Dynasty Rankings (9 Viewers)

[DoubleG]

I am really hoping people were expecting T.Smith/Green/Julio seasons from this years rookie WR class.

I am really hoping I get Blackmon for a mid-1st at some point. Floyd, even later than that. Guys like Quick, Hill, Gordon could be good value buys too.

Floyd makes me nervous. He dropped a pass last night. he hasn't even come close to cracking the starting lineup. The guy is uber talneted - but seems to have the motivation of a rock. NFL history is loaded with guys like that - that never end up producing. Blackmon also makes me nervous - at times he reminds me of Michael Crabtree 2.0, without the diva crap. He runs great routes, and has excellent hands - but because he doesn't have elite speed...well, like I said, a better version of Crabtree.

 

[forbidden doughnut]

Michael Turner has definitely lost a step or two yet still looks head, shoulders, and waist above Rodgers running with the ball. Quizz looks like trash to me.

I suspect the way that Turner has been running that he might be carrying Quizz with him.

 

[EBF]

Rookies gonna rookie. People got spoiled by what Green and Julio did last year. That kind of instant production is still rare for WRs.

I think Floyd's issues are overblown. One relatively meaningless tweet by Fitz and suddenly it's widely accepted that he has a poor work ethic. Not sure I buy that. As for his playing time, he was never going to be ahead of Fitz on the depth chart and Roberts has been playing great. No real reason why we should downgrade Floyd for failing to beat out those two as a rookie. If he was on the Bears or Jets he'd probably be starting. I would say he's a buy low candidate, but I sent reasonable offers for him in 4 or 5 different leagues last week and was knocked back by everyone. Even though he's not playing and has no obvious route to a significant role, people aren't panic selling.

As for Blackmon, he has been disappointing. Doesn't look like the same guy he was in college. But then you go back and watch the clips of him at OSU and he looks like an absolute demon. I can see the Crab comparison, but Blackmon seems a little faster and more athletic. And besides, Crab hasn't been THAT big of a bust. He's a decent player, just not what was expected. And the conservative offense and lack of targets is as much to blame for his lack of production as his talent. If that's the worst case scenario for Blackmon then you could do a lot worse. I still think he can be something like a Bowe/Boldin type of player. You don't need great wheels to be a good possession WR as long as you're quick and can catch the ball in traffic.

 

[SSOG]

Anyone thinking about buying or selling Ryan Williams? I'm in the camp that thinks Beanie is the better RB of the two. I know some think otherwise. This strikes me as the perfect time to buy low for true believers of his talent.

I personally don't see it, but if the price is right I'd aquire Williams. AZ line is a mess and this isn't going to be fixed overnight. I imagine his owners have to be down on the guy right now.

I think he'll prove to be quite a bit better than Wells but I agree that the OLine is a mess. Given that Wisenhunt has a OLine background, you'd have to think he can fix that in a year or two so I agree that Williams is a good buy low guy right now.

This is Whisenhunt's sixth year. The team's rank in rushing yards since his arrival? 29th, 32nd, 28th, 32nd, 24th, and they're 31st thus far this year. IMO it's pretty safe to say that he's not the guy to fix Arizona's ground game.Also disagree that Williams is a buy low. The time to buy low was any time after Williams' injury but before Wells' injury this year. Since then his price has gone up a bunch. His value is also pretty likely to go down from it's current level as the Cards should struggle on the ground all year. Buying him now would be buying him at the highest price he's likely to have anytime in the first two years of his career. Unless he starts to light things up, but I'm not seeing that, this year anyway.

I liked Williams quite a bit coming out, and if he recovers completely from the injury, I agree that he has a bright future. But it ain't happening this year, and the situation on offense in Arizona is a pretty big negative moving forward.

This is pretty much how I see it as well. Russ Grimm has also been there the entire time, and they just haven't been able to make it work. It's a mystery why they've essentially ignored the position early in drafts as well.

True and 6 years is a long time. One thing I always thought was that first time head coaches should worry about/work on the other parts of the team besides their "position specialty", for a lack of a better term, since in theory they should be able to better coach up the existing talent at that position or at least make better evaluations of free agents or college players at that position. And really Arizona has put together a good young Defense, some reasonable WR2s in Roberts, Doucet and Floyd, a decent young TE in Housler and two young highly regarded backs in Wells and Williams. Then they went out and got Kolb. Now, obviously some of the players haven't been as good and they certainly should have shored up OL instead of continuing to draft WR2 prospects, but overall, those areas are all at least decent. However that is a long time for he and Grimm to still have a sucky OL. Very strange. Maybe he's TOO confident in his and Grimm's OL coaching that he's just ignoring it.

Really? Are Wells and Williams highly regarded? By whom?From my perspective, Arizona's offense today is exactly the same as it's been for years- the best WR in the game, surrounded by below-average players at all 10 other positions. I'm not looking to buy into it long-term because (A) I don't think anyone's that good, and (B) this offense looks like it'll be bad for years to come, barring the acquisition of a Cam Newton-like transformational rookie.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Anyone thinking about buying or selling Ryan Williams? I'm in the camp that thinks Beanie is the better RB of the two. I know some think otherwise. This strikes me as the perfect time to buy low for true believers of his talent.

I personally don't see it, but if the price is right I'd aquire Williams. AZ line is a mess and this isn't going to be fixed overnight. I imagine his owners have to be down on the guy right now.

I think he'll prove to be quite a bit better than Wells but I agree that the OLine is a mess. Given that Wisenhunt has a OLine background, you'd have to think he can fix that in a year or two so I agree that Williams is a good buy low guy right now.

This is Whisenhunt's sixth year. The team's rank in rushing yards since his arrival? 29th, 32nd, 28th, 32nd, 24th, and they're 31st thus far this year. IMO it's pretty safe to say that he's not the guy to fix Arizona's ground game.Also disagree that Williams is a buy low. The time to buy low was any time after Williams' injury but before Wells' injury this year. Since then his price has gone up a bunch. His value is also pretty likely to go down from it's current level as the Cards should struggle on the ground all year. Buying him now would be buying him at the highest price he's likely to have anytime in the first two years of his career. Unless he starts to light things up, but I'm not seeing that, this year anyway.

I liked Williams quite a bit coming out, and if he recovers completely from the injury, I agree that he has a bright future. But it ain't happening this year, and the situation on offense in Arizona is a pretty big negative moving forward.

This is pretty much how I see it as well. Russ Grimm has also been there the entire time, and they just haven't been able to make it work. It's a mystery why they've essentially ignored the position early in drafts as well.

True and 6 years is a long time. One thing I always thought was that first time head coaches should worry about/work on the other parts of the team besides their "position specialty", for a lack of a better term, since in theory they should be able to better coach up the existing talent at that position or at least make better evaluations of free agents or college players at that position. And really Arizona has put together a good young Defense, some reasonable WR2s in Roberts, Doucet and Floyd, a decent young TE in Housler and two young highly regarded backs in Wells and Williams. Then they went out and got Kolb. Now, obviously some of the players haven't been as good and they certainly should have shored up OL instead of continuing to draft WR2 prospects, but overall, those areas are all at least decent. However that is a long time for he and Grimm to still have a sucky OL. Very strange. Maybe he's TOO confident in his and Grimm's OL coaching that he's just ignoring it.

Really? Are Wells and Williams highly regarded? By whom?From my perspective, Arizona's offense today is exactly the same as it's been for years- the best WR in the game, surrounded by below-average players at all 10 other positions. I'm not looking to buy into it long-term because (A) I don't think anyone's that good, and (B) this offense looks like it'll be bad for years to come, barring the acquisition of a Cam Newton-like transformational rookie.

I agree with your general point that outside of Fitz, AZ is about as appealing as a case of the clap for fantasy purposes, but I think you're dismissing Williams, and even maybe Wells, a bit too easily. We really have no idea what Williams is as of now, but the last time he was truly healthy (2009) he looked really good. Yeah that's a while ago, but it's definitely possible that he's just been unlucky with injuries two years in a row. Wells actually didn't look too bad last year, either. He's one-dimensional, but he looked like an above average "power half of the committee" type to me.One thing both Wells and Williams do have going for them is unlike say, the Cowboys, the Cards actually do usually score a semi-decent amount on the ground.

Using Wells last year as a baseline and adding some receiving touches indicates Wlliams likely upside, and that is worth something. Certainly more than the "got him as a throw in" price I paid for him last year when Wells was looking good, plus the roster spot.

 

[MAC_32]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Williams has my attention, but no one is selling him and I wasn't in a spot to draft him.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Anyone thinking about buying or selling Ryan Williams? I'm in the camp that thinks Beanie is the better RB of the two. I know some think otherwise. This strikes me as the perfect time to buy low for true believers of his talent.

I personally don't see it, but if the price is right I'd aquire Williams. AZ line is a mess and this isn't going to be fixed overnight. I imagine his owners have to be down on the guy right now.

I think he'll prove to be quite a bit better than Wells but I agree that the OLine is a mess. Given that Wisenhunt has a OLine background, you'd have to think he can fix that in a year or two so I agree that Williams is a good buy low guy right now.

This is Whisenhunt's sixth year. The team's rank in rushing yards since his arrival? 29th, 32nd, 28th, 32nd, 24th, and they're 31st thus far this year. IMO it's pretty safe to say that he's not the guy to fix Arizona's ground game.Also disagree that Williams is a buy low. The time to buy low was any time after Williams' injury but before Wells' injury this year. Since then his price has gone up a bunch. His value is also pretty likely to go down from it's current level as the Cards should struggle on the ground all year. Buying him now would be buying him at the highest price he's likely to have anytime in the first two years of his career. Unless he starts to light things up, but I'm not seeing that, this year anyway.

I liked Williams quite a bit coming out, and if he recovers completely from the injury, I agree that he has a bright future. But it ain't happening this year, and the situation on offense in Arizona is a pretty big negative moving forward.

This is pretty much how I see it as well. Russ Grimm has also been there the entire time, and they just haven't been able to make it work. It's a mystery why they've essentially ignored the position early in drafts as well.

True and 6 years is a long time. One thing I always thought was that first time head coaches should worry about/work on the other parts of the team besides their "position specialty", for a lack of a better term, since in theory they should be able to better coach up the existing talent at that position or at least make better evaluations of free agents or college players at that position. And really Arizona has put together a good young Defense, some reasonable WR2s in Roberts, Doucet and Floyd, a decent young TE in Housler and two young highly regarded backs in Wells and Williams. Then they went out and got Kolb. Now, obviously some of the players haven't been as good and they certainly should have shored up OL instead of continuing to draft WR2 prospects, but overall, those areas are all at least decent. However that is a long time for he and Grimm to still have a sucky OL. Very strange. Maybe he's TOO confident in his and Grimm's OL coaching that he's just ignoring it.

Really? Are Wells and Williams highly regarded? By whom?From my perspective, Arizona's offense today is exactly the same as it's been for years- the best WR in the game, surrounded by below-average players at all 10 other positions. I'm not looking to buy into it long-term because (A) I don't think anyone's that good, and (B) this offense looks like it'll be bad for years to come, barring the acquisition of a Cam Newton-like transformational rookie.

LOL, always love your attitude. I was talking about the draft process so I meant as part of that process, highly regarded coming into the NFL. Sorry I wasn't more clear but at least you got a cheap laugh.

 

[bengalbuck]

I am really hoping people were expecting T.Smith/Green/Julio seasons from this years rookie WR class. I am really hoping I get Blackmon for a mid-1st at some point. Floyd, even later than that. Guys like Quick, Hill, Gordon could be good value buys too.

I wasn't expecting much production, but I am definitely at the point where I'm wondering about this year's rookie WR class in general over the long-term. Blackmon looks pretty mediocre on the field and that QB situation is ugly. Same with Floyd. I actually sold pretty low this week on Floyd in a mixed format keeper/dynasty league.I really have no idea what to think of most of these guys. None really stand out as a great bet to emerge as a fantasy force. But odds and past history indicate at least one of them should.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Anyone thinking about buying or selling Ryan Williams? I'm in the camp that thinks Beanie is the better RB of the two. I know some think otherwise. This strikes me as the perfect time to buy low for true believers of his talent.

I personally don't see it, but if the price is right I'd aquire Williams. AZ line is a mess and this isn't going to be fixed overnight. I imagine his owners have to be down on the guy right now.

I think he'll prove to be quite a bit better than Wells but I agree that the OLine is a mess. Given that Wisenhunt has a OLine background, you'd have to think he can fix that in a year or two so I agree that Williams is a good buy low guy right now.

This is Whisenhunt's sixth year. The team's rank in rushing yards since his arrival? 29th, 32nd, 28th, 32nd, 24th, and they're 31st thus far this year. IMO it's pretty safe to say that he's not the guy to fix Arizona's ground game.Also disagree that Williams is a buy low. The time to buy low was any time after Williams' injury but before Wells' injury this year. Since then his price has gone up a bunch. His value is also pretty likely to go down from it's current level as the Cards should struggle on the ground all year. Buying him now would be buying him at the highest price he's likely to have anytime in the first two years of his career. Unless he starts to light things up, but I'm not seeing that, this year anyway.

I liked Williams quite a bit coming out, and if he recovers completely from the injury, I agree that he has a bright future. But it ain't happening this year, and the situation on offense in Arizona is a pretty big negative moving forward.

This is pretty much how I see it as well. Russ Grimm has also been there the entire time, and they just haven't been able to make it work. It's a mystery why they've essentially ignored the position early in drafts as well.

True and 6 years is a long time. One thing I always thought was that first time head coaches should worry about/work on the other parts of the team besides their "position specialty", for a lack of a better term, since in theory they should be able to better coach up the existing talent at that position or at least make better evaluations of free agents or college players at that position. And really Arizona has put together a good young Defense, some reasonable WR2s in Roberts, Doucet and Floyd, a decent young TE in Housler and two young highly regarded backs in Wells and Williams. Then they went out and got Kolb. Now, obviously some of the players haven't been as good and they certainly should have shored up OL instead of continuing to draft WR2 prospects, but overall, those areas are all at least decent. However that is a long time for he and Grimm to still have a sucky OL. Very strange. Maybe he's TOO confident in his and Grimm's OL coaching that he's just ignoring it.

Really? Are Wells and Williams highly regarded? By whom?From my perspective, Arizona's offense today is exactly the same as it's been for years- the best WR in the game, surrounded by below-average players at all 10 other positions. I'm not looking to buy into it long-term because (A) I don't think anyone's that good, and (B) this offense looks like it'll be bad for years to come, barring the acquisition of a Cam Newton-like transformational rookie.

Beanie was a 1st round pick and Ryan Williams was an early 2nd round pick, I'd say that automatically makes them both highly regarded.

 

[Concept Coop]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.

They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit.

But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time.

Buy now.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

 

[SSOG]

LOL, always love your attitude. I was talking about the draft process so I meant as part of that process, highly regarded coming into the NFL. Sorry I wasn't more clear but at least you got a cheap laugh.

I didn't mean for it to come off as attitude, although upon re-reading it, I do realize that's how it comes off. I meant it as an honest question. Who is regarding Wells and Williams highly at this point? For instance, if I asked by whom Ingram was highly regarded, someone could point me to Greg Cosell's scouting report and I could read up more on his reasoning. I'm sorry that the question was poorly phrase and reads as authority-challenging, I meant it strictly as information seeking. I understand that they were both highly regarded coming into the league, I was just trying to find out of there were people defending them based on actual performance in the league, and if so, what they were seeing. I wanted second opinions.

 

[MAC_32]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.The end of my bench of RB's features Andre Brown, LMJ, Dwyer, and Phil Tanner. The only one of those I'd dump for Beanie is Tanner. Unless I were totally desparate and the market were completely dry I wouldn't offer anything more than a 5th round pick for him either.You can't ever trust starting him, that just doesn't have value to me.

 

[DoubleG]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.The end of my bench of RB's features Andre Brown, LMJ, Dwyer, and Phil Tanner. The only one of those I'd dump for Beanie is Tanner. Unless I were totally desparate and the market were completely dry I wouldn't offer anything more than a 5th round pick for him either.You can't ever trust starting him, that just doesn't have value to me.

Only one of the backs you listed has ever been a starting RB for an entire NFL season - and in that season he rushed for over 1k and double digit TDs. Williams has proven (if this is even possible) to somehow be more fragile than even Wells is. The only one I would even consider keeping over Wells in dynasty is Brown - and that's only because as a Bradshaw owner, I am not positive how well he can hold up as a "lead" back - even in a RBBC.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.

Dont get me wrong, if you're driving the anti-Wells bandwagon, then I'm probably the guy riding shotgun. I've been calling him over-rated since OSU. I never have nor ever will own him in any FF league. I just don't think he's outright WW poo.

 

[MAC_32]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.The end of my bench of RB's features Andre Brown, LMJ, Dwyer, and Phil Tanner. The only one of those I'd dump for Beanie is Tanner. Unless I were totally desparate and the market were completely dry I wouldn't offer anything more than a 5th round pick for him either.You can't ever trust starting him, that just doesn't have value to me.

Only one of the backs you listed has ever been a starting RB for an entire NFL season - and in that season he rushed for over 1k and double digit TDs. Williams has proven (if this is even possible) to somehow be more fragile than even Wells is. The only one I would even consider keeping over Wells in dynasty is Brown - and that's only because as a Bradshaw owner, I am not positive how well he can hold up as a "lead" back - even in a RBBC.

How many times have you gotten a quality start from Beanie? How many times have you started him?

 

[MAC_32]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.

Dont get me wrong, if you're driving the anti-Wells bandwagon, then I'm probably the guy riding shotgun. I've been calling him over-rated since OSU. I never have nor ever will own him in any FF league. I just don't think he's outright WW poo.

Re-draft? Yes. Dynasty? He's not in my top 40 and probably not in the top 50.

 

[EBF]

Hard to defend Ryan Williams based on NFL performance when his career consists of 58 carries behind a junk OL a year removed from a catastrophic injury. I've never been a fan of his game, but it's plain to see why he would struggle. I thought he showed some flashes last night. Just didn't have much to work with.

As for Beanie, he's every bit the bust I thought he might be. I had him pegged as this guy all along. Not very elusive and injury prone because of his high-cut build.

 

[JFS171]

True and 6 years is a long time. One thing I always thought was that first time head coaches should worry about/work on the other parts of the team besides their "position specialty", for a lack of a better term, since in theory they should be able to better coach up the existing talent at that position or at least make better evaluations of free agents or college players at that position. And really Arizona has put together a good young Defense, some reasonable WR2s in Roberts, Doucet and Floyd, a decent young TE in Housler and two young highly regarded backs in Wells and Williams. Then they went out and got Kolb. Now, obviously some of the players haven't been as good and they certainly should have shored up OL instead of continuing to draft WR2 prospects, but overall, those areas are all at least decent. However that is a long time for he and Grimm to still have a sucky OL. Very strange. Maybe he's TOO confident in his and Grimm's OL coaching that he's just ignoring it.

This seems to be a major issues for a lot of "guru" first time coaches. As a Carolina fan, I'd point you to the Panthers to see how Rivera and company have done with the Defense, given his prior resume as a disciple of Jim Johnson, creator of the Chicago and San Diego Ds, etc. Granted he's two years into this, but Carolina refuses to draft top-tier defensive talent (at positions of need - D-line and Corner), and you can see the results.I think coaches often give themselves too much credit when it comes to either A)identifying diamonds in the rough with late round picks or as UDFAs, or B)coaching up lesser talent. I'm not a Cardinals fan, but I struggle to recall a high draft pick on the o-line outside of Levi Brown.

 

[DoubleG]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.The end of my bench of RB's features Andre Brown, LMJ, Dwyer, and Phil Tanner. The only one of those I'd dump for Beanie is Tanner. Unless I were totally desparate and the market were completely dry I wouldn't offer anything more than a 5th round pick for him either.You can't ever trust starting him, that just doesn't have value to me.

Only one of the backs you listed has ever been a starting RB for an entire NFL season - and in that season he rushed for over 1k and double digit TDs. Williams has proven (if this is even possible) to somehow be more fragile than even Wells is. The only one I would even consider keeping over Wells in dynasty is Brown - and that's only because as a Bradshaw owner, I am not positive how well he can hold up as a "lead" back - even in a RBBC.

How many times have you gotten a quality start from Beanie? How many times have you started him?

In the dynasty league I have him in, I was forced to start him until December (when I made a trade for Bradshaw) - so 11 games last season. In those 11 games, he had 3 awful games (no TDs and under 50 yards) and 1 game where he had 60 yards but not TD. Every other game (7 of the 11) he scored double digit points and scored at least 1 TD - 2 games scoring 30+ points. He finished RB14 in that league - so he was a solid RB2. I am not really sure what the issue is. He was more than startable last year.This season I haven't started him at all - with T. Richardson and Bradshaw (A. Brown) I haven't had to. I still have him on my roster and plan on keeping him there until likely the end of this season - when we will have a better idea of how the backfield in AZ is going to shake out. Let's just put it this way - I don't think either RB has a hold on the starting job, but I have the one that has at least shown he can do it.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Calling Wells a bust or WW fodder is pretty wrong, or 8 team league thinking. There were 2 RBs taken ahead of him in 2009 that were bigger busts. He is a better RB than Ryan Williams.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

LOL, always love your attitude. I was talking about the draft process so I meant as part of that process, highly regarded coming into the NFL. Sorry I wasn't more clear but at least you got a cheap laugh.

I didn't mean for it to come off as attitude, although upon re-reading it, I do realize that's how it comes off. I meant it as an honest question. Who is regarding Wells and Williams highly at this point? For instance, if I asked by whom Ingram was highly regarded, someone could point me to Greg Cosell's scouting report and I could read up more on his reasoning. I'm sorry that the question was poorly phrase and reads as authority-challenging, I meant it strictly as information seeking. I understand that they were both highly regarded coming into the league, I was just trying to find out of there were people defending them based on actual performance in the league, and if so, what they were seeing. I wanted second opinions.

I see, no hard feelings. I think Williams is still highly regarded although flawed. My personal opinion is that I need to see someone suck before I write them off. I haven't seen Williams suck. He's been hurt and now he has a pretty terrible OL in front of him. So his value is low. And it may never change. He MAY suck. But I haven't seen it yet. So if you believed in him coming into the NFL, I think you should still believe in him, although you're certainly discouraged by the injury and sucky OL.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

True and 6 years is a long time. One thing I always thought was that first time head coaches should worry about/work on the other parts of the team besides their "position specialty", for a lack of a better term, since in theory they should be able to better coach up the existing talent at that position or at least make better evaluations of free agents or college players at that position. And really Arizona has put together a good young Defense, some reasonable WR2s in Roberts, Doucet and Floyd, a decent young TE in Housler and two young highly regarded backs in Wells and Williams. Then they went out and got Kolb. Now, obviously some of the players haven't been as good and they certainly should have shored up OL instead of continuing to draft WR2 prospects, but overall, those areas are all at least decent. However that is a long time for he and Grimm to still have a sucky OL. Very strange. Maybe he's TOO confident in his and Grimm's OL coaching that he's just ignoring it.

This seems to be a major issues for a lot of "guru" first time coaches. As a Carolina fan, I'd point you to the Panthers to see how Rivera and company have done with the Defense, given his prior resume as a disciple of Jim Johnson, creator of the Chicago and San Diego Ds, etc. Granted he's two years into this, but Carolina refuses to draft top-tier defensive talent (at positions of need - D-line and Corner), and you can see the results.I think coaches often give themselves too much credit when it comes to either A)identifying diamonds in the rough with late round picks or as UDFAs, or B)coaching up lesser talent. I'm not a Cardinals fan, but I struggle to recall a high draft pick on the o-line outside of Levi Brown.

Yes, I think it's a big issue. They think that they need to spend all their time on the areas of the team they don't know as well. And as a Charlotte resident who sees the Panthers every week, I completely agree with you. I think that any smart owner when hiring a coach should find a coach that is good and experienced in the worst "important" part of his current roster (among QB, OL, DL, DB) and tell that coach to fix the weakness. Don't hire a QB coach and have him put all his energy/resources into fixing the LBs.

 

[theprince]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft.

For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.

But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.

To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.

This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone.

Thoughts?

 

[Kree]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft. For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone. Thoughts?

The key difference is though, if you're willing to regard Luck's success as fact, there is nothing that can alter that, you have that value for as long as you want it. With the Brees scenario, you're dependent on not only your own ability to scout talent, but to acquire it at a reasonable price as well as hope that other teams don't have similar views of any of those players and go all out to get them. If you find someone you like in 2 years time, but his success is less definitive, you're potentially putting a lot of stock into that potential at that point, which can be driven up by other parties. In that case you're possibly paying the equivalent value to success that you would have paid for Luck initially.Not to mention you're dependent on Brees longevity and success. If he only plays up to a decent standard for two more years say, you're going to end up cashing in and overpaying early to maintain a smooth transition between Brees and your next QB. In the Luck scenario, you have other value at play as well - Another roster spot, another chance to hold onto a roughie you like because Luck's success is defined. You might spend 2 less roster spots on the QB position, as opposed to holding three lesser QB talents in addition to Brees in the hopes that one starts performing at an adequate level to make the process worth it.EDIT - Sorry if that rambling doesn't make sense, I'm in a rush.

 

[Max Power]

Wells is borderline worthless and has been that way since he got to the league, nothing's changed.

Over-rated in FF? Certainly. Over-drafted NFL wise? That too. Borderline worthless? Can't get on board with that. I have guys at the end of my bench that I'd happily move for him in every single league I'm in, and he'll be getting NFL carries for years. He's not great, but he's not a steaming dog turd either.

I am confident eventually others will finally get behind my anti-Wellsness, I don't know when but someday.The end of my bench of RB's features Andre Brown, LMJ, Dwyer, and Phil Tanner. The only one of those I'd dump for Beanie is Tanner. Unless I were totally desparate and the market were completely dry I wouldn't offer anything more than a 5th round pick for him either.You can't ever trust starting him, that just doesn't have value to me.

Only one of the backs you listed has ever been a starting RB for an entire NFL season - and in that season he rushed for over 1k and double digit TDs. Williams has proven (if this is even possible) to somehow be more fragile than even Wells is. The only one I would even consider keeping over Wells in dynasty is Brown - and that's only because as a Bradshaw owner, I am not positive how well he can hold up as a "lead" back - even in a RBBC.

How many times have you gotten a quality start from Beanie? How many times have you started him?

In the dynasty league I have him in, I was forced to start him until December (when I made a trade for Bradshaw) - so 11 games last season. In those 11 games, he had 3 awful games (no TDs and under 50 yards) and 1 game where he had 60 yards but not TD. Every other game (7 of the 11) he scored double digit points and scored at least 1 TD - 2 games scoring 30+ points. He finished RB14 in that league - so he was a solid RB2. I am not really sure what the issue is. He was more than startable last year.This season I haven't started him at all - with T. Richardson and Bradshaw (A. Brown) I haven't had to. I still have him on my roster and plan on keeping him there until likely the end of this season - when we will have a better idea of how the backfield in AZ is going to shake out. Let's just put it this way - I don't think either RB has a hold on the starting job, but I have the one that has at least shown he can do it.

I really dont get the hate for Beanie. We've established the O-line has been garbage for years and yet Wells has a career 4.1 YPC average. People want to knock his burst or elusiveness and the guy has a long of 71 yards. It is getting harder to defend his injury prone label though. While he may never be a superstar in this league, he is a decent RB.Now Williams still has a lot of hype, and he gets a pass because of his "poor O-line" and he hasn't been fully healthy since 2009, but that isn't a concern either. It's all good, "he's shown flashes"... I can't watch every play of every game, so I must have missed them.

 

[BWill]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft. For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone. Thoughts?

The key difference is though, if you're willing to regard Luck's success as fact, there is nothing that can alter that, you have that value for as long as you want it. With the Brees scenario, you're dependent on not only your own ability to scout talent, but to acquire it at a reasonable price as well as hope that other teams don't have similar views of any of those players and go all out to get them. If you find someone you like in 2 years time, but his success is less definitive, you're potentially putting a lot of stock into that potential at that point, which can be driven up by other parties. In that case you're possibly paying the equivalent value to success that you would have paid for Luck initially.Not to mention you're dependent on Brees longevity and success. If he only plays up to a decent standard for two more years say, you're going to end up cashing in and overpaying early to maintain a smooth transition between Brees and your next QB. In the Luck scenario, you have other value at play as well - Another roster spot, another chance to hold onto a roughie you like because Luck's success is defined. You might spend 2 less roster spots on the QB position, as opposed to holding three lesser QB talents in addition to Brees in the hopes that one starts performing at an adequate level to make the process worth it.EDIT - Sorry if that rambling doesn't make sense, I'm in a rush.

How do you feel about RG3?? I want to win NOW... would he be a good sell UBER-High? or Hold

 

[Gandalf]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit. But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time. Buy now.

Agreed in dynasty Blackmon is so cheap right now. Very little risk. Still has top WR potential. And next year I bet Jacksonville gives up on Gabbert who is the largest issue for Backmon.

 

[renesauz]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft. For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone. Thoughts?

The key difference is though, if you're willing to regard Luck's success as fact, there is nothing that can alter that, you have that value for as long as you want it. With the Brees scenario, you're dependent on not only your own ability to scout talent, but to acquire it at a reasonable price as well as hope that other teams don't have similar views of any of those players and go all out to get them. If you find someone you like in 2 years time, but his success is less definitive, you're potentially putting a lot of stock into that potential at that point, which can be driven up by other parties. In that case you're possibly paying the equivalent value to success that you would have paid for Luck initially.Not to mention you're dependent on Brees longevity and success. If he only plays up to a decent standard for two more years say, you're going to end up cashing in and overpaying early to maintain a smooth transition between Brees and your next QB. In the Luck scenario, you have other value at play as well - Another roster spot, another chance to hold onto a roughie you like because Luck's success is defined. You might spend 2 less roster spots on the QB position, as opposed to holding three lesser QB talents in addition to Brees in the hopes that one starts performing at an adequate level to make the process worth it.EDIT - Sorry if that rambling doesn't make sense, I'm in a rush.

Taking the young up and comer relies on the same scouting skills. There are decent reasons to prefer Luck, but an owners ability to scout isn't one of them.I think this question really is a different strokes for different folks type problem without a perfect answer. That's part of what makes dynasty rankings so darn hard. Some guys want to look out 5+ years, while others are more comfortable keeping their vision on a shorter term. I don't think either apporach is necessarily wrong...they BOTH have advantages and disadvantages.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit. But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time. Buy now.

Agreed in dynasty Blackmon is so cheap right now. Very little risk. Still has top WR potential. And next year I bet Jacksonville gives up on Gabbert who is the largest issue for Backmon.

Blackmon isnt cheap at all? I still have people sending me super low ball offers for him and Im not moving him for peanuts.

 

[lbouchard]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit. But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time. Buy now.

Agreed in dynasty Blackmon is so cheap right now. Very little risk. Still has top WR potential. And next year I bet Jacksonville gives up on Gabbert who is the largest issue for Backmon.

Blackmon isnt cheap at all? I still have people sending me super low ball offers for him and Im not moving him for peanuts.

Just because you won't sell low doesn't mean others won't.

 

[MAC_32]

It is getting harder to defend his injury prone label though.

I have never argued his talent, this has been my argument since pre draft.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit. But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time. Buy now.

Agreed in dynasty Blackmon is so cheap right now. Very little risk. Still has top WR potential. And next year I bet Jacksonville gives up on Gabbert who is the largest issue for Backmon.

Blackmon isnt cheap at all? I still have people sending me super low ball offers for him and Im not moving him for peanuts.

Just because you won't sell low doesn't mean others won't.

they might, but its a mistake, people spent a top5 pick on the guy and while Julio n AJ have spoiled everyone, the kid has played 4 NFL games.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit. But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time. Buy now.

Agreed in dynasty Blackmon is so cheap right now. Very little risk. Still has top WR potential. And next year I bet Jacksonville gives up on Gabbert who is the largest issue for Backmon.

Blackmon isnt cheap at all? I still have people sending me super low ball offers for him and Im not moving him for peanuts.

Just because you won't sell low doesn't mean others won't.

they might, but its a mistake, people spent a top5 pick on the guy and while Julio n AJ have spoiled everyone, the kid has played 4 NFL games.

Where's the fun in playing with people who don't know enough to give a high 1st round pick more than 4 games before giving up on him? That's ridiculous.

 

[EBF]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft.

For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.

But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.

To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.

This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone.

Thoughts?

The key difference is though, if you're willing to regard Luck's success as fact, there is nothing that can alter that, you have that value for as long as you want it. With the Brees scenario, you're dependent on not only your own ability to scout talent, but to acquire it at a reasonable price as well as hope that other teams don't have similar views of any of those players and go all out to get them. If you find someone you like in 2 years time, but his success is less definitive, you're potentially putting a lot of stock into that potential at that point, which can be driven up by other parties. In that case you're possibly paying the equivalent value to success that you would have paid for Luck initially.

Not to mention you're dependent on Brees longevity and success. If he only plays up to a decent standard for two more years say, you're going to end up cashing in and overpaying early to maintain a smooth transition between Brees and your next QB.

In the Luck scenario, you have other value at play as well - Another roster spot, another chance to hold onto a roughie you like because Luck's success is defined. You might spend 2 less roster spots on the QB position, as opposed to holding three lesser QB talents in addition to Brees in the hopes that one starts performing at an adequate level to make the process worth it.

EDIT - Sorry if that rambling doesn't make sense, I'm in a rush.

Yep. There are a few problems with taking the proven veteran on his last legs over the mega hyped prospect. In the case of Luck vs. Brees... - It's not that easy to find a QB prospect of Luck's caliber.

- Even if you find a guy like that, you'd have to pay something to get him.

Drafting Luck locks up your QB spot for the next 10+ years. Drafting Brees gives you 2-4 years of great production, and then a big fat hole in your lineup. In order to fill that hole with an equivalent player you'll probably have to use a high pick on a 1st round rookie QB at some point or get really lucky with an unheralded guy like Brady or Warner panning out on your roster. Meanwhile if you had Luck you could be using all those rookie picks and roster spots on the best player available instead of being forced to fill a need.

Of course, the risk is that Luck never becomes the player he's touted to be. If he ends up being just a middle of the road FF QB like Cutler then you've spent a lot on a guy who will never really give you an edge. That's why I would suggest only taking the prospect over the veteran in cases where the veteran is really and truly on his last legs and/or if the prospect is so good that he simply can't fail (someone like Calvin Johnson, Andrew Luck, or Trent Richardson).

 

[flc735]

I am really hoping people were expecting T.Smith/Green/Julio seasons from this years rookie WR class. I am really hoping I get Blackmon for a mid-1st at some point. Floyd, even later than that. Guys like Quick, Hill, Gordon could be good value buys too.

quick was just dropped in my deep dynasty. im going to have to drop barden to grab him

 

[flc735]

Blackmon looked beastly in pre-season. Silva over at Rotoworld wrote a blurb about it, and mentioned that he broke a tackle on each of his 4 receptions, in his first game played.They just need to get him in space, and he does need to polish his routes a bit. But any talk about Michael Crabtree is very premature. He is stronger, faster, and generally more explosive than Crabtree. He'll be just fine. Routes are not something to worry about, this early in a career. That can take time. Buy now.

Agreed in dynasty Blackmon is so cheap right now. Very little risk. Still has top WR potential. And next year I bet Jacksonville gives up on Gabbert who is the largest issue for Backmon.

Blackmon isnt cheap at all? I still have people sending me super low ball offers for him and Im not moving him for peanuts.

Just because you won't sell low doesn't mean others won't.

they might, but its a mistake, people spent a top5 pick on the guy and while Julio n AJ have spoiled everyone, the kid has played 4 NFL games.

i dont think so. 8 games+training camp+1-5 months, actually. thats a lot of time. would you say it's a mistake to give the 1.1 worth of value for RG3? would you say it's a mistake to give a mid 1st for alfred even though he was a 4th round pick in your draft? it should work both ways.you have to take new information into consideration as it comes in. it doesn't really matter where you drafted him at this point. i would trade blackmon to get garcon or d moore in a second, for example.

 

[MAC_32]

I am really hoping people were expecting T.Smith/Green/Julio seasons from this years rookie WR class. I am really hoping I get Blackmon for a mid-1st at some point. Floyd, even later than that. Guys like Quick, Hill, Gordon could be good value buys too.

quick was just dropped in my deep dynasty. im going to have to drop barden to grab him

I was never a Quick fan, but that it just ####ty ownership.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft.

For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.

But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.

To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.

This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone.

Thoughts?

The key difference is though, if you're willing to regard Luck's success as fact, there is nothing that can alter that, you have that value for as long as you want it. With the Brees scenario, you're dependent on not only your own ability to scout talent, but to acquire it at a reasonable price as well as hope that other teams don't have similar views of any of those players and go all out to get them. If you find someone you like in 2 years time, but his success is less definitive, you're potentially putting a lot of stock into that potential at that point, which can be driven up by other parties. In that case you're possibly paying the equivalent value to success that you would have paid for Luck initially.

Not to mention you're dependent on Brees longevity and success. If he only plays up to a decent standard for two more years say, you're going to end up cashing in and overpaying early to maintain a smooth transition between Brees and your next QB.

In the Luck scenario, you have other value at play as well - Another roster spot, another chance to hold onto a roughie you like because Luck's success is defined. You might spend 2 less roster spots on the QB position, as opposed to holding three lesser QB talents in addition to Brees in the hopes that one starts performing at an adequate level to make the process worth it.

EDIT - Sorry if that rambling doesn't make sense, I'm in a rush.

Yep. There are a few problems with taking the proven veteran on his last legs over the mega hyped prospect. In the case of Luck vs. Brees... - It's not that easy to find a QB prospect of Luck's caliber.

- Even if you find a guy like that, you'd have to pay something to get him.

Drafting Luck locks up your QB spot for the next 10+ years. Drafting Brees gives you 2-4 years of great production, and then a big fat hole in your lineup. In order to fill that hole with an equivalent player you'll probably have to use a high pick on a 1st round rookie QB at some point or get really lucky with an unheralded guy like Brady or Warner panning out on your roster. Meanwhile if you had Luck you could be using all those rookie picks and roster spots on the best player available instead of being forced to fill a need.

Of course, the risk is that Luck never becomes the player he's touted to be. If he ends up being just a middle of the road FF QB like Cutler then you've spent a lot on a guy who will never really give you an edge. That's why I would suggest only taking the prospect over the veteran in cases where the veteran is really and truly on his last legs and/or if the prospect is so good that he simply can't fail (someone like Calvin Johnson, Andrew Luck, or Trent Richardson).

The big issue with a guy like Luck is that so much outside of Luck himself goes into determining his fantasy fate. Luck can be a complete success and if the team, system, and coaching staff don't align perfectly, he'll post a long string of 4000 / 30 seasons. These days that's really not all that valuable outside of 2 QB leagues. In terms of what will win me more titles, a think a handful of ridiculous seasons are worth more than a whole bunch of darn good ones. With Rodgers it's an easy call to take his 5+ years over Luck. With Brees, it's tougher. For me it depends on the rest of my team - if I'm built around Foster, Roddy types give me Brees. If I have Richardson and AJ Green give me Luck.

 

[SSOG]

I apologize if this is old terrritory I'm covering but wanted to ask about the idea that all rankings should be made in a vacuum, that they should all be based on what would happen in a startup draft.

For instance, Luck is ranked QB4 and Brees QB6. Yes, you likely get Brees for 3 good/great years and that's it vs. Luck's first two good, then 8 possibly very good years.

But while rostering Brees, you have 3 years to find another QB who could put up similar stats to Luck in the long run.

To be more concise, I'd rather take the Brees points now and work to find my next starter than overpay for Luck - and for those reasons - I believe Brees should be ranked higher.

This is not about Brees and Luck per say, just used them as an example of why rankings should not be made in a vacuum alone.

Thoughts?

The key difference is though, if you're willing to regard Luck's success as fact, there is nothing that can alter that, you have that value for as long as you want it. With the Brees scenario, you're dependent on not only your own ability to scout talent, but to acquire it at a reasonable price as well as hope that other teams don't have similar views of any of those players and go all out to get them. If you find someone you like in 2 years time, but his success is less definitive, you're potentially putting a lot of stock into that potential at that point, which can be driven up by other parties. In that case you're possibly paying the equivalent value to success that you would have paid for Luck initially.

Not to mention you're dependent on Brees longevity and success. If he only plays up to a decent standard for two more years say, you're going to end up cashing in and overpaying early to maintain a smooth transition between Brees and your next QB.

In the Luck scenario, you have other value at play as well - Another roster spot, another chance to hold onto a roughie you like because Luck's success is defined. You might spend 2 less roster spots on the QB position, as opposed to holding three lesser QB talents in addition to Brees in the hopes that one starts performing at an adequate level to make the process worth it.

EDIT - Sorry if that rambling doesn't make sense, I'm in a rush.

Yep. There are a few problems with taking the proven veteran on his last legs over the mega hyped prospect. In the case of Luck vs. Brees... - It's not that easy to find a QB prospect of Luck's caliber.

- Even if you find a guy like that, you'd have to pay something to get him.

Drafting Luck locks up your QB spot for the next 10+ years. Drafting Brees gives you 2-4 years of great production, and then a big fat hole in your lineup. In order to fill that hole with an equivalent player you'll probably have to use a high pick on a 1st round rookie QB at some point or get really lucky with an unheralded guy like Brady or Warner panning out on your roster. Meanwhile if you had Luck you could be using all those rookie picks and roster spots on the best player available instead of being forced to fill a need.

Of course, the risk is that Luck never becomes the player he's touted to be. If he ends up being just a middle of the road FF QB like Cutler then you've spent a lot on a guy who will never really give you an edge. That's why I would suggest only taking the prospect over the veteran in cases where the veteran is really and truly on his last legs and/or if the prospect is so good that he simply can't fail (someone like Calvin Johnson, Andrew Luck, or Trent Richardson).

The problem is that even prospects that "simply can't fail" simply can, in fact, fail. Check out Reggie Bush. Or Benson, Brown, and Williams. Or Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, Peter Warrick. Sam Bradford, Tim Couch. Ryan Leaf. Robert Gallery. Glenn Dorsey. Courtney Brown, LaVar Arrington. David Terrell, Roy Williams (WR version), Mike Williams (OL version). I'm sure there are a lot of other names that aren't immediately coming to mind. A surprisingly high number of "can't miss prospects" can, and do, wind up missing. Sometimes they become disappointments, sometimes they become outright busts, but in all cases they dramatically underperform their owners' expectations. Nobody is "can't miss". Not no one, not no time, not no how. And yet, with prospects we love, we frequently forget recent history and fail to price any risk of busting or underperformance into the mix. There is a substantial, non-zero chance that Luck either flames out, or even simply settles into the Flacco, Bradford, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rivers stratosphere. Which would be a disappointment, given how he's being priced by some owners.

 

[EBF]

The problem is that even prospects that "simply can't fail" simply can, in fact, fail. Check out Reggie Bush. Or Benson, Brown, and Williams. Or Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, Peter Warrick. Sam Bradford, Tim Couch. Ryan Leaf. Robert Gallery. Glenn Dorsey. Courtney Brown, LaVar Arrington. David Terrell, Roy Williams (WR version), Mike Williams (OL version). I'm sure there are a lot of other names that aren't immediately coming to mind. A surprisingly high number of "can't miss prospects" can, and do, wind up missing.

I wouldn't say Bush has been a bust. Minor disappointment, but not a bust. He's actually been a key contributor for a ppr dynasty team of mine that's made the playoffs for something like 5 years in a row. And he's still going strong in FF and NFL terms. Brown/Benson/Williams were not can't-miss prospects. Anyone who touted them as such was way off base. That's not just hindsight speaking. They all had warts. The 2005 draft was soft. That's how a guy like Braylon (who couldn't leave after his junior year because he would've been the 4th WR drafted) ended up as a top 3 pick. Just a soft group all the way around. Alex Smith. Ronnie Brown. Braylon Edwards. Not a can't-miss prospect in the bunch. There is a difference between guys like Luck and Richardson, who would be the first player picked at their position in any draft, and guys like Smith and Brown, who just happened to be the first player picked in their particular draft. This is a very important distinction and it's usually pretty clear if you watch football and follow the draft closely. Calvin Johnson was a can't-miss prospect. Keenan Allen...not so much. It's a moot point because the risk of busting is offset and then some by the potential for a longer career. Drew Brees is almost 11 years older than Andrew Luck. 11 of his NFL seasons are done and gone. Luck has his whole career ahead of him. If we expect Brees to play for another 3-5 years and Luck to play for another 8-15 years, then Luck only needs something like a 50% chance of becoming a superstar to have more career value than Brees. This is an oversimplification of the math, but the general idea holds. And if Luck has closer to a 65-75% chance of reaching that level (which I think he does), he suddenly looks a lot more valuable than Brees (which I think he is).

 

[squistion]

Nobody is "can't miss". Not no one, not no time, not no how.

Amen.

 

[lbouchard]

The problem is that even prospects that "simply can't fail" simply can, in fact, fail. Check out Reggie Bush. Or Benson, Brown, and Williams. Or Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, Peter Warrick. Sam Bradford, Tim Couch. Ryan Leaf. Robert Gallery. Glenn Dorsey. Courtney Brown, LaVar Arrington. David Terrell, Roy Williams (WR version), Mike Williams (OL version). I'm sure there are a lot of other names that aren't immediately coming to mind. A surprisingly high number of "can't miss prospects" can, and do, wind up missing. Sometimes they become disappointments, sometimes they become outright busts, but in all cases they dramatically underperform their owners' expectations. Nobody is "can't miss". Not no one, not no time, not no how. And yet, with prospects we love, we frequently forget recent history and fail to price any risk of busting or underperformance into the mix. There is a substantial, non-zero chance that Luck either flames out, or even simply settles into the Flacco, Bradford, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rivers stratosphere. Which would be a disappointment, given how he's being priced by some owners.

Those might have been called "can't miss" prospect. But Luck is a flawless prospect, more than "can't miss". In recent memory, there have been 3 "perfect" prospects" : Calvin Johnson, Suh, and Andrew Luck. Luck is more than "can't miss".

 

[SSOG]

The problem is that even prospects that "simply can't fail" simply can, in fact, fail. Check out Reggie Bush. Or Benson, Brown, and Williams. Or Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, Peter Warrick. Sam Bradford, Tim Couch. Ryan Leaf. Robert Gallery. Glenn Dorsey. Courtney Brown, LaVar Arrington. David Terrell, Roy Williams (WR version), Mike Williams (OL version). I'm sure there are a lot of other names that aren't immediately coming to mind. A surprisingly high number of "can't miss prospects" can, and do, wind up missing.

I wouldn't say Bush has been a bust. Minor disappointment, but not a bust. He's actually been a key contributor for a ppr dynasty team of mine that's made the playoffs for something like 5 years in a row. And he's still going strong in FF and NFL terms. Brown/Benson/Williams were not can't-miss prospects. Anyone who touted them as such was way off base. That's not just hindsight speaking. They all had warts. The 2005 draft was soft. That's how a guy like Braylon (who couldn't leave after his junior year because he would've been the 4th WR drafted) ended up as a top 3 pick. Just a soft group all the way around. Alex Smith. Ronnie Brown. Braylon Edwards. Not a can't-miss prospect in the bunch. There is a difference between guys like Luck and Richardson, who would be the first player picked at their position in any draft, and guys like Smith and Brown, who just happened to be the first player picked in their particular draft. This is a very important distinction and it's usually pretty clear if you watch football and follow the draft closely. Calvin Johnson was a can't-miss prospect. Keenan Allen...not so much. It's a moot point because the risk of busting is offset and then some by the potential for a longer career. Drew Brees is almost 11 years older than Andrew Luck. 11 of his NFL seasons are done and gone. Luck has his whole career ahead of him. If we expect Brees to play for another 3-5 years and Luck to play for another 8-15 years, then Luck only needs something like a 50% chance of becoming a superstar to have more career value than Brees. This is an oversimplification of the math, but the general idea holds. And if Luck has closer to a 65-75% chance of reaching that level (which I think he does), he suddenly looks a lot more valuable than Brees (which I think he is).

"Minor disappointment"? Bush was being drafted with the first overall pick in startups before he'd ever played a down. He's finished 17th, 24th, 35th, 33rd, 62nd, and 13th in his six seasons so far. Bush has been a major disappointment. And I'm fine if you want to say guys like Brown, Benson, Williams, and Edwards weren't "can't miss", but no amount of spin will hide the fact that any list of truly, absolutely, positively strictest-definition "can't miss prospects" will include Charles Rodgers, Glenn Dorsey, Robert Gallery, LaVar Arrington, probably Peter Warrick... Lots of guys who missed, some spectacularly.I agree with your general point, though- if Luck has a 50% chance of becoming Brees, and twice the expected career remaining, then the EVs should be the same. I put Luck's chances of becoming a fantastic QB at higher than 50%... But his chances of becoming Drew Brees? Drew Brees has finished in the top 10 in overall VBD 4 times in the last 6 years. Not top 10 at QB, top 10 across all positions. In order for Luck to reach Drew Brees's production value, it won't be enough for him to become a phenomenal QB. He'll need to become one of the top 10-20 QBs in NFL history. I'd put his chances there at considerably below 50%. There's a large window between "awesome QB" and "fantasy uberstud". If Luck is the next Steve Young, trading Brees for him would be a coup. If he's the next Philip Rivers... yeah, not so much. If you would be willing to go to Vegas today and put $1000 on Luck to make the Hall of Fame with even odds, then sure, trade Brees for him. Otherwise... well, I'd still rather have Brees. Next year the calculus might be different. Two years from now it will certainly be different. Today? Brees.Another thing to consider is the advances in modern medicine. 30 years ago, an ACL tear was a career ender. 10 years ago, it was 12 months to return to the field and 24 to be productive. Today, we see guys like Peterson and Welker make a mockery of that timeline. Based on historical precedent, Brees might be nearing the end... but how long is historical precedent going to hold up? If Brees falls off the cliff at 37, Luck looks much more appealing. If Brees hangs on until 41, though? His best trait, his accuracy, is one that should be relatively impervious to Father Time's ravages. Is playing and performing into his 40s really that far-fetched?

 

[SSOG]

The problem is that even prospects that "simply can't fail" simply can, in fact, fail. Check out Reggie Bush. Or Benson, Brown, and Williams. Or Braylon Edwards, Charles Rodgers, Peter Warrick. Sam Bradford, Tim Couch. Ryan Leaf. Robert Gallery. Glenn Dorsey. Courtney Brown, LaVar Arrington. David Terrell, Roy Williams (WR version), Mike Williams (OL version). I'm sure there are a lot of other names that aren't immediately coming to mind. A surprisingly high number of "can't miss prospects" can, and do, wind up missing. Sometimes they become disappointments, sometimes they become outright busts, but in all cases they dramatically underperform their owners' expectations. Nobody is "can't miss". Not no one, not no time, not no how. And yet, with prospects we love, we frequently forget recent history and fail to price any risk of busting or underperformance into the mix. There is a substantial, non-zero chance that Luck either flames out, or even simply settles into the Flacco, Bradford, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rivers stratosphere. Which would be a disappointment, given how he's being priced by some owners.

Those might have been called "can't miss" prospect. But Luck is a flawless prospect, more than "can't miss". In recent memory, there have been 3 "perfect" prospects" : Calvin Johnson, Suh, and Andrew Luck. Luck is more than "can't miss".

That's pretty selective memory. Glenn Dorsey was Ndamakong Suh before there was an Ndamakong Suh. I heard Robert Gallery called the surest thing in 20 years when he was coming out. Charles Rodgers was easily on par with Calvin coming out (not quite the physical freak, but had the advantage of not playing college ball in a triple option offense). And, again, it's like people have just written Reggie Bush out of their collective memories. Reggie Bush was being drafted #1 overall in startup drafts. #1 overall. I don't think it's any exaggeration to call Bush the most highly hyped, highly rated fantasy prospect in the history of dynasty fantasy football. No matter how lofty, how selective, how strictly you define "can't miss", it is impossible to actually exclude all misses. "Can't miss" is an illusion, a trick produced by selective memory and hindsight bias.

 

[EBF]

I agree with your general point, though- if Luck has a 50% chance of becoming Brees, and twice the expected career remaining, then the EVs should be the same. I put Luck's chances of becoming a fantastic QB at higher than 50%... But his chances of becoming Drew Brees? Drew Brees has finished in the top 10 in overall VBD 4 times in the last 6 years. Not top 10 at QB, top 10 across all positions. In order for Luck to reach Drew Brees's production value, it won't be enough for him to become a phenomenal QB. He'll need to become one of the top 10-20 QBs in NFL history. I'd put his chances there at considerably below 50%. There's a large window between "awesome QB" and "fantasy uberstud". If Luck is the next Steve Young, trading Brees for him would be a coup. If he's the next Philip Rivers... yeah, not so much. If you would be willing to go to Vegas today and put $1000 on Luck to make the Hall of Fame with even odds, then sure, trade Brees for him. Otherwise... well, I'd still rather have Brees. Next year the calculus might be different. Two years from now it will certainly be different. Today? Brees.Another thing to consider is the advances in modern medicine. 30 years ago, an ACL tear was a career ender. 10 years ago, it was 12 months to return to the field and 24 to be productive. Today, we see guys like Peterson and Welker make a mockery of that timeline. Based on historical precedent, Brees might be nearing the end... but how long is historical precedent going to hold up? If Brees falls off the cliff at 37, Luck looks much more appealing. If Brees hangs on until 41, though? His best trait, his accuracy, is one that should be relatively impervious to Father Time's ravages. Is playing and performing into his 40s really that far-fetched?

The more I think about it, the more I favor Luck. I don't think it's even really close.Brees will be 34 right around the time of this year's Super Bowl. If he ages like Favre or Warner, he might have 6 good years left. If he ages like McNabb, he might have 1 good year left. Something in the middle seems like a reasonable expectation. Any developments in technology and science that might help his longevity should also apply to Luck, perhaps even moreso since science will be even more advanced when Luck is 33 than it is today. And while I can't make an accurate concrete prediction about how well Brees will hold up in his old age, the fact that he is smaller in stature than most QBs, has a history of shoulder injury, and has probably thrown more pass attempts over a five year span than any QB in NFL history probably doesn't bode well for him. In fact, his numbers have already dropped significantly from last season, and are only buoyed up by the fact that he's on pace for an ungodly 764 pass attempts this season. The sample size is small, but he might already be disintegrating before our very eyes. As for Luck, he is a prodigy touted as the best QB prospect of the past decade. I think he has a very good chance to develop into a perennial Pro Bowl type. And given that his remaining career expectancy could actually be about 12-17 years compared to something like 3-6 years for Brees, the 50% chance that I tossed out in my previous post might have been too conservative. If he has even a 30% chance of becoming Brees then he might have more value going forward. And yes, I'd take that bet. Anticipating the future is an important part of gauging dynasty values. Brees has been a great player, but you don't get credit for what he did over the past 5 seasons when you buy him now. You only get the future, and I don't think the outlook is brighter than a young star like Newton, Griffin, or Luck. I'd rather have any one of those guys and for me it's not really even that close.

 

[SSOG]

I agree with your general point, though- if Luck has a 50% chance of becoming Brees, and twice the expected career remaining, then the EVs should be the same. I put Luck's chances of becoming a fantastic QB at higher than 50%... But his chances of becoming Drew Brees? Drew Brees has finished in the top 10 in overall VBD 4 times in the last 6 years. Not top 10 at QB, top 10 across all positions. In order for Luck to reach Drew Brees's production value, it won't be enough for him to become a phenomenal QB. He'll need to become one of the top 10-20 QBs in NFL history. I'd put his chances there at considerably below 50%. There's a large window between "awesome QB" and "fantasy uberstud". If Luck is the next Steve Young, trading Brees for him would be a coup. If he's the next Philip Rivers... yeah, not so much. If you would be willing to go to Vegas today and put $1000 on Luck to make the Hall of Fame with even odds, then sure, trade Brees for him. Otherwise... well, I'd still rather have Brees. Next year the calculus might be different. Two years from now it will certainly be different. Today? Brees.Another thing to consider is the advances in modern medicine. 30 years ago, an ACL tear was a career ender. 10 years ago, it was 12 months to return to the field and 24 to be productive. Today, we see guys like Peterson and Welker make a mockery of that timeline. Based on historical precedent, Brees might be nearing the end... but how long is historical precedent going to hold up? If Brees falls off the cliff at 37, Luck looks much more appealing. If Brees hangs on until 41, though? His best trait, his accuracy, is one that should be relatively impervious to Father Time's ravages. Is playing and performing into his 40s really that far-fetched?

The more I think about it, the more I favor Luck. I don't think it's even really close.Brees will be 34 right around the time of this year's Super Bowl. If he ages like Favre or Warner, he might have 6 good years left. If he ages like McNabb, he might have 1 good year left. Something in the middle seems like a reasonable expectation. Any developments in technology and science that might help his longevity should also apply to Luck, perhaps even moreso since science will be even more advanced when Luck is 33 than it is today. And while I can't make an accurate concrete prediction about how well Brees will hold up in his old age, the fact that he is smaller in stature than most QBs, has a history of shoulder injury, and has probably thrown more pass attempts over a five year span than any QB in NFL history probably doesn't bode well for him. In fact, his numbers have already dropped significantly from last season, and are only buoyed up by the fact that he's on pace for an ungodly 764 pass attempts this season. The sample size is small, but he might already be disintegrating before our very eyes. As for Luck, he is a prodigy touted as the best QB prospect of the past decade. I think he has a very good chance to develop into a perennial Pro Bowl type. And given that his remaining career expectancy could actually be about 12-17 years compared to something like 3-6 years for Brees, the 50% chance that I tossed out in my previous post might have been too conservative. If he has even a 30% chance of becoming Brees then he might have more value going forward. And yes, I'd take that bet. Anticipating the future is an important part of gauging dynasty values. Brees has been a great player, but you don't get credit for what he did over the past 5 seasons when you buy him now. You only get the future, and I don't think the outlook is brighter than a young star like Newton, Griffin, or Luck. I'd rather have any one of those guys and for me it's not really even that close.

Is the any research suggesting throwing a lot of passes decreases a QB's career expectancy? We aren't talking about an RB getting 400 carries, here. Or a pitcher throwing 200 pitches. I don't know what Brees's attempts have to do with anything going forward. And it's possible that we're seeing the wheels come off... but it's infinitely more possible that we're just seeing Brees play without Peyton. And still put up top 10 overall VBD numbers. Also, you can't throw out Newton or Griffin into the argument, here. I'm not arguing Brees over Newton or Griffin. I wouldn't argue Brees over Newton or Griffin. With their rushing totals, I think both QBs have a much better shot at reaching the Brees stratosphere. I'm talking about Brees vs. Luck.

 

[EBF]

I still take Luck without hesitation. I can't speak for anyone else, but in general the "I know he's old, but I'll take the points now" line of thinking has been the precursor to some of my worst picks and trades in my dynasty leagues. Being risk-averse to the point of fault and waiting for every prospect to prove himself before you invest will often have you behind the curve in dynasty. Especially when you're talking about those rare once or twice per decade types who are hailed as truly special.

There is risk with Luck, but it's offset by a massive upside. And while Brees is an established veteran, there's no guarantee that he has many (or any) elite seasons left. I just see taking Brees over Luck that as the kind of pick that you'll like for the first two years and then regret for a decade afterward. It's not a move I'd make myself or advocate for anyone else.

I'm not interesting in arguing the point ad nauseam though. I've said what I wanted to say about it.

 

[Nucker101]

One thing that some dynasty owners sometimes forgot to realize when valuing players is the age of the surrounding talent, not just the age of the actual player, even if the player is young. This why I am weary of Gronk, Hernandez, Graham, etc. with Brees and Brady getting older. And the same goes for Demaryius Thomas.

 

[SSOG]

One thing that some dynasty owners sometimes forgot to realize when valuing players is the age of the surrounding talent, not just the age of the actual player, even if the player is young. This why I am weary of Gronk, Hernandez, Graham, etc. with Brees and Brady getting older. And the same goes for Demaryius Thomas.

Nobody is buying Demaryius because he's catching passes from Peyton. He looked just fine catching them from Timmy T, too.