Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[Adam Harstad]

I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts clearly and concisely. In fact, I'm a pretty good speller, but "concise" often seems like a four letter word for me. I'm working on it, and having a chance to use you guys as a sounding board for my thoughts gives me a great opportunity to see which are worth cultivating, and which sound silly the second I say them out loud (metaphorically speaking, of course). I know that the stereotype is that football is all about drinking beers and watching games, (and I love drinking beers and watching games), but I've been consistently impressed by how smart and, most importantly, thoughtful the average poster around here is (a sentiment that goes double for the dynasty guys). I didn't sign up to the forums because I had something to say and was just looking for a platform; in fact, I never would have imagined 10+ years ago that anyone would be all that interested in my thoughts on the subject. The fact that some people are has left me appreciative and, honestly, still a little bit surprised. There are a lot of people around here who are a lot more experienced and, I do not hesitate to admit, simply better at this than I am, and at no point do I mean to claim that I hold all the answers or some sort of special insight into the truth. I'm here because I love this sport, I love this hobby, I love thinking about it and analyzing it and discussing it with other people who love it right back. And I love all of you guys for loving it back, and for giving me a place to think about it and analyze it out loud.

Like I said, I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts, so I'm hoping this doesn't come off as disingenuous or false. I don't mean for it to. I was just struck this morning by how much I appreciate all the give and take that's taken place around here over the years. I appreciate how much better of a player you all have made me. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been wrong and who has dragged me kicking and screaming back from the edge. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been muddled and forced me to crystalize and clarify and sharpen my points. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been right and who has forced me to re-evaluate without re-entrenching. Hell, I appreciate everyone who has ever disagreed with me for any reason, because as should be obvious, I love me some arguing. And I appreciate everyone who has agreed with me, too, letting me know I'm not miles off the beaten track, letting me know if I'm heading in the right direction, giving me some strength in my convictions when they seem silly or pointless.

So, bringing this train into the station, I was just thinking of the community that has been built here over the years, and I know I'm not very good at letting people know how much I appreciate them. So I wanted to tell everyone here, but especially you guys- especially the Dynasty Threaders (new and old), especially the hardcore deviants slumming around a fantasy football message board at the beginning of June, the taste-makers and the consensus-setters- that I really do appreciate you all. And I strongly suspect I'm not the only one who does.

 

[renesauz]

Very short-sighted philosophy. Bench players don't go DOWN in value just because a year passes, they go up or down based on the probability of them becoming fantasy starter worthy. If player X is going to break out in his 3rd year, his REAL (not projected or guessed) value is still RISING through his first 3 seasons, not falling. Your theory fails to account for opportunity cost- the value of the roster spot locked up by a player you can't yet utilize. Even if you had the perfect crystal ball and knew exactly what player X would do every season for the next 10 years, his max value would still be just before whatever season he becomes a fantasy starter to stay...NOT 2 or 3 years ahead of that date.

Your explanation here implies that a player with 10 years of mediocre production ahead of him ....ten years of bye week level (sub level) production...would hold more real value than a perennial all-pro with only a year or two of fantasy WR1-2 production and another season of bye week production left. I know you don't believe this (nobody does), but your logic here leads to this. We'd all take 2 years of a fantasy WR1/2 over 10 years of meh on our bench.

Again, Value is not Points. Value is some ephemeral catch-all that means "whatever production you gain in excess of some baseline". If a guy is projected to score 5 points a year for the next 100 years, his value is not "500", it is zero. Actually, it is negative, because that production certainly falls *BELOW* whatever baseline you're using. If a guy is worse than a street free agent, then his value is negative. If a guy is not starter caliber, his value is zero or negative. This is the same reasoning behind the whole "if I can get 75% of Crabtree's production, then even if I lose him for his entire career I've only lost 25% of his value" fallacy.

I will agree that if we had an absolutely perfect crystal ball (or the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and we graphed a player's "true value" (as opposed to projected or estimated value) over time, it is possible a lot of guys would see their value rise slightly for their first few years before it finally started falling. Jimmy Smith is a good example- even with perfect hindsight, his value was higher when he joined the Jags than it was when he joined the Cowboys because there was less opportunity cost in terms of how long you had to tie up a roster spot. Still, this only matters for purposes of whether to roster him if there are street free agents with a higher value than Smith, which would depend a lot on league size and roster size, but which would be unlikely in most formats.

Either way, while adding the opportunity cost of a roster spot and creating a situation where "true value" can rise with respect to time might improve the accuracy of the thought experiment, I estimated that the accuracy gains were small enough as to be outweighed by the loss of simplicity. The thought experiment wasn't meant to be a deep metadiscussion on the concept of true inherent value, it was more meant to be an exercise demonstrating that the objective of most rankings is not going to be to track perfectly with true inherent value. In the thought experiment, it is inarguable that the hypothetical WR lost "true value", yet I suspect that the vast majority of fantasy players would not lower their "estimated value" of the player in response. And I'm not arguing that they should, either, I'm just pointing out the discrepancy.

I understand...you did clarify somewhat. But 10 points of "value" per year for 5 years is NOT better than 13 points of value for 3 years...it just isn't. And this line of thinking really does neglect opportunity costs, falsely inflating the value of younger players who may not be fantasy starter worthy for a couple seasons.

I don't think we are as far apart as the posts might imply. I was simply pointing out the flaw in trying to over-simplify the equation. It's still a thought experiment either way until someone invents a crystal ball that actually works.

 

[renesauz]

I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts clearly and concisely. In fact, I'm a pretty good speller, but "concise" often seems like a four letter word for me. I'm working on it, and having a chance to use you guys as a sounding board for my thoughts gives me a great opportunity to see which are worth cultivating, and which sound silly the second I say them out loud (metaphorically speaking, of course). I know that the stereotype is that football is all about drinking beers and watching games, (and I love drinking beers and watching games), but I've been consistently impressed by how smart and, most importantly, thoughtful the average poster around here is (a sentiment that goes double for the dynasty guys). I didn't sign up to the forums because I had something to say and was just looking for a platform; in fact, I never would have imagined 10+ years ago that anyone would be all that interested in my thoughts on the subject. The fact that some people are has left me appreciative and, honestly, still a little bit surprised. There are a lot of people around here who are a lot more experienced and, I do not hesitate to admit, simply better at this than I am, and at no point do I mean to claim that I hold all the answers or some sort of special insight into the truth. I'm here because I love this sport, I love this hobby, I love thinking about it and analyzing it and discussing it with other people who love it right back. And I love all of you guys for loving it back, and for giving me a place to think about it and analyze it out loud.

Like I said, I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts, so I'm hoping this doesn't come off as disingenuous or false. I don't mean for it to. I was just struck this morning by how much I appreciate all the give and take that's taken place around here over the years. I appreciate how much better of a player you all have made me. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been wrong and who has dragged me kicking and screaming back from the edge. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been muddled and forced me to crystalize and clarify and sharpen my points. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been right and who has forced me to re-evaluate without re-entrenching. Hell, I appreciate everyone who has ever disagreed with me for any reason, because as should be obvious, I love me some arguing. And I appreciate everyone who has agreed with me, too, letting me know I'm not miles off the beaten track, letting me know if I'm heading in the right direction, giving me some strength in my convictions when they seem silly or pointless.

So, bringing this train into the station, I was just thinking of the community that has been built here over the years, and I know I'm not very good at letting people know how much I appreciate them. So I wanted to tell everyone here, but especially you guys- especially the Dynasty Threaders (new and old), especially the hardcore deviants slumming around a fantasy football message board at the beginning of June, the taste-makers and the consensus-setters- that I really do appreciate you all. And I strongly suspect I'm not the only one who does.

Finding that icon reminded me how poorly this new board is constructed...why aren't the most popular smilies at the beginning of the list?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not quite. Jones-Drew is two years younger, has been substantially more productive that Gore over his career, and faces less competition. He's more likely to be a top-12 RB this year, and he's more likely to be able to sustain that for multiple years to come. He is a substantially more valuable dynasty asset (i.e. I think one Jones-Drew is worth several Gores- at least two, possibly three).

With that said, I'd be pretty happy to trade for Gore as my RB2 this season if the price was right. And in leagues where his owner is not counting on him as a starter, the price is almost always right.

Substantially?

Career stats:

Gore

MJD

Maurice Jones-Drew: 14.4 points per game

Frank Gore: 13.0 points per game

I concede that "substantially" is a pretty vague word that could mean anything (one man's "substantially" is another man's "marginally"), but to put it in more concrete terms, we're talking about roughly the difference last year between Ray Rice and Stevan Ridley.

His injury last year notwithstanding, I'd say the comparison has tilted even more towards Jones-Drew in recent years. MJD was more valuable than Gore every year from 2008-2011.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Very short-sighted philosophy. Bench players don't go DOWN in value just because a year passes, they go up or down based on the probability of them becoming fantasy starter worthy. If player X is going to break out in his 3rd year, his REAL (not projected or guessed) value is still RISING through his first 3 seasons, not falling. Your theory fails to account for opportunity cost- the value of the roster spot locked up by a player you can't yet utilize. Even if you had the perfect crystal ball and knew exactly what player X would do every season for the next 10 years, his max value would still be just before whatever season he becomes a fantasy starter to stay...NOT 2 or 3 years ahead of that date.

Your explanation here implies that a player with 10 years of mediocre production ahead of him ....ten years of bye week level (sub level) production...would hold more real value than a perennial all-pro with only a year or two of fantasy WR1-2 production and another season of bye week production left. I know you don't believe this (nobody does), but your logic here leads to this. We'd all take 2 years of a fantasy WR1/2 over 10 years of meh on our bench.

Again, Value is not Points. Value is some ephemeral catch-all that means "whatever production you gain in excess of some baseline". If a guy is projected to score 5 points a year for the next 100 years, his value is not "500", it is zero. Actually, it is negative, because that production certainly falls *BELOW* whatever baseline you're using. If a guy is worse than a street free agent, then his value is negative. If a guy is not starter caliber, his value is zero or negative. This is the same reasoning behind the whole "if I can get 75% of Crabtree's production, then even if I lose him for his entire career I've only lost 25% of his value" fallacy.

I will agree that if we had an absolutely perfect crystal ball (or the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and we graphed a player's "true value" (as opposed to projected or estimated value) over time, it is possible a lot of guys would see their value rise slightly for their first few years before it finally started falling. Jimmy Smith is a good example- even with perfect hindsight, his value was higher when he joined the Jags than it was when he joined the Cowboys because there was less opportunity cost in terms of how long you had to tie up a roster spot. Still, this only matters for purposes of whether to roster him if there are street free agents with a higher value than Smith, which would depend a lot on league size and roster size, but which would be unlikely in most formats.

Either way, while adding the opportunity cost of a roster spot and creating a situation where "true value" can rise with respect to time might improve the accuracy of the thought experiment, I estimated that the accuracy gains were small enough as to be outweighed by the loss of simplicity. The thought experiment wasn't meant to be a deep metadiscussion on the concept of true inherent value, it was more meant to be an exercise demonstrating that the objective of most rankings is not going to be to track perfectly with true inherent value. In the thought experiment, it is inarguable that the hypothetical WR lost "true value", yet I suspect that the vast majority of fantasy players would not lower their "estimated value" of the player in response. And I'm not arguing that they should, either, I'm just pointing out the discrepancy.

I understand...you did clarify somewhat. But 10 points of "value" per year for 5 years is NOT better than 13 points of value for 3 years...it just isn't. And this line of thinking really does neglect opportunity costs, falsely inflating the value of younger players who may not be fantasy starter worthy for a couple seasons.

I don't think we are as far apart as the posts might imply. I was simply pointing out the flaw in trying to over-simplify the equation. It's still a thought experiment either way until someone invents a crystal ball that actually works.

When I discuss value, I'm speaking of some mythical number that has opportunity cost already baked in. Sort of like VBD, only without VBD's flaws or biases. In theory, this mythical "true value" concept would already account for the fact that each subsequent point of VBD is worth more than the previous point (i.e. one 200 VBD season is not equal in value to two 100 VBD seasons). "Value" to me is sort of like what "Utility" is an economist- it's this magical word that somehow manages to encompass all of the thousands of different variables into one neat little figure so that we can compare otherwise impossibly disparate values. It doesn't exist in the real world, it's just a tool that allows us to move about in the world of theory.

As I said, too, at some point ease is more important than accuracy. Sometimes I'm in favor of using a "close-but-not-quite" analogy in a thought experiment if any gains from improving the accuracy are offset by greater costs to ease. This discussion of "value" is very fascinating, but it's thus far encompassed a half dozen posts and thousands of words. If I had included the discussion as a side-bar in the original thought experiment, the thought experiment would have been marginally more accurate (although I would argue irrelevantly so), but it would have been so hard to follow that no one would have bothered.

Edit: I do sometimes envision us all as economists, developing our models and crunching our numbers and then all shouting "well, that's great in practice, but does it work in theory?!"

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I see what you're getting at, but really the only thing that I see MJD having over Gore is age. Which is a consideration when we're talking about dynasty but when you compare the teams that they're playing for today I think you have to give the edge to Gore.

Plus, Gore appears over his injury history and MJD is still recovering from a lisfranc injury.

Anyway, I'm jumping into this conversation late so it's probably best for me to bow out while just throwing in $.02.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I see what you're getting at, but really the only thing that I see MJD having over Gore is age. Which is a consideration when we're talking about dynasty but when you compare the teams that they're playing for today I think you have to give the edge to Gore.

Plus, Gore appears over his injury history and MJD is still recovering from a lisfranc injury.

Anyway, I'm jumping into this conversation late so it's probably best for me to bow out while just throwing in $.02.

Nah, the Gore/MJD conversation's just getting rolling. Actually, I was thinking there'd be much more of a difference between them in redraft, but looking at the consensus rankings, MJD is current at 13 while Gore is at 17. If it seems larger to me, that's because I tend to be a slight outlier on Jones-Drew, putting him up at 10th.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Very short-sighted philosophy. Bench players don't go DOWN in value just because a year passes, they go up or down based on the probability of them becoming fantasy starter worthy. If player X is going to break out in his 3rd year, his REAL (not projected or guessed) value is still RISING through his first 3 seasons, not falling. Your theory fails to account for opportunity cost- the value of the roster spot locked up by a player you can't yet utilize. Even if you had the perfect crystal ball and knew exactly what player X would do every season for the next 10 years, his max value would still be just before whatever season he becomes a fantasy starter to stay...NOT 2 or 3 years ahead of that date.

Your explanation here implies that a player with 10 years of mediocre production ahead of him ....ten years of bye week level (sub level) production...would hold more real value than a perennial all-pro with only a year or two of fantasy WR1-2 production and another season of bye week production left. I know you don't believe this (nobody does), but your logic here leads to this. We'd all take 2 years of a fantasy WR1/2 over 10 years of meh on our bench.

Again, Value is not Points. Value is some ephemeral catch-all that means "whatever production you gain in excess of some baseline". If a guy is projected to score 5 points a year for the next 100 years, his value is not "500", it is zero. Actually, it is negative, because that production certainly falls *BELOW* whatever baseline you're using. If a guy is worse than a street free agent, then his value is negative. If a guy is not starter caliber, his value is zero or negative. This is the same reasoning behind the whole "if I can get 75% of Crabtree's production, then even if I lose him for his entire career I've only lost 25% of his value" fallacy.

I will agree that if we had an absolutely perfect crystal ball (or the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) and we graphed a player's "true value" (as opposed to projected or estimated value) over time, it is possible a lot of guys would see their value rise slightly for their first few years before it finally started falling. Jimmy Smith is a good example- even with perfect hindsight, his value was higher when he joined the Jags than it was when he joined the Cowboys because there was less opportunity cost in terms of how long you had to tie up a roster spot. Still, this only matters for purposes of whether to roster him if there are street free agents with a higher value than Smith, which would depend a lot on league size and roster size, but which would be unlikely in most formats.

Either way, while adding the opportunity cost of a roster spot and creating a situation where "true value" can rise with respect to time might improve the accuracy of the thought experiment, I estimated that the accuracy gains were small enough as to be outweighed by the loss of simplicity. The thought experiment wasn't meant to be a deep metadiscussion on the concept of true inherent value, it was more meant to be an exercise demonstrating that the objective of most rankings is not going to be to track perfectly with true inherent value. In the thought experiment, it is inarguable that the hypothetical WR lost "true value", yet I suspect that the vast majority of fantasy players would not lower their "estimated value" of the player in response. And I'm not arguing that they should, either, I'm just pointing out the discrepancy.

I understand...you did clarify somewhat. But 10 points of "value" per year for 5 years is NOT better than 13 points of value for 3 years...it just isn't. And this line of thinking really does neglect opportunity costs, falsely inflating the value of younger players who may not be fantasy starter worthy for a couple seasons.

I don't think we are as far apart as the posts might imply. I was simply pointing out the flaw in trying to over-simplify the equation. It's still a thought experiment either way until someone invents a crystal ball that actually works.

When I discuss value, I'm speaking of some mythical number that has opportunity cost already baked in. Sort of like VBD, only without VBD's flaws or biases. In theory, this mythical "true value" concept would already account for the fact that each subsequent point of VBD is worth more than the previous point (i.e. one 200 VBD season is not equal in value to two 100 VBD seasons). "Value" to me is sort of like what "Utility" is an economist- it's this magical word that somehow manages to encompass all of the thousands of different variables into one neat little figure so that we can compare otherwise impossibly disparate values. It doesn't exist in the real world, it's just a tool that allows us to move about in the world of theory.

As I said, too, at some point ease is more important than accuracy. Sometimes I'm in favor of using a "close-but-not-quite" analogy in a thought experiment if any gains from improving the accuracy are offset by greater costs to ease. This discussion of "value" is very fascinating, but it's thus far encompassed a half dozen posts and thousands of words. If I had included the discussion as a side-bar in the original thought experiment, the thought experiment would have been marginally more accurate (although I would argue irrelevantly so), but it would have been so hard to follow that no one would have bothered.

Edit: I do sometimes envision us all as economists, developing our models and crunching our numbers and then all shouting "well, that's great in practice, but does it work in theory?!"

Thinking more about this, the word "value" already has so much baggage surrounding it- everyone is going to read it and insert their own particular definitions rather than whatever I intended them to understand it as- that I'm going to endeavor to start using "Utility" instead of "Value". I think that's a word that is much more clearly and less ambiguously understood. If a player has 200 points of utility, and he produces 30 points during the year, then after that year he retains 170 points of utility. I think that gets us all a lot closer to the same page and cuts down on the semantical arguments where everyone really agrees with everyone else, they just don't realize it yet.

 

[MAC_32]

I see what you're getting at, but really the only thing that I see MJD having over Gore is age. Which is a consideration when we're talking about dynasty but when you compare the teams that they're playing for today I think you have to give the edge to Gore.

Plus, Gore appears over his injury history and MJD is still recovering from a lisfranc injury.

Anyway, I'm jumping into this conversation late so it's probably best for me to bow out while just throwing in $.02.

I put more weight on age than injuries, but given the nature of MJD's ailments lately I think his remaining useful life is about the same as Gore's anyway. Bone on bone has been rumored as far back as offseason 2010 iirc. Constant issues since and recovery time is getting longer and longer, he's about at the end of the line.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I was thinking more about the utility or "true value" formula (pre-season utility = X, season utility = Y, post-season utility = X-Y). I was initially thinking that guys like Jimmy Smith whose utility rose in early years were problematic, but actually, they aren't. They just provide negative utility in their early seasons (representing the opportunity cost of rostering them with nothing to show for it). If Smith's utility was 100 when he was drafted by the Cowboys, and he cost 10 points of utility with the Cowboys, then his utility when he joined the Jags would have been 100 - (-10), or 110. His utility went up because the opportunity cost is now behind him, no need to alter the formula or carve out exceptions.

I apologize if this was obvious to everyone else, but it was an "aha moment" for me.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

So much wrong with this post. So much.

 

[DoubleG]

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

 

[EBF]

If Thomas isn't 100% right now then I shudder to think of what he'd be like healthy. He's one of the best talents at WR in the NFL. Right up there with guys like Calvin, Andre, and Fitz.

I think he's a good example of someone who bounced back from an Achilles injury with no apparent loss of athletic ability. Not everyone has been that fortunate though.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

I didn't elaborate because getting into an argument over semantics such as "He's not a world class athlete" usually just ends in a silly pissing match. If you choose to believe that a guy that starts at a position such as WR in the NFL, has a first round draft pedigree and statistics to back it up isn't a world class athlete then we just have to agree to disagree. Furthering the ignorance is to bring up a kicker which would be a comical comparison if he wasn't so serious about it.

The point I was making was that I've seen people write off any Thomas comparison as "he's just physically more gifted so he was able to over come it". This just seems inherently wrong to me. He overcame it, he's one of the best wide outs in the game. This should be a positive for those hoping Crabtree can recover.

Bringing up Thomas' height and size doesn't really mean much to me. Plenty of guys his size have failed in the NFL. To be where he's at you have to be able to do a lot of things really well that require two healthy legs. No one is arguing Crabtree was or ever will be at Thomas' level, I'm just saying if Thomas can get back to what appears to be full strength then we should have confidence Crabtree can get back to where he was at.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

There are differing levels of athleticism within the NFL itself, but saying NFL players are merely good athletes is really dumb. Every single non-kicker drawing an NFL paycheck is a spectacularly gifted athlete.

Crabtree isn't DT, but not many are. Thomas is a physical freak of nature second only to Calvin Johnsob. Crabtree is "just" a good NFL WR1 -- which probably puts him in the 99.999999th percentile as far as human athletic ability -- absolutely world class.

 

[tdmills]

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

I didn't elaborate because getting into an argument over semantics such as "He's not a world class athlete" usually just ends in a silly pissing match. If you choose to believe that a guy that starts at a position such as WR in the NFL, has a first round draft pedigree and statistics to back it up isn't a world class athlete then we just have to agree to disagree. Furthering the ignorance is to bring up a kicker which would be a comical comparison if he wasn't so serious about it.

The point I was making was that I've seen people write off any Thomas comparison as "he's just physically more gifted so he was able to over come it". This just seems inherently wrong to me. He overcame it, he's one of the best wide outs in the game. This should be a positive for those hoping Crabtree can recover.

Bringing up Thomas' height and size doesn't really mean much to me. Plenty of guys his size have failed in the NFL. To be where he's at you have to be able to do a lot of things really well that require two healthy legs. No one is arguing Crabtree was or ever will be at Thomas' level, I'm just saying if Thomas can get back to what appears to be full strength then we should have confidence Crabtree can get back to where he was at.

Again, YOU brought up Thomas. Lets switch it to say Anquan Boldin, who's lost a step(like potentially Crabtree could) he survives due to his elite strength/toughness. However he hasn't been FF WR1/2 for years, which shows what losing a little physical skill can do at that level.

 

[Sabertooth]

Robert Turbin or Christine Michael? Who do you prefer and why? To be honest I was surprised when Seattle selected Michael in the draft. They seemed fairly settled on a quality backup in Turbin. And to spend a pick like they did when guys like Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, Glennon, Barkley, Nassib, and Wilson were still on the board spoke to their esteem of Michael. So why make the pick unless it was one of those situation where the value was just so high, you couldn't pass it up? Seems like that's what the situation was here. They passed up some very good players at need positions to select this kid at a position where they were already deep.

I don't know much about Michael. On the Audible this week I think Waldman said as a runner he was a first round talent. It is more maturity, blocking, and professionalism that allowed him to slide. Turbin sure looked the part last season though and suddenly Seattle has perhaps the deepest group of RBs in the NFL.

So who is going to have the value as a handcuff here? If I had to pick I'd go with Turbin right now. But Michael could beat him out.

 

[tdmills]

There are differing levels of athleticism within the NFL itself, but saying NFL players are merely good athletes is really dumb. Every single non-kicker drawing an NFL paycheck is a spectacularly gifted athlete.Crabtree isn't DT, but not many are. Thomas is a physical freak of nature second only to Calvin Johnsob. Crabtree is "just" a good NFL WR1 -- which probably puts him in the 99.999999th percentile as far as human athletic ability -- absolutely world class.

This is semantics at the end of the day. My overall point is Crabtree can't lean on being tall/big(6'3 +) or go down from a 4.3 to 4.4 and still be a WR1 in FF. If you think so, that's your business. I think Crabtree isn't an elite/world class athlete, therefore he doesn't have as much to "give". To think of this in another realm. If Usian Bolt lost 5% of his speed, he would still be near the top of his sport because he's just that much better. Others just don't have that luxury.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

If Crabtree comes back less explosive, I don't think the comparison is Little, who has YAC ability but shoddy hands. I think it's someone with limited separation/YAC potential but very solid hands. Can't come up with a comparison off the top of my head. But he could still be a target monster with how much Kaep loves throwing to him.

I agree on the hands, but I don't think Little has great separation, which is why I brought him up. Either way, my concern is Crabtree isn't an elite athlete. He doesn't run in the 4.3's, probably not even in the 4.4's. He isn't elite quick or elite strong. He isn't 6'3 either. Point being that he can't rely on other things to get by if he doesn't return to full strength and that's the biggest concern of all.

And my problem with this thinking is that you seem to be assuming Thomas is relying on those things to get him by rather than he just made a full recovery and has those things.

Did I mention Thomas?

If you want to compare, Thomas is a different animal from Crabtree. Speed=Thomas, Size=Thomas, Strength=Thomas, YAC=even. Thomas had a partial tear of his Achilles, Crabtree had a full tear.

Someone did a page ago, I thought it might have been you.

I don't think anyone is saying differently that Thomas has Crabtree on all the physical traits which is why he is considered the better WR today and 2 months ago. The point is Thomas appears to have made a full recovery which should be an encouraging sign for Crabtree instead of being twisted by some to be a negative because "Crabtree doesn't have the physical traits to get by". He plays in the NFL, he's a world class athlete.

Two things:

1) We don't know if Thomas has made a full recovery. He may only be playing at 90% of what he was at pre-injury. But due to his overwhelming athleticism, he can overcome that. No, Crabtree isn't a world class athlete.

2) Partial(Thomas) and full tear(Crabtree) is a big difference.

ETA:

World Class=elite

Playing in the NFL<Good athlete

Is Mason Crosby a world class athlete? No

So much wrong with this post. So much.

Would you care to elaborate? Honestly, I own/have owned both in dynasty leagues - and feel that tdmills' points are fairly valid. Crabtree is not the physically gifted athlete that DT is. He wasn't that before the injury - and quite possibly could be even less so after it. DT has height and size, which were not effected by the injury - and he seems to have recovered most of his speed. Crabtree relies more on cutting ability and running good, clean routes - which could be more adversely effected by his injury - especially if he doesn't come back near 100%.

I didn't elaborate because getting into an argument over semantics such as "He's not a world class athlete" usually just ends in a silly pissing match. If you choose to believe that a guy that starts at a position such as WR in the NFL, has a first round draft pedigree and statistics to back it up isn't a world class athlete then we just have to agree to disagree. Furthering the ignorance is to bring up a kicker which would be a comical comparison if he wasn't so serious about it.

The point I was making was that I've seen people write off any Thomas comparison as "he's just physically more gifted so he was able to over come it". This just seems inherently wrong to me. He overcame it, he's one of the best wide outs in the game. This should be a positive for those hoping Crabtree can recover.

Bringing up Thomas' height and size doesn't really mean much to me. Plenty of guys his size have failed in the NFL. To be where he's at you have to be able to do a lot of things really well that require two healthy legs. No one is arguing Crabtree was or ever will be at Thomas' level, I'm just saying if Thomas can get back to what appears to be full strength then we should have confidence Crabtree can get back to where he was at.

Again, YOU brought up Thomas. Lets switch it to say Anquan Boldin, who's lost a step(like potentially Crabtree could) he survives due to his elite strength/toughness. However he hasn't been FF WR1/2 for years, which shows what losing a little physical skill can do at that level.

I did bring up Thomas. So what? You continued the discussion.

I fail to see what Anquan Boldin has anything to do with Achilles tears. At least you're sticking to the same position this time, though.

 

[ratbast]

I bought Leshore at the end of the season. I am not really worried that Bush will hurt Ms value beyond the now. Frankly, as a keeper, isn't it better than if Detroit drafted Lacy etc?

I still think Leshore could be a decent RB2 and if Bush gets older or hurt then it might be time to shine, RB1! Am I crazy?

 

[EBF]

Robert Turbin or Christine Michael? Who do you prefer and why? To be honest I was surprised when Seattle selected Michael in the draft. They seemed fairly settled on a quality backup in Turbin. And to spend a pick like they did when guys like Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, Glennon, Barkley, Nassib, and Wilson were still on the board spoke to their esteem of Michael. So why make the pick unless it was one of those situation where the value was just so high, you couldn't pass it up? Seems like that's what the situation was here. They passed up some very good players at need positions to select this kid at a position where they were already deep.

I don't know much about Michael. On the Audible this week I think Waldman said as a runner he was a first round talent. It is more maturity, blocking, and professionalism that allowed him to slide. Turbin sure looked the part last season though and suddenly Seattle has perhaps the deepest group of RBs in the NFL.

So who is going to have the value as a handcuff here? If I had to pick I'd go with Turbin right now. But Michael could beat him out.

I'd prefer Michael by a pretty wide margin. I liked Turbin okay last year, but if Seattle felt he was a future starter then I kind of doubt they would've pulled the trigger on Michael so high.

I think Michael is a pretty good prospect. He's got the height/weight/speed/burst that you want in a top shelf #1 back. Freakish workout numbers. His acceleration is good. He gets to top speed in a flash. The upside is obvious, but so are the drawbacks. Despite all of his talent, he never put together a complete season in college. He didn't break the 1000 yard barrier in any of his four seasons. I think his instincts and elusiveness are questionable. He's a bit stiff once he gets past the line of scrimmage and doesn't seem to have a great feel for making fluid cuts and avoiding hits. I think this type of back is more prone to injuries than shiftier backs because they take more direct shots and fewer glancing blows (think Mathews/McFadden vs. Rice/Martin).

There's still enough there to make him a good investment at his current cost. He's capable of looking great in spurts and his value will go up a lot if/when Lynch moves on.

If you get him and you've got some extra roster space, I'd also recommend pairing him with Spencer Ware for insurance. Ware is slated to play some fullback for Seattle, but he only weighed 218 at their rookie camp and could end up being better suited as a ball carrier than a blocker. He's a decent athlete and a better pass catcher than Michael. A longshot for sure, but talented and cheap enough that you ought to grab him in case this breaks weird like Pead/Richardson last year.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Let's say he's got 7 more years. 1 year of 0, and 6 years with an average of 150 each. That's 900 points if my math is correct.I get that 1 year of a replacement guy with only 100 points. So injured Crabtree means my "WR3" slot (or WR2, whatever) gets 1000 points over the next 7 years. Uninjured Crabtree would have netted me 7 years of 150 points, or 1050 points total for that starting spot in my roster. That's what, roughly a 5% difference spread out over the course of 7 years? I would call that insignificant.

You're calculation using percentage of Crab's value lost is suffering from the same mistake that Warrior is making above. By your calculation, if Crabtree were out for his entire career, he would have only suffered a roughly 33% loss in value spread out over 7 years (when in reality, you lost 100% of his value).

My team didn't lose the value though. If you're worried about playing FF like the stock market, then yeah it matters. But if you're worried about points in your starting lineup...

I suppose a better way to look at it would be Crabtree's value as 50 over 6 years vs 50 over 7 years. Looking at his incremental value over that replacement player (150 per year vs the 100 I get from a replacement).

In which case you've lost 50/350 points, or roughly what, 14% over 7 years? 2% per year...again, not significant enough for me to change my valuation of him. It doesn't materially affect my ability to win each year for 7 years, such that I would value him less.

Your team did lose value, and the stock market concept had nothing to do with it. It lost all of the value that Crabtree was providing (in your example, the 50 extra points which is the value that Crabtree was providing in production).

Your “better way” of looking at it is simply the same formula that some others have indicated, and that is the percentage of the time lost divided by the total career – that is 1 year divided by 7 years or 14%. You can substitute any number for the replacement value and you’ll still come up with a 14% loss. You lost essentially 1 year out of 7 (1/7=14%).

Quantifying that loss on a per year basis (2% per year), while sounding less impactful, does not change that there was a 14% overall loss. For example, you can say that the loss is really just .005% per day which makes it sound even smaller, but that doesn’t change the total loss of 14%.

In all of this, I am not saying that is the best way to quantify the loss, or really getting into the crux of your original argument, but only that your use of percentages was not accurate and did not support your original argument (actually goes against it).

I think you were really saying that you value Crabtree at some value. After the injury, sure you miss the time he is out, but his true dynasty value from a practical sense (which is not just the aggregate of his production value for his entire career) is still very very close to what it was. This is not quantifiable by production numbers and percentages from what I can tell (although SSOG and others probably can figure some formula out).

Yes. And my use of that 14% (or 2% per year) of lost points was to show that I don't lose a lot of point production, which is why I feel like his value should be unchanged. I'm looking at value as his worth, as what I'd pay for him. I derive that (mostly) from expected production over a replacement. Because I don't expect to lose a ton of production over a replacement, his value to me is unchanged.

All of this is separate from the fact that he's a risk not to return to full production (I also happen to believe this is practically nil, and the market hasn't yet adjusted for improved medical technology and recoveries), which is a separate factor in his value (risk profile).

It's like a stock: A) expected dividends and B) stock appreciation

Just because a stock I own has decided not to declare dividends this year does not mean I dramatically decrease its value to me.

Although it isn't a perfect analogy (because dividends work against appreciation in a vacuum, and stocks conceivably exist forever) it is close enough that, as a Finance major, it helps me value players with less of a bias from fandom.

Oh, you're a Finance major? Well now I'm convinced.

Go check out some stocks with a historically high dividend percentage, and tell me what happens if they suspend dividend payments for a year.

Pop quiz: do you think the stock price typically goes up or down?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I bought Leshore at the end of the season. I am not really worried that Bush will hurt Ms value beyond the now. Frankly, as a keeper, isn't it better than if Detroit drafted Lacy etc?I still think Leshore could be a decent RB2 and if Bush gets older or hurt then it might be time to shine, RB1!Am I crazy?

Leshoure looked like just a guy to me last year. He was noticeably less dynamic than Joique Bell, which isn't a good sign. Maybe he'll get better the further removed he gets from his injury, but Bush or no I am not excited moving forward. He feels like a backup / short yardage type to me.

 

[MAC_32]

Whether leshoure is a player or not depends entirely on himself. Pre injury version? Legit. Repeat of last year? Backup for four or five years, done.

 

[DoubleG]

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

 

[tdmills]

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

Thanks for clarifying/understanding what my point was in this discussion. I honestly don't have time/care enough to bicker back and forth with people.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

I understand what he meant about Boldin. I'm not disagreeing that if Crabtree comes back less than himself he will not have the same impact he did. This seems like common sense. The point I've been trying to make is that everyone assumes he will come back less than 100%, and the comparison of Thomas is used as a recent example to show that perhaps medical science has figured this tricky injury out - there is hope.

Thomas' injury may have knocked him down from what he could have been, but considering where he is now and where his expectations were when he was drafted I feel like he is playing up to the potential designated to him pre-injury. To me, it's a safer bet assuming he's fully recovered rather than thinking he would have been Calvin Johnson 2.0 if only he didn't have the injury.

 

[EBF]

Thomas' injury may have knocked him down from what he could have been, but considering where he is now and where his expectations were when he was drafted I feel like he is playing up to the potential designated to him pre-injury. To me, it's a safer bet assuming he's fully recovered rather than thinking he would have been Calvin Johnson 2.0 if only he didn't have the injury.

Thomas lead all 1000+ yard receivers last season in yards per target at 10.17. I think in some ways he's already better than Calvin. Calvin has a lot of straight line speed, but Thomas is a lot more agile. He's arguably the best WR in football at the moment, so I agree that he's probably back to 100%. There's nothing he can't do.

Crabtree is a good player, but he's not that kind of a talent. His overall production spiked last year because his conversion rate went up a little bit, he had more targets than ever before, and he scored a career high in TDs. His YPR was pretty much on par with his career average though. He has hovered right around 13 yards per catch since entering the league. He's not really a big play receiver. He's a volume/possession guy with some YAC skills. I think there's less room for him to lose a half step and still be viable in FF than there would be with a genuine height/weight/speed freak like Thomas, VJax, or Andre.

Kind of a moot point really. There aren't many guys who could play at 90-95% and still be effective enough to yield perennial top 20 production. I think it's a little more binary. Either he comes back at 100% and gives you approximately what you would have expected if the injury had never happened, or he comes back as a shadow of his former self and is essentially worthless. It's a pretty thin line between Sidney Rice of 2009 and Sidney Rice of 2012.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Robert Turbin or Christine Michael? Who do you prefer and why? To be honest I was surprised when Seattle selected Michael in the draft. They seemed fairly settled on a quality backup in Turbin. And to spend a pick like they did when guys like Travis Kelce, Keenan Allen, Glennon, Barkley, Nassib, and Wilson were still on the board spoke to their esteem of Michael. So why make the pick unless it was one of those situation where the value was just so high, you couldn't pass it up? Seems like that's what the situation was here. They passed up some very good players at need positions to select this kid at a position where they were already deep.

I don't know much about Michael. On the Audible this week I think Waldman said as a runner he was a first round talent. It is more maturity, blocking, and professionalism that allowed him to slide. Turbin sure looked the part last season though and suddenly Seattle has perhaps the deepest group of RBs in the NFL.

So who is going to have the value as a handcuff here? If I had to pick I'd go with Turbin right now. But Michael could beat him out.

I'm a huge fan of outsourcing my scouting, so give me the guy that the NFL decided was worth a late 2nd rounder despite character concerns. If Seattle liked Turbin better than Michael, I doubt they draft Michael in the 2nd.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Obviously I joined the Crabtree/D.THomas discussion a little late (and missed most of what has apparently degraded from discussion to a semantics @#!*% match).

If I may summarize what I beleive to be the point of bothe the Thomas comparison and the Boldin comparison:

If we could somehow "quantify" NFL athleticism (and yes, let's forget about "compared to normal humans") on some sort of "physical giftedness" scale, with someone like Calvin Johnson being at the top (arbitrarily rank him "100"), we might, given what EBF said above about Thomas being just shy of Calvin, assign D.Thomas a 95. Let's say that on this scale a 90 would be the "normal" giftedness scale number for a WR1, 80 for a WR2, etc. Let's say Crabtree (who almost everyone agrees is not quite at Thomas' level) is 90 when he was 100% healthy. If the injury causes a 10% drop off, he would be at 81 - a borderline WR2, down from a WR1. It's possible D. Thomas was 100, like Calvin, pre-inury and dropped off to a 95, as he had more "margin for error" given his physical gifts.

Going to the Boldin comparison, the issue isn't that he had a similar injury - the point I think that was being made was that Boldin who, earlier in his career was a borderline WR1 - someone whose rank on the above scale would have been in the low 90s/upper 80s (like Crabtree), has now lost a step - in his case due to age. As such, could be very much what Crabtree would look like if he didn't come back at 100%.

Most people are naturally going to go to Thomas as the comp, as he suffered the same injury. The problem is that DT at 95% of his previous ability will look quite different than Crabtree at 95%. In the NFL, where tenths of a second in timing or an inch or two in reach can be the difference between a TD and an incomplete pass, I think that difference could be an important one.

I'm with EBF on this one. If this is Demaryius Thomas at 95%, then I cannot even fathom what Thomas would be like at 100%. To these untrained eyes, he doesn't look any slower than his combine-timed 4.38.

 

[Biabreakable]

I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts clearly and concisely. In fact, I'm a pretty good speller, but "concise" often seems like a four letter word for me. I'm working on it, and having a chance to use you guys as a sounding board for my thoughts gives me a great opportunity to see which are worth cultivating, and which sound silly the second I say them out loud (metaphorically speaking, of course). I know that the stereotype is that football is all about drinking beers and watching games, (and I love drinking beers and watching games), but I've been consistently impressed by how smart and, most importantly, thoughtful the average poster around here is (a sentiment that goes double for the dynasty guys). I didn't sign up to the forums because I had something to say and was just looking for a platform; in fact, I never would have imagined 10+ years ago that anyone would be all that interested in my thoughts on the subject. The fact that some people are has left me appreciative and, honestly, still a little bit surprised. There are a lot of people around here who are a lot more experienced and, I do not hesitate to admit, simply better at this than I am, and at no point do I mean to claim that I hold all the answers or some sort of special insight into the truth. I'm here because I love this sport, I love this hobby, I love thinking about it and analyzing it and discussing it with other people who love it right back. And I love all of you guys for loving it back, and for giving me a place to think about it and analyze it out loud.

Like I said, I know I'm not great at expressing my thoughts, so I'm hoping this doesn't come off as disingenuous or false. I don't mean for it to. I was just struck this morning by how much I appreciate all the give and take that's taken place around here over the years. I appreciate how much better of a player you all have made me. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been wrong and who has dragged me kicking and screaming back from the edge. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been muddled and forced me to crystalize and clarify and sharpen my points. I appreciate everyone who has pushed back against me when I've been right and who has forced me to re-evaluate without re-entrenching. Hell, I appreciate everyone who has ever disagreed with me for any reason, because as should be obvious, I love me some arguing. And I appreciate everyone who has agreed with me, too, letting me know I'm not miles off the beaten track, letting me know if I'm heading in the right direction, giving me some strength in my convictions when they seem silly or pointless.

So, bringing this train into the station, I was just thinking of the community that has been built here over the years, and I know I'm not very good at letting people know how much I appreciate them. So I wanted to tell everyone here, but especially you guys- especially the Dynasty Threaders (new and old), especially the hardcore deviants slumming around a fantasy football message board at the beginning of June, the taste-makers and the consensus-setters- that I really do appreciate you all. And I strongly suspect I'm not the only one who does.

We have had our differences and I am sure we will again. But I think you are very good at expressing some pretty difficult concepts in a way that everyone can understand. I appreciate the effort you put into doing that and agree whole heatedly with what you are expressing here. I feel much the same way about guys who post here staff/journalists/sharks alike.

The main thing missing from this thread is Fear and Loathing.

 

[Lash]

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date.

Agree. How can a player's upside be less than something they've done in their only attempt to do so?

two words why

Blaine. Gabbert.

of course you just have to wait it out til another QB can get in there

 

[Lash]

and i'm so glad this thread has resurrected

i think MY fbg forum time correlates with the activity in this thread

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How is Shorts upside not inside the top-20? He was effectively top-10 in his only nine starts to date.

Agree. How can a player's upside be less than something they've done in their only attempt to do so?

two words why

Blaine. Gabbert.

of course you just have to wait it out til another QB can get in there

Roughly the same number of targets/catches/yards per game with Gabbert as Henne once he moved into the starting lineup.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The main thing missing from this thread is Fear and Loathing.

He's MIA from Twitter, too. He's too big-time for us plebes now that he's an employee of the NFL. :(

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

The main thing missing from this thread is Fear and Loathing.

He's MIA from Twitter, too. He's too big-time for us plebes now that he's an employee of the NFL. :(

He was having a nice conversation about WRs on Twitter a few days ago, but you're right for the most part. I also asked him where his rookie ranks were and he responded that he's not doing them this year. Too bad.

 

[ZWK]

RE: the Crabtree discussion (I don't know which post to quote because there are so many of them:

The fact that Crabtree will be a year older when he comes back costs him about 10% of his value/utility, according to the numbers that I've looked at (e.g., in this post).

One simple way to look at it: a 26-year-old WR coming off a WR1-type season will accumulate another 243 VBD over the rest of his career (on average, after doing some smoothing of the historical data). A 27-year-old WR coming off a WR1-type season will accumulate another 218 VBD, which is about 90% as much. Crabtree would've been a 26-year-old WR this season, but instead he'll be coming back as a 27-year old.

 

[ZWK]

Two tight ends who seem to be underrated (based on the FBG staff rankings):

11 Jermichael Finley. Finley has as much upside as any TE outside the top 3 (even though he's not the freakish athlete that some people think he is). He's had his struggles, but Jordy Nelson and James Jones have shown that it pays to be patient with Aaron Rodgers' receiving options, and there were signs that he was starting to get it together late last season. There are some risks of Cobb taking his targets or GB letting him go after this season, those are worth facing for his upside.

23 Dustin Keller. Great value coming off a year wasted by injuries (plus a disastrous offense). Keller is a great athlete and a first-round pick who was a low-end TE1 in 2010 & 2011 with Mark Sanchez as his quarterback (and his numbers last year weren't actually that bad, in the 6 games when he was healthy enough to play the full game). His move to the Dolphins, who have a young QB and an almost entirely new receiving corps, adds a lot of uncertainty. But that uncertainty could end up pushing in either direction, which means that it's probably better for him than being stuck in New York as a low-end TE1 or high-end TE2.

 

[ratbast]

Kellar, Wallace, Tannerhill and Miller will all be overrated and terrible value for this year because of all the free agency and draft hype.

They also lost Jake Long and have switched JMartin from RT to LT.

In dynasty i would let the disappointment set in before I buy later in the year or next year.

Hartline might be decent value.

 

[Instinctive]

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

And also, Ryan Mathews. Am I the only one who still believes? Blaming OLine and Rivers and lack of receivers for last year.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

And also, Ryan Mathews. Am I the only one who still believes? Blaming OLine and Rivers and lack of receivers for last year.

I am a CJ Spiller believer. People commenting on his size need to remember that Brian Westbrook was a monster with the same build. Obviously, Spiller's touches and QB uncertainty will cause some doubt. But if you're a new coach, are you going to unerutilize your team's best player? It's said that FF success is talent + opportunity. Well, Spiller has both.

Matthews? I don't know, man. Norv Turner cranks out great running games with regularity - and he couldn't get Matthews to turn the corner.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Kellar, Wallace, Tannerhill and Miller will all be overrated and terrible value for this year because of all the free agency and draft hype.

They also lost Jake Long and have switched JMartin from RT to LT.

In dynasty i would let the disappointment set in before I buy later in the year or next year.

Hartline might be decent value.

From my experience, Tannehill is underrated. He's being drafted outside of the top 20 QBs in redraft, and I've gotten a decent amount of pushback over ranking him as a good QB2 in dynasty.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

And also, Ryan Mathews. Am I the only one who still believes? Blaming OLine and Rivers and lack of receivers for last year.

I think Spiller is an electric talent. I'd prefer him to Foster, but I'd rather have Charles or Peterson (more proven), as well as Richardson, Martin, and McCoy (younger). I value him very similarly to Ray Rice, and which I prefer would depend a lot on team composition- Rice is a much more reliable, safer performer, but Spiller is the better/more electric talent, in my book. I'd ordinarily be looking to trade for him, because backs like him tend to be undervalued (think: Chris Johnson and Maurice Jones-Drew circa 2009, Jamaal Charles circa 2010-2012). Insanely talented, electric backs who are smaller than "traditional" workhorses and who have not yet been featured have traditionally been underrated as most owners think "I have not seen someone who looks like this excel, so therefore someone who looks like this cannot excel". Unfortunately for Spiller, Johnson/Charles/MJD/etc. have sucked all the value out of that position- owners are much more willing to appropriately value up-and-comers without first demanding they show themselves capable of a larger role.

Edit: I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a "believer" of the hypothesis that Matthews is a stud, but I would definitely call myself a "skeptic" of the hypothesis that Matthews is not a stud, if that makes any sense.

 

[EBF]

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

I think he makes as much sense as anyone else once you get past Martin and Richardson.

I think it's a big step down from those two though. Spiller isn't as young as you might think. He played four years in college and took a little while to get rolling in the NFL. He turns 26 in two months. He's about the same age as Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall even though he came into the league 2 years later. I think he can have 3-4 peak years before his career is over, but his game is predicated on speed and that's usually the first trait to disappear. You don't see too many 30 year old sprinters winning Olympic gold. I also have some doubts about his ability to be a high volume back since he has a slight, almost WR-like body type. I don't quite rank him on my list of untouchable dynasty assets, but he's in the next group below with guys like Victor Cruz and LeSean McCoy.

As for Mathews, I look at him the way a lot of people look at Murray and McFadden. You know he's probably going to miss time every season, but when he plays he can be a solid starter for you. He's only a year removed from a top 10 RB finish. He can catch the ball. He's got a rare size/speed combo. He has some warts, but he's not without value either. I have grabbed him this offseason in a couple leagues where I needed a startable RB and couldn't afford to get a truly top level player.

 

[JPeso]

Where are we valuing Spiller?

I've been getting lots of inquiries for him and have basically set the price at "you're insane to pay this but that's the only way I'm letting go of him." He looks like a young, top 5 stud to me - after Richardson, Charles, Lynch, and maybe Martin I'm not sure there's anyone else I want as a dynasty RB. Is that how others see him as well? Foster/Peterson have an edge for now, but Spiller was right there with them last year.

I think he makes as much sense as anyone else once you get past Martin and Richardson.

I think it's a big step down from those two though. Spiller isn't as young as you might think. He played four years in college and took a little while to get rolling in the NFL. He turns 26 in two months. He's about the same age as Jonathan Stewart and Rashard Mendenhall even though he came into the league 2 years later. I think he can have 3-4 peak years before his career is over, but his game is predicated on speed and that's usually the first trait to disappear. You don't see too many 30 year old sprinters winning Olympic gold. I also have some doubts about his ability to be a high volume back since he has a slight, almost WR-like body type. I don't quite rank him on my list of untouchable dynasty assets, but he's in the next group below with guys like Victor Cruz and LeSean McCoy.

As for Mathews, I look at him the way a lot of people look at Murray and McFadden. You know he's probably going to miss time every season, but when he plays he can be a solid starter for you. He's only a year removed from a top 10 RB finish. He can catch the ball. He's got a rare size/speed combo. He has some warts, but he's not without value either. I have grabbed him this offseason in a couple leagues where I needed a startable RB and couldn't afford to get a truly top level player.

Spiller vs. Mathews was another one you were quite comfortable that Mathews was the better RB.

Have you taken some time to watch CJ Spiller play? He is far from a WR-like body type, and far from simply a sprinter. You said he was like Reggie Bush coming out, is Reggie WR-like body type?

Sure, Spiller has elite athleticism, but just as importantly, he is damn instinctive.

You mention that he won't be the same guy at 30, but what running back is? Oh well, at least you've got him in the second group of dynasty assets now instead of outside of top 25 backs.

 

[EBF]

Spiller vs. Mathews was another one you were quite comfortable that Mathews was the better RB.

Have you taken some time to watch CJ Spiller play? He is far from a WR-like body type, and far from simply a sprinter. You said he was like Reggie Bush coming out, is Reggie WR-like body type?

Sure, Spiller has elite athleticism, but just as importantly, he is damn instinctive.

You mention that he won't be the same guy at 30, but what running back is? Oh well, at least you've got him in the second group of dynasty assets now instead of outside of top 25 backs.

In terms of height/weight ratio, Spiller and Bush are built more like a big WR than an average RB. Reggie has a 28.3 BMI. Spiller is a 27.7. Compare that to some notable receivers:

Andre Johnson - 29.5

Vincent Jackson - 28.9

Dez Bryant - 28.8

Victor Cruz - 28.3

Calvin Johnson - 28.3

Larry Fitzgerald - 28.3

Hakeem Nicks - 28.3

Michael Crabtree - 28.1

Demaryius Thomas - 27.8

Julio Jones - 27.8

The average starting NFL RB is about 29-31, with anything above 32 being more of a big back type (MJD, Stewart, Turner, Richardson, Martin). Anything under 29 is a very thin RB. Jamaal Charles, Darren McFadden, CJ Spiller, and Chris Johnson are some prominent examples of that type. They have very low weight relative to their height. The only reason these guys are able to play in the NFL is because they're faster and quicker than the defenders trying to stop them. Take away that advantage and their effectiveness would vanish.

A guy like Steven Jackson can lose a step and still be a serviceable starter. A power back without speed still has power. A speed back without speed has nothing.

 

[thriftyrocker]

A speed back still can be a RB1 late. Tiki, Dunn, Westbrook, etc. Injury is the death knell not loss in speed. We're talking about careers ending at 30 not 35 - big difference. You don't have to be D. Green to be fast at 30.

Old adage was speed backs lived forever because they could avoid getting crushed and could find 2nd life as passing down specialists. SJax's swansong is the exception not the rule.

 

[lbouchard]

Sometimes I have to remind myself that Spiller is 26 years old. He seems younger than that. He's my RB4 in dynasty, behind Martin, TRich, and McCoy (who's only 24).

 

[Adam Harstad]

A speed back still can be a RB1 late. Tiki, Dunn, Westbrook, etc. Injury is the death knell not loss in speed. We're talking about careers ending at 30 not 35 - big difference. You don't have to be D. Green to be fast at 30. Old adage was speed backs lived forever because they could avoid getting crushed and could find 2nd life as passing down specialists. SJax's swansong is the exception not the rule.

SJax isn't an example of a slow back, anyway- he always had solid speed. Someone like Alfred Morris is a better example. If Spiller and Morris both lost a step, who do you think would still have an NFL job?

 

[EBF]

A speed back still can be a RB1 late. Tiki, Dunn, Westbrook, etc. Injury is the death knell not loss in speed. We're talking about careers ending at 30 not 35 - big difference. You don't have to be D. Green to be fast at 30.

Old adage was speed backs lived forever because they could avoid getting crushed and could find 2nd life as passing down specialists. SJax's swansong is the exception not the rule.

Westbrook and Barber wouldn't qualify as small backs based on BMI. I see Westbrook mentioned frequently as a small back, but he was almost the exact same size as Ray Rice. Short and small are two different things. 200 pounds is a high weight if you're only 5'8".

I'd have to grant you Dunn based on his listed height/weight, but he's always struck me as being stronger and more stout than his listed dimensions and he was more of a jitterbug than a pure speed back. Subjectively, Sproles reminds me more of Dunn than Spiller/Charles/Chris Johnson do.

I'd be curious to see someone look at 1000+ yard rushing seasons by a 30+ year old back in the past 10-15 years. I think Warrick Dunn would be the only representative for the sub 29 BMI crowd. On the other end you have Thomas Jones, Tiki Barber, Ricky Williams, Fred Taylor, Emmitt Smith, and Curtis Martin representing the more conventional body type. Eddie George, Willis McGahee and Corey Dillon also hit 1000+ in the season in which they turned 30, but never topped the mark again. Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will have a chance to do it this year.

What's striking looking at the numbers is how eerily consistent the dropoff age seems to be. 29-30 seems to be a pretty reliable expiration date for a RB regardless of his playing style. Even most of the great big backs faltered at that point. The best way to look at it is probably that anything you get from any RB beyond that point is a bonus. That's grim tidings for some guys like Peterson, Gore, Jackson, Chris Johnson, and MJD who are creeping up on the barrier.