and also because it's harder to evaluate a prospect when his competition is very weak. Examples: Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston, Brian Westbrook, Johnny Knox, Chris Johnson.Overshadowed In College - Lots of guys don't get the attention that they deserve because a higher profile college teammate steals all the limelight and/or because they never get on the field due to coaching decisions. Examples: Priest Holmes, Tom Brady, Willie Parker, Matt Cassel.Character - Teams have begun to put a strong emphasis on character, causing talented players to slip at least half a round depending on the severity of their problems. Examples: Dez Bryant, Percy Harvin, Chris Henry.Position Change - It's common to see college QBs make the switch to WR and college WRs make the switch to TE or H-back, but you rarely see these players picked in the first round because a team has to make a pretty big leap of faith to assume that a great college running QB can become a great WR. Examples: Hines Ward, Brad Smith, Anquan Boldin, Antonio Gates.Just looking at a player and saying "He was only a X round pick." is pretty weak analysis. You have to evaluate each case and try to figure out why he was taken where he was. If a four year starter at a BCS program falls to the 4th round then it probably just means he isn't very good. If a one year starter QB-WR project at a D3 school who just started playing the game after quitting the baseball team falls to the 4th round, then it's a minor miracle that he went so high and you should probably consider it an endorsement of his abilities rather than an indictment. With Williams, it's pretty easy to see why he fell. He checks out well from a production and athletic ability standpoint, but he has major character red flags that easily could've suppressed his value by at least 1 round. He also played for a fairly low profile college team. If he goes to USC or Georgia and puts up the same stats without the suspensions then he's probably a 2nd-3rd round pick. That puts him right in the same range as guys like Hardesty, GTate, Benn, BTate, and Clausen. I don't think it's lunacy to draft him ahead of players like that because he has a comparable pedigree and is beating all of them out of the blocks.
While there have definitely been some overhyped FBG darlings throughout the years, I think anyone who ignores training camp developments does so at his own peril. Anquan Boldin, Eddie Royal, Marques Colston, and Chris Johnson all generated a lot of buzz during their rookie training camps. Does that mean that anyone who bought the hype was a mindless guppy following the herd?NFL teams talk. It's our duty to try to listen. When the Saints traded Donte Stallworth to make room in the lineup for Marques Colston, they were talking. When Mike Shanahan named Eddie Royal a starter before his regular season debut, he was talking. When the Chargers put a maximum tender on Malcom Floyd, they were talking. Do you think it's insignificant that the coaches have handed Mike Williams a starting job on a platter? I don't. I think they're talking and I think what they're saying is that Williams has been consistently impressive and that they trust him to perform. That's a huge endorsement for a rookie. How many other rookies have received such a strong vote of confidence? Not Golden Tate. Not Arrelious Benn. Not Ben Tate or Montario Hardesty. Not Damian Williams, Eric Decker, Andre Roberts, or Emmanuel Sanders. If you're willing to buy the notion that Mike Williams had a comparable career outlook to guys like Benn/GTate/Damian entering the league (I am, for reasons specified in my previous post), then it makes sense to favor him over those players now that he has basically outperformed them in the first test of their careers. Will he be a success? I don't know, but there are only a handful of guys in this class who look like safer bets and I don't see anyone saying that you should take Williams over them (Mathews, Dez, Spiller, Best). In my mind, the rookie draft becomes a crapshoot beyond the top 5-6 picks. At that point I like Williams as much as anyone and I don't think it has much to do with following the herd or being a mindless guppy.
I do. Sometimes I end up doing it in FF so I don't know why it would be different in the pro's. There's obviously a difference between the two but the drafting philosophy is similar, you have to know your league/league mates and anticipate the value they place on a player.Honest question. You think the Bucs would pass on they second rated WR on their board in the 3rd round because they hopped he would continue to drop?then my 2nd paragraph could be correct. They could have thought that he was the best player in the draft but they may have known that he wouldn't be drafted until later in the draft (and they were correct).Valid but the the discussion was not about where Tampa had Williams rated on talent alone, it was about their overall rating which would include talent, risk, work ethic etc...I don't know, it depends on if they were ranking talent alone or talent/risk. They may have viewed him as the 2nd most talented WR, more talented than the guy they drafted two rounds earlier but Williams had character issues that led him to fall so the talent didn't come without perceived risk. It could also be that the had a feeling about how the rest of the teams felt about Benn/Williams and they may have thought that Benn wouldn't last to Williams spot but Williams might still be on the board. If I LOOOOVE Michael Bush and think he's the most talented back in FF and will have a huge year but I know his ADP and perceived value of other FF owners has him a lot lower, it would be idiotic for me to take Bush ahead of Chris Johnson if I knew I could take Johnson and get Bush later. It's called good drafting.You, and the Tampa Bay coaching staff, might like Williams more than Benn at this point after training camp but in terms of ranking at the draft, but the above seems to be pretty rock solid logic.
Nice post. There definetely is a mentality on these boards to pile on a player due to great pre-season reports. Williams has definetely flown up the draft boards, and it's not due to pre-season performance, it's due to practice reports over the past month. It's hard not to get excited about Mike Williams when you read the articles we've read, but the point remains that you don't really know until you see them play on the field in an NFL game.But you can't ever discount the practice reports. Chris Johnson is a great example. Here's a guy who built up incredible buzz around the organization even before pre-season game number 1. The coaches spent an unusual amount of time talking about him and seemed overly excited about his prospects, in contrast to their usual "fluff". The fact that he was getting so much attention by beat writers, and people close to the organization was important, as it turned out.So I think it would be a mistake to discount what we've seen from Williams so far, though that enthusiasm has to be tempered by the fact that he hasn't shown it in real games yet.
Is the comparison off because Westbrook got the opportunity, and the proper utilization, in a system that played to his strengths? Or is the comparison off based on ability? I think you'd be hard-pressed to say it was the latter. And Metcalf was "Reggie Bush" before the actual one came along. He was well ahead of his time. In this era, he'd be a star.
Nice post and it's certainly a balancing act between hype and reality. Is he James Davis circa 2010? He got all kinds of hype and flew up the draft board but I also don't think you can dismiss the chatter either. It's sometimes difficult to extrapolate a great camp into live NFL action but what is true is that he has talent, so it's not exactly out of character. When a guy comes from nowhere it's much more likely that the story ends when training camp ends but sometimes guys have talent and get in the right situation at the right time and it all comes together. This is one of the more interesting stories I've been follwing in TC and I'm curious to how it's going to translate. As it stands now, I'm buying the hype.
That's a pretty good analogy. One that I happen to agree with.
Obviously he's not Victor Cruzing anyone to death. But he's got 4 catches for 70 something yards playing with the 1st team against 1st team D. Benn and Tate have looked worse against worse defenders.
Absolutely. But I do think that Rice is exactly the kind of receiver that benefits from Favre's playing style (see Antonio Freeman, Javon Walker). So what I'm saying is that I still believe Rice is a Top-15 or 20 talent at the position, but 2009 was essentially his upside from a production standpoint. And now he's a receiver with significant injury issues in two of the past three seasons.
It's going to be hard for you to get me to say anything bad about Westbrook. It would be like SSOG spitting on John Elway. I do think Westbrook has more phone booth moves than almost any other RB, and that is a big difference between him and Washington. Washington might have better straight line speed, but Westbrook was very elusive.Westbrook and Reid was a perfect match. And I know the Eagles could turn a similar back into a star. Although they have tried and failed with Moats, Booker, and soon to be McCoy.
There is usually a reason a guy gets alot of hype around here. I remember a couple other late round WR's who i thought were being overhyped around here over the last few years. I sisnt bother to pay any attention to the hype, but got burned when i passed on Brandon Marshall and Marques Colston. Thats not to say i just blindly follow the heard, but if a guy is being hyped, i am not going to be so quick to dismiss it.Mike Williams is a guy alot of people liked before the NFL draft, so the fact they like him more after an impressive camp and preseason, plus winning the starting job isnt a big suprise.
That makes two of us. I thought I explained my stance pretty clearly. Sometimes good players fall in the draft for valid reasons that have nothing to do with their talent. Williams fell in the draft and there appear to be obvious explanations that have nothing to do with talent (character being the big one). We know that guys like Dez Bryant and Randy Moss fell because teams were scared of their character. However, those guys were still first round picks whereas Williams tumbled all the way to the fourth. This seems to be your hangup. If Williams was truly a first round talent then shouldn't he have at least been a second or third round pick even factoring in the character concerns?Not necessarily. Not every "first round talent" is a first round pick. A quick look at NFL wide receivers proves as much. All of these guys were drafted outside the first round:Terrell OwensDerrick MasonHines WardIsaac BruceSidney RiceVincent JacksonDeSean JacksonSteve Smith (CAR)Chad OchocincoAnquan BoldinMarques ColstonI think everyone would agree that these players have first round talent, yet none of them went in the first round. Most of them were 2nd-3rd round picks who exceeded expectations and ultimately proved that they should have been top 30 picks in their respective draft classes. I think Williams has a chance to do the same. He was not a first round pick, but most likely would've been a 2nd-3rd round pick if not for his character concerns. When I look at him I don't see a standard 4th round pick, but rather a guy who should've been a 2nd-3rd round pick and who looks like he will ultimately prove to be a "first round talent" like so many other 2nd-3rd round WRs have in recent years. Basically:- I tend to view Williams as more of a 2nd-3rd round draft pick because character issues dipped his stock below his talent level.- A lot of 2nd-3rd round picks ultimately prove to have "first round talent." - Williams looks like he could be one of those guys.
As main Mike Williams hypeman I'll say there's 4 WRs from last year I'd want more. I think it's pretty close though.DezCrabtree---tier---NicksHarvinMaclinM. WilliamsD. ThomasWallace---tier---McClusterBritt (like him long term, nervous short term)Knox (like him short term, nervous long term)---tier---everyone else isn't much more than flier to me at this point
It's one thing to say that they thought he was a 1st round talent (although, if you listen to the coaching staffs after the draft, each of their first three picks was always a "first round talent"). It's another thing to say that he was the #2 receiver on their board when he clearly wasn't. Saying "they had him ranked 2nd on talent, but dropped him based on character concerns" is sort of like saying "they had him ranked 2nd on character, but dropped him based on talent concerns". And besides, it's not like a good training camp has caused those character concerns to magically disappear...
You know I love my boy Percy, but I think Sidney is more talented. I also think that Sidney's talent will translate better to fantasy numbers whenever they're both healthy (I originally thought otherwise because I thought Harvin would be getting more carries than he's been getting). On a completely unrelated note... has there ever been a trio of WRs with sissier names than Sidney, Percy, and Bernard? They're one of the best WR corps in the league, but they sound less like star football players and more like those kids who got beat up for wearing an ascot to school and speaking in a fake British accent. The only way it could possibly get any worse is if the Vikings went out and signed Ashley Lelie.
Exactly. And that risk is still there. It's not like we should say "well, he's kept his head on straight for 3 straight months now, so it looks like all the character concerns can safely be forgotten".Again, I like Mike Williams as a prospect. I think all the buzz surrounding him is a major positive. I'm just not yet ready to bury a guy who was JUST DRAFTED as the #39 overall pick, and I'm also not going to shoot a 4th rounder with character concerns up to #30 on my WR rankings. Next ranking update will give Williams a little nudge up to the 38-40 range. In a rookie draft, I'd have no problem taking him in the late first after the Big 4, Thomas, and Bradford... but I would much, much rather wind up with one of the Big 4, Thomas, or Bradford.
Well I said was for a reason. You have to understand the origin of the character concerns and why they are mostly put to rest by what has happened so far. There are 3 problems. 1) suspended all of 2008 for Academics, 2) a missed curfew on Halloween night, 3) quitting on his team after he assumed the missed curfew would get him suspended again.The Academics issue is nonnegative for me. Even more so because he went to junior college and worked to get back on the team.
I'm not F&L, but I have all three of those guys above Smith, too. A buddy of mine who is a lifelong San Fran fan asked me about it a week ago, and here's what I told him:Is Alex Smith far more likely than Dennis Dixon to give multiple top-24 seasons, performing as a fantasy QB2? Yes, absolutely, no question about it at all. The problem is, when I'm doing dynasty rankings, I don't give a ##### about top 24 production. I can get top 24 production for 2 cents any time I want it from guys like Matt Hasselbeck, Kyle Orton, or Trent Edwards. Because of how cheap such production is to acquire at any given moment, I will not pay much, if anything, to lock it up in advance. Which is why Alex Smith is so low. With my QB rankings, especially once you get deeper down, I'm basically only opining on what kind of chance that player has to put up fantasy QB1 numbers. Especially high-end fantasy QB1 numbers. Alex Smith has a snowball's chance in hell of ever putting up the kind of numbers that I value out of him. Historically, well over 90% of all QBs who are going to produce QB1 seasons in the future have put up at least one top-12 finish within 2 years of first earning the starting job. Alex Smith hasn't. Last year was his best chance, and while his per-game numbers were solid, they still only would have ranked him 14th (in a virtual tie with Jason Campbell). And I think they represented his last best chance. Singletary tried the spread, which was Smith's last chance at fantasy relevance, and after seeing it in action, his response was to devote beaucoup resources into the offensive line and recommit to a power running game. As went the spread, so went Alex Smith's fantasy value. I also happen to really like Nate Davis, learning disability and all.With my QB3, I'm rostering upside, and in this case, upside is betting on Dennis Dixon (who is a dual threat, which automatically earns bonus points because rushing is more valuable than passing in 99% of fantasy leagues). There's flux at the QB position in Pittsburgh, it's a pass-first offense (and yes, I think it will remain so- Bruce Arians loves him some aerial fireworks), he's a guy who I liked coming out of college, he was drafted by a franchise with a history of good talent evaluation skills, etc.
The guy dropped significantly in the draft because of character issues. Others can evaluate his talent and project where he should have been drafted, but the point is, every single team in the league passed over Williams because of character issues. As someone who owned Burress, among other headcases who have been suspended multiple games, I understand the risk of drafting low character players. I don't ignore low character players, but I certainly factor in their risk a lot more than I used to. If Mike Williams truly has 1st round talent, then yeah, he's a steal in the late 1st round. But right now, we've only seen 2 exhibition games, so I don't have nearly enough information to start projecting Williams talent level. I look at what the coaches think of the young players in preseason. I think where a young player is at in the depth chart speaks louder than having 4 receptions for 50 yards against a vanilla preseason defense. Williams is #1 on the depth chart, which is a good sign, but context is needed. He beat out bums. There's really no way to sugarcoat it.I don't know if I'd rank Smith behind Leinart. Both suck, but Leinart appears to be a another whole level of suckiness IMO. I see 0 upside in either player. I don't know anything about Whitehurst, but Dixon has the physical tools that you like in a QB, and he's played well in his limited opportunities. For what it's worth, I really like Nate Davis. Big arm, nice mobility. It remains to be seen what he'll do when forced into action, but he has all the tools. I'm aware of his learning disability, but I don't view that as a major road block.
I doubt those are the only instances of questionable and/or low character behavior, but I could be wrong. I imagine NFL teams talked to Williams college coaches, among others, and know a little more about Williams true character than we do.... maybe not. FTR, I hope the kid is on the up and up and has a nice career.I would trade a late 1st for Hester any day of the week, and if I'm in win now mode and need a WR, then yeah, I'm trading for Moss as well. It has nothing to do with character issues.
Based on the information I've read, I wouldn't drop Rice out of the top 15. That said, I'm a bit higher on Rice than most people. Fitz, AJ, Calvin, Roddy, V-Jax, and Crabtree are the only WR's that I would clearly put ahead of Rice. I'm not as high on Desean as others, and I haven't been able to watch Austin play enough to form an opinion on him. Marshall is too much of a character risk for my liking. Rice is much younger than Steve Smith south, Ocho and Reggie Wayne. Jennings and Colston are overrated IMO, but both in nice situations. I haven't watched Dez in an actual game, so no opinion there. I do like Harvin, but I'm not sure if I'd rank him "ahead" of Rice at this point.ETA: I think Santonio Holmes is in the area, but I don't think I'd drop Rice below Holmes. Both have their concerns.
I'd basically tier things out as Big 4, then Thomas, Bradford, Williams, then big drop into the muddled middle. Williams is an instant pick for me at 1.07, and justifiable at 1.06. I'm really hoping he slips to me at 1.08 this weekend. Too lazy to google for a better, more recent summary of the "quit the team" thing, but this one will do:
Obviously a fair amount of that is Williams' side of things, but I can't recall seeing anyone contradict it. It also obviously doesn't absolve all character concerns. But when you hear that a guy "quit the team," that's a HUGE red flag against his dedication to the game, and it just doesn't sound like that's what happened.Again, taking him higher than 1.06 or 1.07 seems silly to me -- the Big 4, Demaryius, and (arguably, depending on league) Bradford are all much safer picks and are of at least comparable talent. But outside that group (and ignoring TEs), Mike Williams strikes me as the only potential stud talent left in this class.
I'm one of those dudes. Smiff South and Ocho give me the willies. I do think that Smiff and Ocho are worth more than a first (not quite a first + Foster, as I said), but I'd much rather have the first simply because it is a much more versatile currency than an aging WR. If you trade for Smiff or Ocho, there's a pretty solid chance that you're going to be holding them to the end -- which is fine, if that's what you want. Unless I feel like they're going to put me over the top, though, I'd rather have the "cash in hand" so to speak, so I can go use that first in trade for a younger stud.
That's a good question. I think Williams has made up a lot of ground, but I'm still going with Thomas. First WR drafted. Top 15 tools. Good buzz in training camp prior to his injury. There's a lot to like.I think Thomas is a little bit underappreciated. I saw a lot of people pass on him in the 5-6 range of rookie drafts for guys like Benn and BTate. I had very few picks in that range and when I did, he never fell to me. That's unfortunate because I think he's a good prospect.I give Williams the edge in redrafts though. Thomas is not a good player to roster if you don't have the patience to wait a year or two.
For those who call Mike Williams a head case, what exact type of head case do you mean? IIRC correctly, some reports indicate that he left the Syracuse team due to reasons that seemed more principled. Call me delusional, but I like a guy who acts on principle. Granted, my memory recalls that he also was accused of academic misgivings (cheating? please correct me if I am wrong), but at the end of the day, there seems to me to be something about Williams that make me think he is a man who acts on principle. I dunno, I could be reading him completely wrong, but as the story unfolded, I was left with a sense that he is not as bad (or a as much a headcase) as people would make him out to be based on superficial anecdotes. Again, I could be completely wrong, but he seems to maybe just be misunderstood. Clearly, the path he took at Syracuse is very atypical and not the norm, but when looked at in consideration of the context and story playing out, I don't think it was necessarily correct to downgrade him as a pro prospect to the extent that all teams in fact did. Of course hind sight is always 20/20, and it is still early to say he turned whatever corner those who are leery of his character thinks he needs to turn. FWIW, in early May, before his ascension up the TB depth chart, I "reached" for Williams with the 2.03 of my rookie draft. At the time, he was showing a rookie ADP of late third round, early fourth. I think I kind of had an inkling then that he was being misjudged, and on the chance others felt the same, there was no way I was going to let him get away. At the end of the day, a 2.03 rookie pick is not too much a risk for a guy you think is really going to make it despite conventional or prevailing opinion.The guy dropped significantly in the draft because of character issues. Others can evaluate his talent and project where he should have been drafted, but the point is, every single team in the league passed over Williams because of character issues. As someone who owned Burress, among other headcases who have been suspended multiple games, I understand the risk of drafting low character players. I don't ignore low character players, but I certainly factor in their risk a lot more than I used to. If Mike Williams truly has 1st round talent, then yeah, he's a steal in the late 1st round. But right now, we've only seen 2 exhibition games, so I don't have nearly enough information to start projecting Williams talent level. I look at what the coaches think of the young players in preseason. I think where a young player is at in the depth chart speaks louder than having 4 receptions for 50 yards against a vanilla preseason defense. Williams is #1 on the depth chart, which is a good sign, but context is needed. He beat out bums. There's really no way to sugarcoat it.
I can't say you are wrong, but I would rather have Moss for the next two years than Rice for the next ten.
That's a good point. It explains why he's low but maybe not why he's low compared to the other garbage QBs around him. It seems though that Smith last year is the upside for Whitehurst - shakey guy who might have a couple year window - except with better weapons around him and more chance for rushing yards. I'm not at all excited about Smith, but it seems of the garbage QBs he's not the worst.I finally dropped Davis after this Jason Whitlock article made him seem like JaMarcus Russell without the pedigree. Not that I trust Whitlock's player evaluations but if what he says is at all based on fact, then Davis likely will never start. Or Whitlock could just be trying to get ahead of the curve and start a controversy before anyone knows there is one. We could take it the other way that everyone anticipates Davis starting (despite Smith, Carr, and his immaturity) and Whitlock is trying to motivate his fellow Ball State alum to be ready. Who knows.
I haven't touched the rankings since yesterday's report that Leinart's job was basically up for grabs, so I haven't had the chance to lower him yet. Re: Alex Smith. SSOG covered a good bit of it. I don't think he's any good, and I don't think he's a good bet to stay healthy. If he does stay healthy, I don't think he'll last through the year as the starter. I don't think he will start anywhere else in 2011.
If he's rebuilding, then S Rice is not a bad return for Moss IMO. Moss would be at least 34 before his team is back on track, and fantasy owners simply don't give up anything of value for guys that old.. even guys named Randy Moss.Make it three years for Moss, and I would too.
I've given similar value for R Moss and S Smith south over the offseason, so I have no issues with trading late 1st round picks + prospects for 30+ year old WRs, especially 30+ year old stud WRs. That said, I'm not completely sold on Ocho because I think Palmer is done and Ocho might be stuck in Cincy for 2 more years. IMO, this is one case where situation is kind of important because Ocho is 32 years old. Per Rotoworld:
Over the last 16 games last year Rice had 89 receptions for 1450 yards and 12 TD's. Thats top 3 WR numbers, so im fine with that being his upside. Im am a bit concerned about injuries, but how many players(good ones) that are considered injury prone early in their careers actually end up having injury problems throughout their career?
I really don't understand your logic for drafting Thomas ahead of Williams, if you really believe the bolded. If you expect Williams to significantly outproduce Thomas this year, then based on the bolded, you have to consider the acquisition cost of each player going into next year. If Williams has 900 yds, 5-6 TDs this year, and Thomas has 400 yds, 2-3 TDs.....which player do you think is more expensive to obtain going into 2011?
It's more than risky. It's a lot more difficult and a lot more chances to be wrong.We all know there's a lot of chance included here.
My personality is best summed up by Carpe Diem, and that's how I play dynasty. [/rant]
I just wrote an article on DR.net comparing Ochocinco to Nicks. I think Ocho's definitely worth a late first and Foster (especially when you're flush with RBs like that).
Seattle gave up a lot to get Whitehurst. Stranger things have happened than some guy buried on one team's depth chart going to another team and excelling. Matt Schaub, Matt Hasselbeck, and Jake Delhomme all spring readily to mind. Mark Brunell, too. Until we see Whitehurst sucking on the field, it's too early to say that he can't or won't be a fantasy QB1. Alex Smith, on the other hand... I've seen him sucking on the field. It's not too early to declare him DOA, as far as I'm concerned.Oh, and Leinart's garbage. He was above Smith because I figured it was a possible that Fitzgerald would be able to salvage some value for him. Look for him to get properly buried in my next update.
That's a really nice summary of why I'm not a fan of the "stock market" approach to roster building.
Apparently you never watched him play in college.
I think trying to project the future is sheer folly. I don't even mean trying to project 5 years down the road, I mean trying to project NEXT YEAR. Predictions for the coming season always look ludicrous in hindsight, so imagine how much hubris it must take to think you can estimate even the tiniest bit of how someone will perform 2 years from now.With that said, I live and die by several handy shortcuts to approximate future value. While a player's future performance is impossible to predict, I think a player's future trade value is really easy to take a stab at (especially an aging player- if there's one thing dynasty owners are consistent about, it's how they treat aging players). So when I'm comparing aging players to younger players and wondering when to buy or sell, I'll often use estimated trade value as a handy stand-in for estimated future production.At the end of the day, though, I really just subscribe to the theory that if you roster talent, good things will happen. I'm always on the lookout to upgrade the talent level of my team.[rant]I think people take this dynasty thing a bit too far sometimes. I mean seriously do you try to project out a player's whole career based on college games? That just sounds crazy to me. I don't look at dynasty as a marathon. Dynasty leagues to me are more like 400m runs instead of 100m sprints. I don't try to build my team with my eye toward 2012 or 2013, that's craziness. I'm always building toward this year or next year, but never looking ahead more than one year. I liked Colin Dowlings Year 2 strategy and employed it last season. Now is the year I sell out for the ring. I really don't care a lot about 2011. If I can't win in x or x+1 year, why am I even playing?What's even more crazy is people that have themselves convinced that they can see that far into the future. The professionals can't even project players with a high degree of accuracy and these guys are the best of the best. Paid hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to study these athletes, and they don't even have a good handle on it. I play dynasty more like day trading I guess. What good is building for the future if you aren't ever getting there. Sidney Rice is not a top 15 dynasty wideout. He's not going to help you this season much. His value has already peaked. He may or may not ever get a good QB after his abbreviated 2010 season. You say you like his talent but that talent goes unharvested if Tarvaris Jackson is his QB for the next 3 years. I don't have him any higher than guys like Maclin. Maybe I'm too new to the dynasty game. I'm only in my third year.
Make it three years for Moss, and I would too.