Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
And in actuality it's really 3 guys, as its highly likely Kuhn would have seen snaps over him if he also wasn't out injured.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Dynasty Rankings (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Concept Coop
Footballguy
He only saw action due to three injuries, and might not have been active on gamedays without them. He looked good, but also had some good running lanes.
I'm still in the camp that thinks a first round pick is way too much for him. I'd be selling if I owned him anywhere.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I like him, and always have. I had him 13th before the season, iirc- really, really high-upside QB2. People expect the QB learning curve to be steeper than it is, but history tells us that if a quarterback is good, he's almost always going to be contributing by his second season as a starter. There are exceptions (Drew Brees being the most notable), but by and large, if you're going to be good eventually, you're going to be good sooner than later.
To that extent, nothing Tannehill has done yet this season has been surprising to me, but it has been a very positive confirmation of what I hoped for but wasn't entirely sure of. Tannehill remains about the same as what he was before, for me- very high-upside backup, elite QB2 option in dynasty. It's just hard to go much higher than that because there are so many good fantasy QBs right now.
It's always a good time to take future firsts for declining players. I'm a big believer in taking some short-term pain in order to secure some long-term gain. I try to remember that one player won't increase my chances of getting a title this year by more than maybe 5%- and as bad as Jacksonville's offense is (and with Jones-Drew not looking like his younger self), his contributions will be smaller than that, even. If I can get a quality asset in return (such as a decent first rounder), I'll take that hit.
Look at it this way, instead: would you trade Maurice Jones-Drew for Cordarrelle Patterson, Tavon Austin, Tyler Eifert, Le'Veon Bell, Montee Ball, or any other highly-regarded rookie who might struggle to produce much this season? Because if so, you should trade him for a pick that's likely to yield a player of that caliber or better.
I've slapped a big "DO NOT WANT" sticker on him. Right now, he's as close in total snaps to Ronnie Brown (66 vs. 53) as he is to Danny Woodhead (79 to 66). So it's an RBBC, and Mathews isn't even the big wheel of the tricycle. San Diego has run a ton more with Mathews on the field (71% of the time) than when Brown/Woodhead are on the field (21% of the time). That's a CRAZY tell, and San Diego is going to have to fix it or their offense will get destroyed. You CANNOT be that predictable in the NFL. That means either Mathews' snaps are primed to take a big jump, or Mathews' carries are about to see a big drop. Just not an appealing fantasy asset to me right now. I'd rather have Danny Woodhead than Ryan Mathews in redraft PPR leagues, straight up.
Bloom had Franklin 6th in his rookie rankings, and presumably would have had him higher if not for the Lacy pick. Bloom loves him, and is very consistent in his opinions.
Personally, I had Franklin 25th in my rookie rankings, so I view his performance as a monster game that was about as good as the monster game put up the week before by James Starks (a known mediocrity). Franklin's still 3rd in line for carries. So, in other words, last week's performance did nothing to change Bloom's opinion, and it did nothing to change my opinion. Whatever you thought about Franklin before week 3 is probably what you think of him after week 3.
A bunch of us have been complaining about this same problem with a certain New Orleans RB
I actually think a certain New Orleans RB is a pretty good comp for Mathews at this point. I'd bet on Mathews seeing his snaps increase before said New Orleans RB, so I'd prefer Ryan, but all in all a very interesting comparison.
EBF
Footballguy
I don't think his value has fallen quite that far. Mathews is not a plodder like Ingram. He has some actual athletic ability and home run skills. He's no superstar, but partially he's a victim of some San Diego exec's infatuation with Danny Woodhead. They paid money for him and now they have to use him. The opportunity get 2-5 cheap catches every week is the main thing separating Mathews from the RB3 abyss and every-week starter status.
Ingram is just poo. I felt coming out of Alabama that his career outlook fell somewhere between Benson---Gore. Two other 220ish pounders with productive collegiate careers and horrendous workout numbers. Turns out Benson may have been generous. His renaissance in Cincy is about the best that an Ingram owner can hope for at this point. That some RB-needy blue collar offense will pick him up on the cheap and run him and his 3.8 YPC into the ground for a couple years for some RB2 FF numbers.
I'm not sure the outlook for Mathews is much brighter, but at least he has a top 10 season under his belt and at least he brings a little bit of explosiveness beyond what the average 5th round draft pick can give you. Ingram, on the other hand, is basically Mike James or Vick Ballard at this point.
Ingram is just poo. I felt coming out of Alabama that his career outlook fell somewhere between Benson---Gore. Two other 220ish pounders with productive collegiate careers and horrendous workout numbers. Turns out Benson may have been generous. His renaissance in Cincy is about the best that an Ingram owner can hope for at this point. That some RB-needy blue collar offense will pick him up on the cheap and run him and his 3.8 YPC into the ground for a couple years for some RB2 FF numbers.
I'm not sure the outlook for Mathews is much brighter, but at least he has a top 10 season under his belt and at least he brings a little bit of explosiveness beyond what the average 5th round draft pick can give you. Ingram, on the other hand, is basically Mike James or Vick Ballard at this point.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
You guys are talking about Pierre Thomas right. Good stats when he gets starters touches. FA comes in and takes much of the passing role. Staff believes in death by RBBC which nukes his value. Makes a lot of sense guys. Great comp.
I don't know for sure, but I thought we were talking about Khiry Robinson. So far, New Orleans has run the ball 100% of the time when he's been on the field. Way too predictable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Yeah, I can see comparing the usage patterns between Matthews and Ingram, but don't think it's a good comparison as far as talent / ability. 2011 isn't really all that long ago, and Matthews was a true NFL and fantasy difference maker with over 110 YFS / game and 4.9 YPC / 9.1 YPR. He did it on a mediocre team with a mediocre (at best) offensive line. Ingram has never approached that in terms of either production or efficiency, and he's nowhere near the receiver that Matthews is AFAIK. I think Ingram is a guy who was made to look much, much better than he actually is due to the quality of the team around him in college, particularly the ridiculous offensive line that he ran behind. The Saints aren't doing him any favors with the way they've used him, but watching the games, the difference in explosion between Ingram and virtually every other NO RB the last few years is pretty glaring. And IMO pretty damning.
The funny thing with Mathews is that he actually seems like a pretty good receiver, and his blocking doesn't look to be a liability. Players like that should be on the field much of the time, and certainly shouldnt be situational. Some coaches just seem to out-think themselves. Player X is the best blocker, so let's put him out there when we want to pass. Player Y is the toughest guy, so let's put him out there whenever we only really need 2 yards. Situational players are fine when the situtaion is obvious...3rd and long or 4th and goal from the 1, but 3rd and 2-5 from the 50 is not the place to utilize them because then the whole world knows where you're leaning in your thinking and play calling.
If the guy can catch and block, and is your primary back (or, more accurately, is NOT a pure situation guy), the run-pass ratio with him in the game should closely mirror the overall ratio of your team. In Mathews case, it clearly doesn't. This is limiting the effectiveness of the SD offense as a whole
If the guy can catch and block, and is your primary back (or, more accurately, is NOT a pure situation guy), the run-pass ratio with him in the game should closely mirror the overall ratio of your team. In Mathews case, it clearly doesn't. This is limiting the effectiveness of the SD offense as a whole
Spike
Footballguy
Maybe we can all agree to use "brittleness" instead of "durability"? I think we're all saying the same this when we talk about this.
valhallan
Footballguy
Can you unpack this one a bit? Whenever I'm presented with this situation of playing for it all or potentially moving my veterans for youth, I usually place a higher premium than 5% on current stud production. I would say a guy like Lynch who is still producing well, but faces an uncertain future, is in this category. I think Lynch increases my chances of getting a title from about 1 in 20 without him to 1 in 4 with him, as I feel very confident about making the playoffs at the moment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure. Go back and look at previous seasons and see how often the best team in the league winds up winning the championship. Based on my rough estimation, I'd guess that a typical "best team" has about a 25-33% chance of walking away with the trophy. I went through and looked at week-by-week performances, and the best team in the history of any of my dynasty leagues had a 50% chance of winning the title. That was a team that just dominated the league in points scored (the team in second was closer to the team in second-to-last than he was to the team in first). Still, in any given week he finished on average with the 2nd-4th highest score, which means he was always beatable with an unlucky draw, and all it takes is one unlucky draw to end a season without a trophy.valhallan said:
So, a standard "best team in the league" has a 25-33% chance of winning a title, while one of the rare "team so good people will talk about it for years" squads has a 50% chance of ending the season victorious. Of that 25-33% chance (or 50% chance), how much of that can be attributed to just one player? Typically a best team in the league will have multiple good players, which is why they have such good odds to win it all in the first place. Maybe each of their studs contributes 5-8%. Maybe a 200 VBD season like Peterson's last year gives an 8-10% boost to your odds of winning the title. Even the best of the best of the best of the best players isn't going to increase your chances of getting a championship by more than maybe 10%, though. For a potential strong RB2 like MJD, that percentage is much, much lower.
Anyone who thinks that a single player increases their title odds from 5% to 25% is probably miscalculating their title odds. There's not a 100% chance that Lynch stays healthy through the season. Even if he does, there's not a 100% chance that he even has a good game during the playoffs. I'm sure all of the Tom Brady and Randy Moss owners would have felt confident that those guys increased their chances at a title by at least 20% in 2007. One single player just doesn't make that big of an impact.
Let's put it another way. Last year, Marshawn Lynch finished as RB4 with 247 fantasy points. BenJarvus Green-Ellis finished as RB19 with 152 fantasy points. The difference between the two backs was a whopping 5.9 points per game. Go back and look at how your team performed last year. How many times did you lose a game by 5.9 points or fewer? Just how many extra wins do you really think the upgrade from BJGE to Lynch would have resulted in? Would you have been five times more likely to put together a 3-game win streak if you scored 5.9 more points per game?
valhallan
Footballguy
I suppose I should have framed it as my odds decreasing from 25% to 5% rather than suggesting Lynch accounts for a 20% boost to someone acquiring him. I don't think any of us can be in the business of predicting injury, as that would make virtually every discussion here moot. Assuming health and assuming, say, at least 85% of expected production, I should make the playoffs. At that point, I get the 1 in 4 luck of the draw like the other 3 teams. If I trade Lynch for future benefits, my lineup will be much weaker and unlikely to make the playoffs.
So I'm simply saying in very possible scenarios, trading your aging RB1 before he breaks down can have a greater that 5% negative effect on your winning the championship. Now, if I had an unreasonably stacked roster like some that have been posted around here, then the replacement player probably isn't much worse than Lynch and the odds aren't changing a whole lot. Unfortunately this particular league, like many others, is highly competitive and no one has assembled a roster of studs. I'm left with the decision to ride Lynch out and try for another title (3 in 8 years so far
) or send him packing and virtually guarantee I have no shot (unless anyone thinks Ryan Mathews suddenly reappears).
Edit: Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what Lynch vs BGJE would have done to my 2012 results. I would have gone from 8-6 with Lynch (missed the playoffs due to tie-breakers) to 6-8 with the Lawfirm. Not saying this disproves anything, just thought it would be worth sharing.
So I'm simply saying in very possible scenarios, trading your aging RB1 before he breaks down can have a greater that 5% negative effect on your winning the championship. Now, if I had an unreasonably stacked roster like some that have been posted around here, then the replacement player probably isn't much worse than Lynch and the odds aren't changing a whole lot. Unfortunately this particular league, like many others, is highly competitive and no one has assembled a roster of studs. I'm left with the decision to ride Lynch out and try for another title (3 in 8 years so far
) or send him packing and virtually guarantee I have no shot (unless anyone thinks Ryan Mathews suddenly reappears).Edit: Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what Lynch vs BGJE would have done to my 2012 results. I would have gone from 8-6 with Lynch (missed the playoffs due to tie-breakers) to 6-8 with the Lawfirm. Not saying this disproves anything, just thought it would be worth sharing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I am more concerned about Moreno's injury being a chronic recurring problem than I am with Matthews. I think both players a decent buy targets depending on the price.Spike said:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I think a 6pt/game advantage over 13 games will likely make the difference between winning and losing a game by something like 5-20% not sure how one would break that down however.
Perhaps using some neutral data we could figure out what the average score of FF teams are and then make a sliding scale from there.
If the average score of teams in your league were 120pts/game. Then 6pt advantage would yield a 5% better chance of winning each week. That percentage would go up or down depending on what the league scoring average is.
If the average score of teams were 180pts/ game that advantage would only be 1%.
If the average score of teams were 90pts/ game that advantage would be 6.66%.
The more starting slots (for example IDPs) the less significant each position becomes and vice versa.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is a great example of people overrating the impact of a single player. No player is so valuable that your odds of making the playoffs are 100% with him and 0% without him. No player is so durable that you can just assume he doesn't get injured (note: there is a difference between predicting a specific injury for a specific player and factoring the possibility of an injury into all players). No player is so reliable that you can just assume he's a lock for at least 85% of your expectations.I suppose I should have framed it as my odds decreasing from 25% to 5% rather than suggesting Lynch accounts for a 20% boost to someone acquiring him. I don't think any of us can be in the business of predicting injury, as that would make virtually every discussion here moot. Assuming health and assuming, say, at least 85% of expected production, I should make the playoffs. At that point, I get the 1 in 4 luck of the draw like the other 3 teams. If I trade Lynch for future benefits, my lineup will be much weaker and unlikely to make the playoffs.
So I'm simply saying in very possible scenarios, trading your aging RB1 before he breaks down can have a greater that 5% negative effect on your winning the championship. Now, if I had an unreasonably stacked roster like some that have been posted around here, then the replacement player probably isn't much worse than Lynch and the odds aren't changing a whole lot. Unfortunately this particular league, like many others, is highly competitive and no one has assembled a roster of studs. I'm left with the decision to ride Lynch out and try for another title (3 in 8 years so far
Edit: Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what Lynch vs BGJE would have done to my 2012 results. I would have gone from 8-6 with Lynch (missed the playoffs due to tie-breakers) to 6-8 with the Lawfirm. Not saying this disproves anything, just thought it would be worth sharing.
I cannot think of a single roster that would fall from a 25% chance to win a title to a 5% chance to win a title simply by trading away a single player. I don't think even 2006 LaDainian Tomlinson or early 2000s Faulk/Holmes would have had that kind of impact.
valhallan
Footballguy
Wow, thanks. Now I'm just an example of a mindless fantasy owner overrating a player. I'm starting to see why a certain someone called you condescending.I think this is a great example of people overrating the impact of a single player. No player is so valuable that your odds of making the playoffs are 100% with him and 0% without him. No player is so durable that you can just assume he doesn't get injured (note: there is a difference between predicting a specific injury for a specific player and factoring the possibility of an injury into all players). No player is so reliable that you can just assume he's a lock for at least 85% of your expectations.I suppose I should have framed it as my odds decreasing from 25% to 5% rather than suggesting Lynch accounts for a 20% boost to someone acquiring him. I don't think any of us can be in the business of predicting injury, as that would make virtually every discussion here moot. Assuming health and assuming, say, at least 85% of expected production, I should make the playoffs. At that point, I get the 1 in 4 luck of the draw like the other 3 teams. If I trade Lynch for future benefits, my lineup will be much weaker and unlikely to make the playoffs.
So I'm simply saying in very possible scenarios, trading your aging RB1 before he breaks down can have a greater that 5% negative effect on your winning the championship. Now, if I had an unreasonably stacked roster like some that have been posted around here, then the replacement player probably isn't much worse than Lynch and the odds aren't changing a whole lot. Unfortunately this particular league, like many others, is highly competitive and no one has assembled a roster of studs. I'm left with the decision to ride Lynch out and try for another title (3 in 8 years so far
Edit: Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what Lynch vs BGJE would have done to my 2012 results. I would have gone from 8-6 with Lynch (missed the playoffs due to tie-breakers) to 6-8 with the Lawfirm. Not saying this disproves anything, just thought it would be worth sharing.
I cannot think of a single roster that would fall from a 25% chance to win a title to a 5% chance to win a title simply by trading away a single player. I don't think even 2006 LaDainian Tomlinson or early 2000s Faulk/Holmes would have had that kind of impact.
Assumptions are made in order to have discussions. You're trying to eliminate the argument by saying we can't have a few clearly reasonable assumptions. So what's the point of this entire thread if we can't ever believe a player is going to play? What you just said is so mind-numbingly useless it's beyond belief that you would even think it.
You're still missing the point, but it's so rife with conjecture that it's not worth discussing. I'm fairly certain I would have a far smaller chance winning my league if I traded Aaron Rodgers or Marshawn Lynch and started the dregs behind them. I don't really think there needs to be scientific proof and it seems like a simple enough premise to accept.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Adam's 100% right. It's basic math that you're arguing against man.
valhallan
Footballguy
He said you have to factor in injury and you can't assume a certain percentage of production for any player. Well that applies to BGJE just as must as it would Lynch, rendering the effect meaningless.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I won't bore you all with it, but this made me mess around with the #s a bit and I came up with something like a 10-15% greater chance of winning a title if you could trade for a top end stud without giving anything up. But you'd need to discount that some since you can't assume a player would play all 16 games for you (at most 15 with a bye).
Basically that's for landing a 19ppg player and starting them in place of a 10ppg player (+9ppg all season). That's about as extreme an example as you could get.
It's pretty rare that you'd be able to land a player that good and not weaken your team elsewhere, but it could happen. Assuming they started 13 games I ended up with an estimate that it would improve your odds by about 8-12%.
I think that's basically the max number you could ever expect.
Basically that's for landing a 19ppg player and starting them in place of a 10ppg player (+9ppg all season). That's about as extreme an example as you could get.
It's pretty rare that you'd be able to land a player that good and not weaken your team elsewhere, but it could happen. Assuming they started 13 games I ended up with an estimate that it would improve your odds by about 8-12%.
I think that's basically the max number you could ever expect.
There's a big difference between assuming a guy is likely to play and assuming a guy is a lock to play every game. As Doug Drinen once famously said, everyone is an injury risk. The study is old, but it found the average RB played just about 13 games a year. It found that less than half of all RBs played a full season in any given year. If your title hopes wholly hinge on a single player, there's a better than even chance that that player won't be around at some key point during the season for you. You can't say "I wouldn't trade Marshawn Lynch for Ray Rice because Ray Rice is an injury risk and Marshawn Lynch is not", but you can say "both Lynch and Rice are equal injury risks, so it shouldn't factor into considerations one way or the other". Injury risk is a real risk, one that needs to be accounted for in any analysis.Wow, thanks. Now I'm just an example of a mindless fantasy owner overrating a player. I'm starting to see why a certain someone called you condescending.I think this is a great example of people overrating the impact of a single player. No player is so valuable that your odds of making the playoffs are 100% with him and 0% without him. No player is so durable that you can just assume he doesn't get injured (note: there is a difference between predicting a specific injury for a specific player and factoring the possibility of an injury into all players). No player is so reliable that you can just assume he's a lock for at least 85% of your expectations.I suppose I should have framed it as my odds decreasing from 25% to 5% rather than suggesting Lynch accounts for a 20% boost to someone acquiring him. I don't think any of us can be in the business of predicting injury, as that would make virtually every discussion here moot. Assuming health and assuming, say, at least 85% of expected production, I should make the playoffs. At that point, I get the 1 in 4 luck of the draw like the other 3 teams. If I trade Lynch for future benefits, my lineup will be much weaker and unlikely to make the playoffs.
So I'm simply saying in very possible scenarios, trading your aging RB1 before he breaks down can have a greater that 5% negative effect on your winning the championship. Now, if I had an unreasonably stacked roster like some that have been posted around here, then the replacement player probably isn't much worse than Lynch and the odds aren't changing a whole lot. Unfortunately this particular league, like many others, is highly competitive and no one has assembled a roster of studs. I'm left with the decision to ride Lynch out and try for another title (3 in 8 years so far
Edit: Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what Lynch vs BGJE would have done to my 2012 results. I would have gone from 8-6 with Lynch (missed the playoffs due to tie-breakers) to 6-8 with the Lawfirm. Not saying this disproves anything, just thought it would be worth sharing.
I cannot think of a single roster that would fall from a 25% chance to win a title to a 5% chance to win a title simply by trading away a single player. I don't think even 2006 LaDainian Tomlinson or early 2000s Faulk/Holmes would have had that kind of impact.
Assumptions are made in order to have discussions. You're trying to eliminate the argument by saying we can't have a few clearly reasonable assumptions. So what's the point of this entire thread if we can't ever believe a player is going to play? What you just said is so mind-numbingly useless it's beyond belief that you would even think it.
You're still missing the point, but it's so rife with conjecture that it's not worth discussing. I'm fairly certain I would have a far smaller chance winning my league if I traded Aaron Rodgers or Marshawn Lynch and started the dregs behind them. I don't really think there needs to be scientific proof and it seems like a simple enough premise to accept.
I'm not saying you're a "mindless fantasy owner", or that you're overrating Lynch. I'm saying that people are inherently bad at thinking statistically. We're a bundle of cognitive biases and faulty heuristics. This is not a shot at you or at anyone else, this is just an acknowledgement of scientific fact. The human mind is rubbish at thinking statistically, and there are mountains of studies demonstrating it.
I agree that losing Rodgers or Lynch would dramatically decrease your chances of winning a title, I just think we overrate how dramatic the swing really is. One of our many cognitive biases is a tendency to round to 0% or 100%. We underestimate small probabilities and overestimate large probabilities. Our minds are uncomfortable with uncertainty, so we overestimate certainty wherever possible.
Does anyone have data on what percentage of championship teams owned a certain player in a given year? I would be really curious to see what percentage of LaDainian Tomlinson owners won a title in 2006. That was pretty much the most valuable fantasy season in history, and I think that would be the ultimate test case for how much a single player can improve your odds of a title.
valhallan
Footballguy
I can tell now that we're talking about two different scenarios. I was talking about the mid-season decision of trading an aging player for future benefits. If I'm 6-0 while my division rivals are all 2-4 with a game to be played among each other left, even just giving 50% odds to those games would leave me at 7.5 wins to their 3.5 with 5 games to go. So already by the conclusion of week 6, one could feel a very high likelihood of making the playoffs.
There's no way I would ever argue a team before week 1 is a 100% lock to make the playoffs. I'm surprised that assumption was being made considering we're not in the off-season and are clearly discussing in-season strategy.
There's no way I would ever argue a team before week 1 is a 100% lock to make the playoffs. I'm surprised that assumption was being made considering we're not in the off-season and are clearly discussing in-season strategy.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
LOL I've played around with those numbers too.
The 8% - 12% might be accurate taking the entire season into account, but no one is usually dumping guys before week one. I think using midseason is more appropriate as that's when both the strong offers and the need for realistic assessment usually kick in. From that point 5% is probably on the high end of the possible scale for one player, in an extreme case.
The 8% - 12% might be accurate taking the entire season into account, but no one is usually dumping guys before week one. I think using midseason is more appropriate as that's when both the strong offers and the need for realistic assessment usually kick in. From that point 5% is probably on the high end of the possible scale for one player, in an extreme case.
Thanks wdcrob. I've never studied it in a super-rigorous way, but I've done several quick looks, and your numbers here track right on with what I've always found. I've always counted on a top-12 fantasy player being worth an extra 8-10% chance at the title (although I'd buy upwards of 12% for the rare 200 VBD studs). I've always counted on a garden variety stud (say, 60-80 VBD) being worth about a 5-8% boost in title odds. There's just so much randomness inherent in the head-to-head format that one single player isn't going to be causing these massive swings that we automatically assume they'll be good for.
Bringing it back to the original subject... trading away MJD for a future first might reduce your title chances by somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%, tops. Is that worth a future first? Depends on your patience, your risk tolerance, and how the rest of your roster is constructed.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
MJD is a hypothetical example. Think generic old guy who is performing strongly at the end of the year / has an easy playoff schedule.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Lots of great discussion guys, I'm glad the question I asked could generate a ton of talk. It's a tough subject, but I tend to lean towards agreeing that MJD is no longer good enough to warrant passing on a future 1st. I think there are much better options out there for a contender to pursue with that 1st than MJD, and think that his value might be dependent on TD's going forward if he's less involved and less efficient with his touches.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
That seems reasonable to me.
There are other factors of course such as scarcity at position that could move that one way or another. But generally yes I do not think a top player is going to cause more separation in FF points scored compared to worst starter by margins greater than this.
It could happen if you are playing in 14-16 teams leagues though because of scarcity at position. RB 24 is much better than RB 48.
Last edited by a moderator:
That was the original hypothetical Conn proposed- hanging on to MJD to chase a title, or moving him for a 1st. I agree that you'd be hard-pressed to get a first for him at this point, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility. If week 9 rolls around and a team that's 7-2 suffers an injury at RB and is forced to start Danny Woodhead in a non-PPR league, I can see trading a first for MJD becoming a more attractive option. I think it's a shortsighted move, but as I said, the human brain just is not wired to think probabalistically, and I'd imagine most 7-2 teams overrate their chances of winning if they acquire MJD (or underrate their chances of winning if they don't).
For a much more interesting example, imagine it's 2006, Tiki Barber is coming off of back-to-back top-5 finishes and basically dominating the league again, and he's made it known he plans on retiring after the season. I know a LOT of owners who would have given a future first for that.
That's an interesting thought experiment. Without running the numbers, in a much larger league (say, 16 teams), would I expect a single player to have a bigger impact, smaller impact, or the same impact on your percent chance of winning a title? When everyone has fewer studs, you'd think that the impact of an individual stud would be bigger. At the same time, with 16 other teams to contend with, the chances of any one particular team winning the title are always going to be lower. Just off the top of my head, I would expect a single stud to increase your odds of winning by a bigger multiple in a larger league, but to have a smaller impact on your raw percent chance of winning the title. For example, increasing your odds from 6% to 12% doubles your chances, but is also only a 6% increase. Increasing your odds from 12% to 20% increases your chances by a smaller multiplier (just 1.6x), but by a larger raw percent value (8%).
ZWK
Footballguy
I ran a simulation not long ago, and my numbers seem to be fairly similar to the ones being tossed around here. A 1 ppg improvement increases your chances of winning a championship by about 1.5% (meaning by 1.5 percentage points), assuming that you have an above average team.
A swing of 12% by the addition of a super stud sounds small, but looking at it another way, it could be the difference between an 8% shot (less than 1 in 12, i.e., a slightly worse than a random team in a 12 teamer) to a 20% shot (1 in 5 shot, better than the random playoff team). That seems to me to be a substantial swing of fortune just by the addition of one player.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
MJD is barely startable, if someone gives up a future 1st for an old gimpy rb3/rb4 they are crazy.
EBF
Footballguy
Ah, that old trope again.
The "proven production" type of owner (i.e. you) is the polar opposite of the "youth crazy" type of owner, but that doesn't mean it's actually an either or-thing where owners have to pick one side of that pole and stick to it exclusively. Great teams don't have to be old teams and young teams don't have to be bad teams. You can have young teams that are also great teams. I'm in a couple leagues where various owners have lapped the field by amassing a collection of 4-5 top 10 overall type of players who are still right in their prime. That's a nice target to aim for.
You won't get there by spewing value on a past-it has-been like MJD. He might have some value left, but seems a bad gamble at the price of a 1st rounder. In theory I agree with the idea that "championship banners fly forever," but I don't think it's a great excuse for making negative value trades. On the contrary, making bad trades is a pretty good way to ensure that you won't be winning any championships.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I'd forgotten about this, but I actually traded a future first for Andre Johnson in a couple leagues prior to the season last year. So it could happen.
On MJD... I'm happy to own him and think he'll be close to MJD again when he's not playing the Chiefs or the Seahawks, but he's not a player I'd buy at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
That 12% boost was for an 8 or 9 ppg improvement, which is basically the equivalent of upgrading from Shonn Green to Adrian Peterson last season without giving up a single thing. So basically what you're saying is that if you've got an average team, and you manage to trade Shonn Greene for Adrian Peterson straight up, you're still going to fail to win a championship 8 times out of 10. Yeah, a 12% boost is huge all things considered, but no player is going to do anything more than take you from a very heavy long shot all the way up to... a pretty heavy long shot. Most players are not 2012 Adrian Peterson, so the boost provided will be considerably smaller than 12%.
That's when it becomes worth asking how much that boost is worth. Adrian Peterson is not the best example, because Peterson is still going to get you production this year, next year, and probably the year after that. Going back to the Tiki Barber 2006 example... how much would you have given for Tiki Barber if you were a good team in 2006? If you had traded future picks for Barber, it would have increased your chances of winning by 6-8%. How many future picks would you be willing to give for a 6-8% increase in title chances for a single season? It's a very interesting question to ponder. I know flags fly forever, but I question whether that boost would be worth even a single first round pick. I would think that the EV of even a late first round pick, over its lifetime, would be greater than a 6-8% better chance at a title in a single season.
This thread was actually taken over by this very debate back in 2009, when Ricky Williams was having his career renaissance. Somewhere near the midpoint of the season, one faction began advocating trading mid-to-high rookie picks for Ricky Williams to load up for the stretch run, and another faction (that I happened to side with) was saying that that was a losing move. I have reevaluated a lot of my opinions since 2009, but this is one where I still believe I had it right. I think if we're evaluating our odds very objectively, we'll find that it seldom makes sense to trade a strong future asset like a rookie 1st for a one-year patch and a 5% better chance at a title. It often feels emotionally like patching a single weakness or acquiring a single star is the difference between us being an underdog and a front runner, but our minds are just brutally bad at thinking probabilistically, and it's important to disregard our emotional response in favor of the hard numbers.
If anyone wants to jump back and read the old Ricky Williams discussion in 2009, it starts somewhere around page 114 or 115, and it really gets good starting on page 117.
Also, in looking back 250+ pages ago, I found this old post by Anthony Borbely that needed to see the light of day again. He was right on the money with this one, and I know I've made the same point in the past- when you "overpay" for a stud with staying power, within a couple of years that "overpayment" begins to look more and more like an outright steal. This is a great example of the "trades are won by the guy who gets the best player" mindset. Most assets crash and burn quickly in dynasty, so if you walk out of a trade with a guy who still has strong value 3+ years later, you did very well regardless of what you had to give up.
The thing is...while this is overpaying, check back in a couple of years and it will look like a steal.The only way to get a player like Fitz is to overpay with roster depth. It's still a great trade.
lardonastick
Footballguy
That's a really good post. The hard part is, first, identifying the Stud with a capital S (OK, not THAT hard, but you better not miss), second, convincing the owner of said Stud to trade him away (hard in many leagues - we're ALL trying to GET the Studs), and third, putting together a package enticing enough to consummate the deal, without crippling your own team in the process (maybe the hardest part of all).Also, in looking back 250+ pages ago, I found this old post by Anthony Borbely that needed to see the light of day again. He was right on the money with this one, and I know I've made the same point in the past- when you "overpay" for a stud with staying power, within a couple of years that "overpayment" begins to look more and more like an outright steal. This is a great example of the "trades are won by the guy who gets the best player" mindset. Most assets crash and burn quickly in dynasty, so if you walk out of a trade with a guy who still has strong value 3+ years later, you did very well regardless of what you had to give up.
The thing is...while this is overpaying, check back in a couple of years and it will look like a steal.
valhallan
Footballguy
Some two WR combination of Antonio Brown, Dwayne Bowe, Torrey Smith or Cecil Shorts plus the 1st for Demaryius Thomas would be today's equivalent.Multiple mediocre players and picks for one gem is the hallmark of the guy that ends up every stud. This method has become transparent in established leagues but those with dynasty novices will be gutted.
EBF
Footballguy
Yea, if I had to sit a dynasty newbie down and explain everything I've learned (the hard way) by mismanaging my own teams and making mistakes over the years, avoiding combo deals where you split a top player into smaller parts would be at the top of the list. Just say no no no no no no no to those deals. When you give up a mega star, you have to get another mega star back. That's my new rule going forward.
I think people get duped into those combo deals for a few reasons. One is because the other owner is able to sell them on the idea of competing now. Often times a junk team will have one great player and nothing else. That owner can convince himself that if he trades his mega star for 3-4 RB2/WR2 types, it will give him a chance to win. In reality, he's not winning either way, so he might as well just stay put, take his lumps, and build around his star. I have Jimmy Graham on a CRAP team right now and the last thing I'm going to do is trade him for three mediocrities so I can go 5-7 this season. Better to keep him and build around him. When you start to view your team more from the perspective of the immediate lineup considerations and less from the perspective of total value, I think you're setting yourself up to make bad trades/picks. Don't get the itchy trigger finger when you're staring at a 1-4 record and ship out your best player for table scraps.
Another reason why owners make those bad combo deals is because they just don't know what they have. If you had sent an offer for Jimmy Graham, Victor Cruz, or Arian Foster after his first big game, you might have been able to get him for a steal of price. This year I saw Christine Michael go for some incredibly low prices before the preseason started. If you are the first one in line, you can sometimes get these guys for a steal. That's why I think it's so important to keep your ear to the ground and always try to recognize these guys a little before their hype really explodes. It is more difficult with players like Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson because they are hyped as mega stars from day one, but even then you might get lucky and find a seller. Look at a guy like Dez Bryant. Many people always expected him to become a star, but even a loyal supporter might have wavered in 2011 or early 2012 when his numbers weren't quite there. If you had come calling with a decent offer at one of those low points, you might have been able to get a deal done. Even true believers are prone to being fickle. If you're a believer in Trent Richardson or RGIII, this might be one of those windows right now where owners are losing faith. These opportunities do come along.
As I've said elsewhere, I increasingly believe that dynasty FF is all about accumulating as many of the enduring difference-makers as you can. It is very easy to find a Brian Hartline or Marlon Brown to plug into your WR3 spot, but a Jimmy Graham is virtually impossible to replace. It is common sense and pretty much everyone already knows this, but when you luck into one of those players you really need to put the clamps down. Those guys who do it every week every season are just gold. The stopgap guys and mediocrities are a dime a dozen. New ones wash in and out of the league every year.
Maybe for the guys who have been around for several years, but we get lots of new people popping in and out, and it's always worthwhile to look back and some old results (even if for no other reason that to provide some tangible examples of what everyone already knows). Besides, Vince Lombardi opened up training camp by holding up a football and saying "Gentlemen, this is a football". If it's good enough for Vince...
Mostly I just bumped it because Borbely called his shot four years ago, and it was worth taking a moment to see where it landed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I agree you do not want to trade these core players (a player who can consistently give you an advantage at a position) for other than core players. There may be instances where doing so is worthwhile, to get younger if your core player is reaching age landmarks, but when you do so, you need to get a replacement core player that will put you in a better position in years ahead or some other advantage like this that makes giving up your core player worth the risk of letting them go.
Usually an offer will not give enough to give up a elite player such as Graham, but I would not say such a trade isn't possible. It just isn't likely to end up in the favor of the owner giving up the best player in the deal. Giving up that player might improve depth but not overall quality.
What if you could trade Graham for Eifert + AJ Green or a deal similar to this though? I would think this would be something that should at least be a consideration.
Usually an offer will not give enough to give up a elite player such as Graham, but I would not say such a trade isn't possible. It just isn't likely to end up in the favor of the owner giving up the best player in the deal. Giving up that player might improve depth but not overall quality.
What if you could trade Graham for Eifert + AJ Green or a deal similar to this though? I would think this would be something that should at least be a consideration.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
