Dynasty Rankings (6 Viewers)

[EBF]

Funny coincidence--Escobar was just dropped in my Superflex league. For Rainey. Scooped him right up, even though I'm stupid deep at TE (Gronk, Reed, Allen, Gresham, Green, Escobar, Clay). But it's 1.5 PPR for TE's, I can't just leave that potential out there. At least we can start 3 TE's if we want. I almost want to make room for Hanna from the wire just to lock it down, but I really can't justify it.

My take on Escobar from looking at him pretty extensively before the draft: Very fluid athlete with a great catch radius. However, very little fast twitch explosiveness. An economical mover with very little "juice" whereas guys like Graham, Eifert, and Ebron are economical movers, but with the added bonus of above average fast twitch explosiveness. I still think he might become a decent NFL starter and all of the scouting reports I could find were pretty positive. I've thought about him as a decent sleeper in TE-premium leagues. The upside to become a mega star might not be there though. I probably wouldn't bother to acquire him in most 1TE formats, but I'm in some leagues (1.5 PPR) where any decent starting TE has value and he's a prime candidate to become useful in those formats. Definitely a good "out of sight out of mind" player to stash right now.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I have a chance to pick up Vance McDonald, Gavin Escobar, or Brandon Bostick off the waiver wire. How would you guys rank these three in terms of dynasty potential?

Thanks again for all the great analysis! This is definitely one of my favorite threads anywhere.

Bostick is the only one you won't have a chance to pick up on waivers next month.

I'll give a qualified to this. As more teams get eliminated from the playoffs, it's possible someone will go hunting for future potential and snatch McDonald or Escobar. But I do agree with the larger point that if any one of the three is going to see a noticeable value jump in the next month, it's almost certainly going to be Bostick.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Alshon Jeffery

Keenan Allen

Robert Woods

I don't know if you did it intentionally, but the problem with scouting these 3 specific guys is they had a better next-to-last year than last year in college. Lee is falling under the same trap by having the same dip in production. If you dominate in college consistently there are less questions. Granted, people questioned Crabtree some because his measurables were not elite. However he was still consistently a top 1 or top 2 pick in PPR leagues and close to that in standard. The NFL decides some of this for us. Jeffery could have still been a top 10 pick in the NFL based on talent and his soph year but people with more information than us decided otherwise. Were they wrong? Or just equally overcautious (when they're putting real money down)? I think this ties in nicely to the discussion earlier about using the NFL draft as a market to evaluate players, because evidence at least YTD is that it was pretty wrong and that draftniks know more than we give them credit for. Stacy and Ellington were the two most "overvalued" RBs due to fantasy draft position and they both delivered. Allen is another guy that took a hit in dynasty due to the NFL's evaluation but draftniks who still kept him top 4 or 5 were much closer to right.

Yeah, I definitely took it on the chin on Allen, Lacy, and Stacy, although as always, the book's not entirely written there. Maybe Lacy's toe fusion leads to him being out of the league in 3 years. Maybe St. Louis brings in Knowshon Moreno next year and sends Stacey to the bench. But for sure, if I'm ranking players today and comparing to where I had them before the season, I was way too far down on those three.

Of course, like any other method, it had its share of hits, too. Jordan Reed being by far the most notable- I had him miles ahead of any other staffer except for Tefertiller (who, to be fair, based his ranking off of pre-draft scouting instead of draft position).

Come this offseason, I'll definitely have to reevaluate my process and see if I still believe it's helping me generate the best rankings possible, and see if there's any way for me to better identify the Lacys, Stacys, and Allens without turning up false positives on guys like Da'Rick Rodgers or Kenbrell Thompkins, or missing out entirely on players like Jordan Reed. In the end, though, I really do believe that the NFL draft is an efficient market, and that draft position is one of the most important pieces of information we're going to receive about a player.

 

[Concept Coop]

For what it's worth, I'm with you. Everyone seems to agree in principle that, at QB, it's all about the upside... but here we have a young QB who is demonstrating elite upside, playing with a coach whose system is tailor-made to putting up video game numbers, and nobody's really all that excited about him. In my mind, Nick Foles is probably the best dynasty QB2, and even a credible low-end dynasty QB1. There's risks (I'm not 100% sure he locks down the job long-term, unlike with a Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick), but in that range, risk is irrelevant. It's all about the potential payoff.

In the DLF mock I'm taking part in, I was the last guy to grab a QB in large part because of Nick Foles. I wound up waiting at the position and getting Brady/Foles at the 10/11 turn as the 12th and 15th QBs off the board. Personally, I think that's kind of crazy, but apparently others disagree.

What would you trade for him, in a vacuum? How many of your current rosters would you look to add Foles to, at that cost?

 

[Adam Harstad]

In other words, Thomas and VJax can help win you games under almost any circumstance. Guys like Allen and Randle can't unless the stars line up just so. And what separates the two is height, weight, quickness and speed.

There are just too many non-height/weight/speed guys for me to completely buy this, including the best WR of all time. I don't know if Allen and Randle can be the top priority of a defense and still produce. Hell, Dez Bryant is struggling with that right now. But I think it's too soon to say that they can't, and ignore the flashes, based on measurables.

ETA: Re: Randle: The DB hierarchy changes depending on the players involved. Cruz is not drawing the "top DB", he's drawing the top "slot" DB; those things are not always the same. So I don't know that it's fair to suggest that Randle is only beating #3 DBs. Especially as he produces when Nicks is on the bench.

Huh? Lance Alworth most definitely WAS a "speed guy"!

 

[Adam Harstad]

In reference to the Hanna/Escobar chatter, any chance with the Cowboys massive cap problems this coming offseason that they let Witten loose? I'm not sure if it makes sense contract-wise, and I know its probably hearsay to suggest it, but they drafted a cheap rookie pretty highly and also have Hanna. Seems like a move they might be forced to make if the numbers line up. Could put this conversation in a whole new light.

Zero cap savings if they cut him. In fact, cutting him makes him count about $200,000 more against the cap. He'll be a candidate for release starting in 2015, though.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Do you think Garrett is sticking around another year if they take the division? To finish out this run? Seems like eventually he'll be shone the door, and if they don't make much noise the rest of the season, could be a new coach is brought in--and then the contract decisions on the older players gets a lot more difficult.

Long, off-topic rant (sorry):

Assuming they go 8-8 and are blown out in the first round--as I expect them to be--I think Garrett will be gone. It's the only way Jerry can keep up his "See?! I'm not the problem!" parade.

Ryan was the fall guy last year, and I think Jerry was very close to axing Garrett too. He's out of fall guys. The blame is going to fall on him or Garrett, and we know Jerry's not taking any responsibility.

As a Cowboys fan, the worst part is this: we have a very slim chance to win a SuperBowl over the next 2-3 years; likely close to 0. But, I think that's as close as we'll get until Jerry hires a GM, steps down, or a submits to another Parcells situation, which isn't likely. Established guys don't want to coach for Jerry, and the other options won't be given enough control to change things.

This is how bad it is: The Cowboys traded down with thier 5th rated prospect on the board, and took a player they gave a 2nd round grade, after doing so. Worse? They admitted to a conversation in which the war room was devided: A Floyd group, an Eifert group, and a "Trade back for Franklin" group. How does that happen? You spend your time and resources developing your draft board and there's a conversation when your 5th rated prospect, who fits a major need, falls to you in the late teens?!

In hard knocks they showed a conversation in which the Cowboys were debating two players: Mendenhall and Felix. Jerry asks which one Garrett (OC at the time) likes, and Garrett, sounding coached, says something like, "ones an every down back, and one is a specialist. We already have an every down back (Barber)." Jerry smirks like, "Good boy, Jason. That's what I wanted to hear." This delusional old man is exercising his final say in every roster move, and won't suround himself with people who will question him.

As dark as the last 20 years have been for Cowboys fans, I feel sick thinking about how bad it could have been, if not for Bill Parcells wanting a challenge, and the team lucking into Romo. As low as our chances are with this group, any rebuild is going to last until Jerry dies.

This is pretty interesting stuff, and I definitely feel that pain as well as a Skins fan. I hadn't heard about the war room shenanigans on draft day, that's crazy. Between that and the Cowboys draft boards leaking, it's pretty unprofessional. Almost unbelievably so!

 

[ConnSKINS26]

In reference to the Hanna/Escobar chatter, any chance with the Cowboys massive cap problems this coming offseason that they let Witten loose? I'm not sure if it makes sense contract-wise, and I know its probably hearsay to suggest it, but they drafted a cheap rookie pretty highly and also have Hanna. Seems like a move they might be forced to make if the numbers line up. Could put this conversation in a whole new light.

Zero cap savings if they cut him. In fact, cutting him makes him count about $200,000 more against the cap. He'll be a candidate for release starting in 2015, though.

Thanks for the info. The 2015 date is interesting, because at that point the Cowboys window will probably be close to fully closed and it would make sense to hand the reins over to a young guy.

 

[Adam Harstad]

For what it's worth, I'm with you. Everyone seems to agree in principle that, at QB, it's all about the upside... but here we have a young QB who is demonstrating elite upside, playing with a coach whose system is tailor-made to putting up video game numbers, and nobody's really all that excited about him. In my mind, Nick Foles is probably the best dynasty QB2, and even a credible low-end dynasty QB1. There's risks (I'm not 100% sure he locks down the job long-term, unlike with a Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick), but in that range, risk is irrelevant. It's all about the potential payoff.

In the DLF mock I'm taking part in, I was the last guy to grab a QB in large part because of Nick Foles. I wound up waiting at the position and getting Brady/Foles at the 10/11 turn as the 12th and 15th QBs off the board. Personally, I think that's kind of crazy, but apparently others disagree.

What would you trade for him, in a vacuum? How many of your current rosters would you look to add Foles to, at that cost?

I really need to do a full board restack, but I suspect once I do Foles is going to fall somewhere in the 10-14 range in my QB rankings. So, the easy answer is "I'd trade any QB rated below that, and after that, it depends on the league". In some leagues, QBs never move, so I'd pay rather more to get him. In other leagues, good QBs are routinely traded for mediocre picks, and I'd gleefully ship off a 2nd rounder for him. It's hard to place an "in a vacuum" value on QBs, since no position sees its value vary so much from league to league.

To put a name out there, though... I'm a big Ryan Tannehill fan, and was touting him before the season as pretty much the ideal QB2. I'd give Tannehill for Foles straight up right now, and I wouldn't think twice about it.

 

[Adam Harstad]

In reference to the Hanna/Escobar chatter, any chance with the Cowboys massive cap problems this coming offseason that they let Witten loose? I'm not sure if it makes sense contract-wise, and I know its probably hearsay to suggest it, but they drafted a cheap rookie pretty highly and also have Hanna. Seems like a move they might be forced to make if the numbers line up. Could put this conversation in a whole new light.

Zero cap savings if they cut him. In fact, cutting him makes him count about $200,000 more against the cap. He'll be a candidate for release starting in 2015, though.

Thanks for the info. The 2015 date is interesting, because at that point the Cowboys window will probably be close to fully closed and it would make sense to hand the reins over to a young guy.

No problem. If you ever need contract info, just check Spotrac. It's not perfect, since they don't have access to the actual contracts and are just piecing the details together as best they can, but they're remarkably accurate for that.

 

[Concept Coop]

Come this offseason, I'll definitely have to reevaluate my process and see if I still believe it's helping me generate the best rankings possible, and see if there's any way for me to better identify the Lacys, Stacys, and Allens without turning up false positives on guys like Da'Rick Rodgers or Kenbrell Thompkins, or missing out entirely on players like Jordan Reed. In the end, though, I really do believe that the NFL draft is an efficient market, and that draft position is one of the most important pieces of information we're going to receive about a player.

I think Stacy hitting has potential to backfire on the owners who go too far to ID the next one.

Not only did I not land Stacy anywhere, I was outspoken about him being a first round rookie pick. Hindsight is great, and obviously he proved worthy of the investment. But I still question the practice, and will take the same stance next year.

The RB spot produces a good deal of surprise performers. I think the most efficient means to acquire them, however, is to manage your roster in a way that allows as many quality gambles as possible, rather than picking one and going all in.

If the people who used a 1st on Stacy can string a good number of such hits in a row, I'll have to take note. But, in the meantime, I see a faulty practice that happened to pay off - much like lottery tickets.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

To show it in a slightly different context, I'm trying to make an aggressive move for Foles in a Superflex league right now. Established elite QB's cost such a fortune that you'd wreck your entire roster to get one, and less proven young guys with running ability at the QB position are valued the same way, nearly impossible to acquire.

So I'm targeting Foles before his value had been completely nailed down, and I'm gonna hope I'm dealing with a doubter trying to sell high. Not because I'm sure that he's a stud already, but because he's the only chance I can see out there to get a guy who might be a stud at a reasonable price in this format.

It helps that the other owner already has Romo, Rivers, and Bradford, and is old/fairly weak at RB in a league where you have to start 2 and can start 4. I'm offering Murray or Spiller along with a startable TE. Will probably start with Murray and hope I get lucky. But I'm willing to go higher.

 

[thriftyrocker]

What would you trade for him, in a vacuum? How many of your current rosters would you look to add Foles to, at that cost?

I tried to get him in a 1st year 1QB league where I was relying on Pryor and didn't get anywhere. Most leagues I wouldn't bother as I have a starter and some random depth guys but there's one where I need someone and thought it'd be a move.

because he's the only chance I can see out there to get a guy who might be a stud at a reasonable price in this format.

Keenum's kind of the same guy but cheaper. Although he's cheaper because the floor is a little lower.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

What would you trade for him, in a vacuum? How many of your current rosters would you look to add Foles to, at that cost?

I tried to get him in a 1st year 1QB league where I was relying on Pryor and didn't get anywhere. Most leagues I wouldn't bother as I have a starter and some random depth guys but there's one where I need someone and thought it'd be a move.

because he's the only chance I can see out there to get a guy who might be a stud at a reasonable price in this format.

Keenum's kind of the same guy but cheaper. Although he's cheaper because the floor is a little lower.

I agree with that, owned by a guy really weak at QB who isn't willing to budge, though.

I think I'd rather overpay for Foles than pay a fair price for Keenum.

 

[Concept Coop]

What would you trade for him, in a vacuum? How many of your current rosters would you look to add Foles to, at that cost?

I tried to get him in a 1st year 1QB league where I was relying on Pryor and didn't get anywhere. Most leagues I wouldn't bother as I have a starter and some random depth guys but there's one where I need someone and thought it'd be a move.

I think that's the reason we're not excited right now: we have our guy(s), and so does the rest of our league. If the potential payoff is Mathew Stafford, and the cost is a high 2nd - is that a quality investment? How much more than a late 1st can you get for Stafford in an established 12 team league?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If Foles has a good end of season run here he's going to put a bunch of my rosters over the top. I came into the year pretty well stacked at R/W/T but had dreck at QB. Bought Freeman and Bradford during the offseason to try and shore it up, but that obviously didn't pan out. The Rivers bounceback helped in some leagues, but Foles emergence has turned good teams into great teams the last three or four weeks.

I say all that to, again, admit I'm biased. Especially in light of what I thought about him coming into the 2012 draft. He checks the boxes for me.

But at this point he's among a short list of young QBs who MIGHT be elite. There are Qs about RGIII and Kaepernick. And Foles has had more big games than Luck already too. Cam and Stafford might be the only two young guys that are clearly ahead of him for me. I also think a lot of the in-bound QBs are overrated -- or at least have serious questions until the combine.

So if I had a rookie pick that was good enough to be used on the first QB in FF drafts next year, I'd happily use it for Foles instead if he keeps this up for the next six weeks. What pick that actually turns out to be varies year by year -- but it's typically anything from 5-15. And the middle of that range 9-13 or so seems sensible to me as well -- it feels right.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Come this offseason, I'll definitely have to reevaluate my process and see if I still believe it's helping me generate the best rankings possible, and see if there's any way for me to better identify the Lacys, Stacys, and Allens without turning up false positives on guys like Da'Rick Rodgers or Kenbrell Thompkins, or missing out entirely on players like Jordan Reed. In the end, though, I really do believe that the NFL draft is an efficient market, and that draft position is one of the most important pieces of information we're going to receive about a player.

I think Stacy hitting has potential to backfire on the owners who go too far to ID the next one.

Not only did I not land Stacy anywhere, I was outspoken about him being a first round rookie pick. Hindsight is great, and obviously he proved worthy of the investment. But I still question the practice, and will take the same stance next year.

The RB spot produces a good deal of surprise performers. I think the most efficient means to acquire them, however, is to manage your roster in a way that allows as many quality gambles as possible, rather than picking one and going all in.

If the people who used a 1st on Stacy can string a good number of such hits in a row, I'll have to take note. But, in the meantime, I see a faulty practice that happened to pay off - much like lottery tickets.

That may well be how I feel after I re-evaluate, too. Still, even if my processes are producing good outcomes, it's important to take the offseason to analyze them. When my processes produce bad outcomes, it just underscores the importance.

 

[EBF]

People put a huge premium on immediacy both with the way that they draft rookies (i.e. Zac Stacy vs. Knile Davis) and with the way that they rank players in dynasty. IMO Stacy "winning" the St. Louis RB job is akin to being the world's tallest midget. That backfield was pretty thin and there wasn't much in the way to keep him off the field and prevent him from having some kind of immediate impact. Now that he's strung together a few good games, there's a palpable excitement because he's in the shop window and everyone can see that he might be a halfway decent player. I'd hesitate to call him a hit or a miss just yet though.

I think any RB who's good enough to get drafted by the NFL is also probably good enough to show flashes of decent talent if thrust into playing time. So the fact that any given RB (be it Mike James, Zac Stacy, Andre Ellington, LeVeon Bell, or Eddie Lacy) can come in and look okay doesn't necessarily say much about his long term outlook. Surviving multiple seasons as a starter in the league typically requires a pretty high degree of talent and I don't know that there's conclusive evidence for all of these young backs just yet.

I think what happens pretty reliably is that players (especially backs) with immediate opportunity have the chance to flash their talent and thus tend to become overrated in comparison with similar players who have fewer chances. So is Zac Stacy actually a legit starter? Or is he just Chris Polk on a different roster? I've seen so many of these guys come in through the years and have some success in spurts only to fade into obscurity once a better talent comes into the picture. One possibility with a guy like Stacy is that he becomes a Frank Gore or a more modest success like Shonn Greene. Another is that he's basically just this year's version of Julius Jones...Tashard Choice...Ladell Betts...Vick Ballard...Chester Taylor...etc. Having a few good games doesn't mean you're a flop, but it also doesn't mean you're all that good. The league is full of guys who can look decent if you give them 20+ touches every week. The trick is being so good that you command that workload.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Personally, I'd prefer Demaryius, but opinion's probably gonna be split down the middle on that one, maybe even in favor of Dez. It's personal preference.

 

[Kree]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

players like Randle and Allen ... despite not quite being VJax or Demaryius from a tools standpoint

Here's the problem with that... K Allen is in a stone cold perfect situation as a WR (elite QB, HOF TE, no great WR) and he's only WR19 since Week 3 (when he started playing). His situation isn't going to get much better and if teams ever decide they want to take Allen away, he's done.

And all Randle has shown so far is that he's capable of beating #3 DBs in single coverage.

Meanwhile Thomas is WR4 on 15-30 fewer targets than his top-5 peers, and VJax is WR20 despite playing with a horror show at QB and not a single other NFL caliber skill position player on the team.

In other words, Thomas and VJax can help win you games under almost any circumstance. Guys like Allen and Randle can't unless the stars line up just so. And what separates the two groups is height, weight, quickness and speed.

Meh, there's more than one way to look at any situation.

Rivers is coming off 2 pretty mediocre seasons with largely the same roster, it's arguable that 1 good season out of 3 doesn't necessarily make him an elite QB. And I find the bolded statement to be a bit of a premature conclusion. And as for determining "a perfect situation", there's so many variables to consider that it's hard to ever say if a situation is perfect or not.

As for Randle, facing 3rd CBs is nice, but being the #3 target on your team is certainly not ideal. And I realize Eli's perceived as a good QB due to his tendency to get hot at the right time in the playoffs, but really he's not all that good.

Demaryious Thomas has an elite QB throwing to him, and all sorts of other offensive weapons around him to prevent himself from getting doubled all too often. Hard to argue that's anything but an above average situation, low targets or not.

And although it kinda sucks to have a lack of offensive weapons around you to keep the pressure off, when it results in you being 2nd in the league in targets its not all bad, as is the case for Vincent Jackson.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I offered the trade because of the worries about Dez (health and recent numbers) and thinking long term that Demaryius might regress after Manning... I suppose it was assuming a buy-low on Dez. What is funny is that I cancelled the offer shortly after (last night) on yahoo, but for whatever reason it was accepted today. I did not complain, realizing that Yahoo does stupid stuff sometimes I just figured I would let it go. It feels like a toss up trade really, but I have never owned Dez in any league ever, so it's a new guy to partner with Calvin and Gronk!

 

[Kree]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I have a personal preference, I just think trades like this are sorta a waste of time. If someone has a preference, actually use that advantage. These traders, personally, always just end up frustrating because you inevitably get annoyed when the other side does well, whilst ignoring the fact that it's pretty much pointlessly square.

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I offered the trade because of the worries about Dez (health and recent numbers) and thinking long term that Demaryius might regress after Manning... I suppose it was assuming a buy-low on Dez. What is funny is that I cancelled the offer shortly after (last night) on yahoo, but for whatever reason it was accepted today. I did not complain, realizing that Yahoo does stupid stuff sometimes I just figured I would let it go. It feels like a toss up trade really, but I have never owned Dez in any league ever, so it's a new guy to partner with Calvin and Gronk!

More than anything though, was just wondering on the reasoning.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

How is it even remotely a waste of time? If you each have a different preference, you make the swap and you're both happy. If you have buyer's remorse later, you've got no one to blame but yourself. Doesn't make it a waste of time.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I have a personal preference, I just think trades like this are sorta a waste of time. If someone has a preference, actually use that advantage. These traders, personally, always just end up frustrating because you inevitably get annoyed when the other side does well, whilst ignoring the fact that it's pretty much pointlessly square.

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I offered the trade because of the worries about Dez (health and recent numbers) and thinking long term that Demaryius might regress after Manning... I suppose it was assuming a buy-low on Dez. What is funny is that I cancelled the offer shortly after (last night) on yahoo, but for whatever reason it was accepted today. I did not complain, realizing that Yahoo does stupid stuff sometimes I just figured I would let it go. It feels like a toss up trade really, but I have never owned Dez in any league ever, so it's a new guy to partner with Calvin and Gronk!

More than anything though, was just wondering on the reasoning.

Oh, easy. I'm addicted to trading... sometimes to my detriment. Is Brock Osweiler in 2 years going to be solid enough to keep Demaryius elevated? That longterm concern slightly outweighs the knuckleheadedness of Dez. Is that a reasonable concern? Time will tell. I should have posted this is the dynasty trade thread as well... realized too late.

 

[Adam Harstad]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I have a personal preference, I just think trades like this are sorta a waste of time. If someone has a preference, actually use that advantage. These traders, personally, always just end up frustrating because you inevitably get annoyed when the other side does well, whilst ignoring the fact that it's pretty much pointlessly square.

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I offered the trade because of the worries about Dez (health and recent numbers) and thinking long term that Demaryius might regress after Manning... I suppose it was assuming a buy-low on Dez. What is funny is that I cancelled the offer shortly after (last night) on yahoo, but for whatever reason it was accepted today. I did not complain, realizing that Yahoo does stupid stuff sometimes I just figured I would let it go. It feels like a toss up trade really, but I have never owned Dez in any league ever, so it's a new guy to partner with Calvin and Gronk!

More than anything though, was just wondering on the reasoning.

Oh, easy. I'm addicted to trading... sometimes to my detriment. Is Brock Osweiler in 2 years going to be solid enough to keep Demaryius elevated? That longterm concern slightly outweighs the knuckleheadedness of Dez. Is that a reasonable concern? Time will tell. I should have posted this is the dynasty trade thread as well... realized too late.

Worth pointing out that by the time Osweiler takes over the team, the receiving corps will look very different. Decker will probably be gone after this season. There's a good chance Welker's gone after 2014. Julius's contract is up soon, although I think the team ponies up to keep him. Still, I like Demaryius's chances of keeping up his production if it's just Osweiler and the Thomases, and Oz doesn't have to worry about keeping 4 different receivers fed.

 

[DoubleG]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I offered the trade because of the worries about Dez (health and recent numbers) and thinking long term that Demaryius might regress after Manning... I suppose it was assuming a buy-low on Dez. What is funny is that I cancelled the offer shortly after (last night) on yahoo, but for whatever reason it was accepted today. I did not complain, realizing that Yahoo does stupid stuff sometimes I just figured I would let it go. It feels like a toss up trade really, but I have never owned Dez in any league ever, so it's a new guy to partner with Calvin and Gronk!

In regards to the bolded, in the last 7 games of 2011 (with Tim Tebow throwing him the ball) he averaged 106 receiving yards per game (he had 4 TDs in that 7 game stretch) - that would pencil out to about 75 for 1500 and 8-10 TDs per 16 games. With Manning he is averaging 89 receiving yards per game - but his TDs are up a little (had 10 last season but already at 9 this season) - with Manning his season averages look like 95 for 1400 and 12.

In regards to the trade in question - the two have been discussed quite a bit. Some of us prefer DT, others (hi Coop!) like Dez more. I fear Dez's knucklehead factor a little, but the two are certainly both elite talent.

 

[EBF]

A bad QB might actually help Demaryius in some ways because he'll force feed him the ball instead of moving through the progressions as the play is designed. There are lots of plays where Peyton doesn't even look at him. He has fewer targets this season than Green, Marshall, Dez, Calvin, Andre, and even Alshon Jeffery. Nobody in the NFL has more yards on fewer targets than Thomas. Jimmy Graham has 12 more yards on an identical number of targets, but everyone else who's ahead of him in receiving yards has gotten more chances. Often by a wide margin. For example, AJ Green has 119 targets in 10 games compared to only 80 for Thomas. That's almost 50% more chances.

 

[Riffraff]

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I have a personal preference, I just think trades like this are sorta a waste of time. If someone has a preference, actually use that advantage. These traders, personally, always just end up frustrating because you inevitably get annoyed when the other side does well, whilst ignoring the fact that it's pretty much pointlessly square.

OK OK... just had someone accept a trade that happened so quickly, I wonder if I missed something.

I gave up Demaryius for Dez straight up. Longterm, are we ok with this move? I think the other team was worried about Dez with the rook getting attention of his own.

Can I ask what the point of the trade was?

You don't have a personal preference? Either one is great, but having the choice between them is better.

I offered the trade because of the worries about Dez (health and recent numbers) and thinking long term that Demaryius might regress after Manning... I suppose it was assuming a buy-low on Dez. What is funny is that I cancelled the offer shortly after (last night) on yahoo, but for whatever reason it was accepted today. I did not complain, realizing that Yahoo does stupid stuff sometimes I just figured I would let it go. It feels like a toss up trade really, but I have never owned Dez in any league ever, so it's a new guy to partner with Calvin and Gronk!

More than anything though, was just wondering on the reasoning.

Oh, easy. I'm addicted to trading... sometimes to my detriment. Is Brock Osweiler in 2 years going to be solid enough to keep Demaryius elevated? That longterm concern slightly outweighs the knuckleheadedness of Dez. Is that a reasonable concern? Time will tell. I should have posted this is the dynasty trade thread as well... realized too late.

Worth pointing out that by the time Osweiler takes over the team, the receiving corps will look very different. Decker will probably be gone after this season. There's a good chance Welker's gone after 2014. Julius's contract is up soon, although I think the team ponies up to keep him. Still, I like Demaryius's chances of keeping up his production if it's just Osweiler and the Thomases, and Oz doesn't have to worry about keeping 4 different receivers fed.

Good info, just have to add that the Broncos will have to re-sign Osweiler after re-signing all the other marquee players. His contract expires before Peyton's does. So potentially, the next Broncos' QB may not be on the team right now.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Good info, just have to add that the Broncos will have to re-sign Osweiler after re-signing all the other marquee players. His contract expires before Peyton's does. So potentially, the next Broncos' QB may not be on the team right now.

True, although we'll see if Peyton plays out his entire contract. Either way, I feel pretty confident in Denver re-signing Osweiler if they're at all convinced he has the goods (and if they aren't, then it's probably best for Demaryius that they let him go, anyway). Denver wouldn't draft him high and groom him for 4 years only to let him walk out the door a year before Peyton retires and have to start the process over from scratch. Denver will also have the advantage of having a chance to lock him up on the cheap, since he won't have shown anything yet.

 

[Denver724]

As a Bronco fan I still have doubts about Brock. Just not sure if he will ever live up to expectations. I also question the pick in general. It is true that if Peyton plays out the contract Brock will end up being a FA. What do the Broncos do? And I almost wish they would have selected Lavonte David instead of Brock. David was selected one pick after the Broncos selected Brock. And finally, Dysert may be the guy eventually. One never knows.

 

[Adam Harstad]

As a Bronco fan I still have doubts about Brock. Just not sure if he will ever live up to expectations. I also question the pick in general. It is true that if Peyton plays out the contract Brock will end up being a FA. What do the Broncos do? And I almost wish they would have selected Lavonte David instead of Brock. David was selected one pick after the Broncos selected Brock. And finally, Dysert may be the guy eventually. One never knows.

Hindsight's 20/20. Easy to say Denver should have taken David now that David is playing like an All Pro. I loved the pick at the time Denver made it, and I still love it today. It was a very strong QB draft, which means talented QBs fell further than they would in typical years, meaning it was the cheapest Denver was ever going to get a potential franchise QB. Had Osweiler gone back for another year, there's a fantastic chance he would have been a 1st round pick in 2013.

Maybe Dysert is the guy, although I'm extremely skeptical on that front. That's confusing outcomes with processes, though. In terms of process, any team that wants to remain competitive HAS to ensure that a succession plan is in place, or else they're going to be scrambling once their veteran hangs up his cleats. Maybe the Osweiler pick works out, maybe it doesn't- QBs are a 50/50 proposition under even the best of circumstances- but I think the thinking behind the pick was right on the money. And I'd also point out that a lot of the criticisms leveled at the Osweiler pick were also leveled at the Aaron Rodgers pick. Not saying Osweiler is the next Aaron Rodgers (though wouldn't that be nice? ), just saying, people think every pick is a bad pick until it's paying tangible on-field dividends. If drafting a backup high behind your aging HoF starter instead of making a more win-now pick while your window is open is a bad idea, then it was a bad idea for the Packers as much as it was for the Broncos (worse, actually, because they "wasted" a better pick). If it was smart when the Packers did it, then it was smart when the Broncos did it, too.

Imagine the Broncos had picked Russell Wilson instead of Brock Osweiler at that point. Would anyone feel any differently about that pick today? Of course not- all anyone would see is that Denver spent a 2nd round draft pick on a backup QB when they were in the middle of a "win-now" window. They'd probably hate that pick even more, honestly, because Denver didn't just draft a backup, they drafted a SHORT backup. Still, knowing what we know today, how much would you love it if Denver had drafted Russell Wilson in the 2nd round and sat him behind Peyton Manning for four years? Wouldn't that be pretty much the greatest draft pick in Denver history, even if it didn't pay any dividends until Wilson's second contract?

Like I said, I love the idea of drafting a quality young backup years before your established starter is ready to hang it up. I think that's the sort of thing that smart, well-run franchises do, while the rest of the league is busy scrambling from one roster hole to the next trying to put out fires. Maybe Brock Osweiler winds up being absolutely atrocious and the pick looks bad in hindsight, but I think the thinking behind it was right on the money.

 

[Denver724]

As a Bronco fan I still have doubts about Brock. Just not sure if he will ever live up to expectations. I also question the pick in general. It is true that if Peyton plays out the contract Brock will end up being a FA. What do the Broncos do? And I almost wish they would have selected Lavonte David instead of Brock. David was selected one pick after the Broncos selected Brock. And finally, Dysert may be the guy eventually. One never knows.

Hindsight's 20/20. Easy to say Denver should have taken David now that David is playing like an All Pro. I loved the pick at the time Denver made it, and I still love it today. It was a very strong QB draft, which means talented QBs fell further than they would in typical years, meaning it was the cheapest Denver was ever going to get a potential franchise QB. Had Osweiler gone back for another year, there's a fantastic chance he would have been a 1st round pick in 2013.

Maybe Dysert is the guy, although I'm extremely skeptical on that front. That's confusing outcomes with processes, though. In terms of process, any team that wants to remain competitive HAS to ensure that a succession plan is in place, or else they're going to be scrambling once their veteran hangs up his cleats. Maybe the Osweiler pick works out, maybe it doesn't- QBs are a 50/50 proposition under even the best of circumstances- but I think the thinking behind the pick was right on the money. And I'd also point out that a lot of the criticisms leveled at the Osweiler pick were also leveled at the Aaron Rodgers pick. Not saying Osweiler is the next Aaron Rodgers (though wouldn't that be nice? ), just saying, people think every pick is a bad pick until it's paying tangible on-field dividends. If drafting a backup high behind your aging HoF starter instead of making a more win-now pick while your window is open is a bad idea, then it was a bad idea for the Packers as much as it was for the Broncos (worse, actually, because they "wasted" a better pick). If it was smart when the Packers did it, then it was smart when the Broncos did it, too.

Imagine the Broncos had picked Russell Wilson instead of Brock Osweiler at that point. Would anyone feel any differently about that pick today? Of course not- all anyone would see is that Denver spent a 2nd round draft pick on a backup QB when they were in the middle of a "win-now" window. They'd probably hate that pick even more, honestly, because Denver didn't just draft a backup, they drafted a SHORT backup. Still, knowing what we know today, how much would you love it if Denver had drafted Russell Wilson in the 2nd round and sat him behind Peyton Manning for four years? Wouldn't that be pretty much the greatest draft pick in Denver history, even if it didn't pay any dividends until Wilson's second contract?

Like I said, I love the idea of drafting a quality young backup years before your established starter is ready to hang it up. I think that's the sort of thing that smart, well-run franchises do, while the rest of the league is busy scrambling from one roster hole to the next trying to put out fires. Maybe Brock Osweiler winds up being absolutely atrocious and the pick looks bad in hindsight, but I think the thinking behind it was right on the money.

Very well said. I guess if it was easy there wouldn't be any busts and all the teams would have close to the same talent level. I do agree that a team should have a plan well ahead of when a key player will retire. And I almost think a team should draft a QB every year. There is just too much value. But if Oz doesn't hit many will wonder what could have been with Wilson and Cousins drafted later (and other players they passed on). It will be fun to watch how the whole thing transpires. I do remember reading that the Broncos GM at the time (Xander's) was pounding the table for David, but was overruled by Elway. Brock was the choice. It wasn't a few days later Xander's was out the door.

 

[belljr]

I have a trade pending and it's down to two players Dobson and Stedman Bailey of the two which is the better pick up

 

[Adam Harstad]

I have a trade pending and it's down to two players Dobson and Stedman Bailey of the two which is the better pick up

Dobson.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I have a trade pending and it's down to two players Dobson and Stedman Bailey of the two which is the better pick up

Definitely Dobson.

 

[Statorama]

Like I said, I love the idea of drafting a quality young backup years before your established starter is ready to hang it up. I think that's the sort of thing that smart, well-run franchises do, while the rest of the league is busy scrambling from one roster hole to the next trying to put out fires. Maybe Brock Osweiler winds up being absolutely atrocious and the pick looks bad in hindsight, but I think the thinking behind it was right on the money.

Adam, always love your posts dude.

Who are 5 backup QB's you'd target as potential stars within 3 to 4 years from now?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Like I said, I love the idea of drafting a quality young backup years before your established starter is ready to hang it up. I think that's the sort of thing that smart, well-run franchises do, while the rest of the league is busy scrambling from one roster hole to the next trying to put out fires. Maybe Brock Osweiler winds up being absolutely atrocious and the pick looks bad in hindsight, but I think the thinking behind it was right on the money.

Adam, always love your posts dude.

Who are 5 backup QB's you'd target as potential stars within 3 to 4 years from now?

Mallet, Osweiler, Cousins are a cut above the rest. Foles was on my short list, but that ship has sailed.

 

[Kree]

Like I said, I love the idea of drafting a quality young backup years before your established starter is ready to hang it up. I think that's the sort of thing that smart, well-run franchises do, while the rest of the league is busy scrambling from one roster hole to the next trying to put out fires. Maybe Brock Osweiler winds up being absolutely atrocious and the pick looks bad in hindsight, but I think the thinking behind it was right on the money.

Adam, always love your posts dude.

Who are 5 backup QB's you'd target as potential stars within 3 to 4 years from now?

Can only think of Osweiller, Cousins, Mallett, Nassib (Maybe, opportunity only), Jones (maybe, don't believe in the talent) unless you're still a fan of Chase Daniels...

 

[Statorama]

Like I said, I love the idea of drafting a quality young backup years before your established starter is ready to hang it up. I think that's the sort of thing that smart, well-run franchises do, while the rest of the league is busy scrambling from one roster hole to the next trying to put out fires. Maybe Brock Osweiler winds up being absolutely atrocious and the pick looks bad in hindsight, but I think the thinking behind it was right on the money.

Adam, always love your posts dude.

Who are 5 backup QB's you'd target as potential stars within 3 to 4 years from now?

Mallet, Osweiler, Cousins are a cut above the rest. Foles was on my short list, but that ship has sailed.

Appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[ex-ghost]

What is the dynasty take on Forte? Turning 28 next month.

 

[Adam Harstad]

What is the dynasty take on Forte? Turning 28 next month.

28-year-old RBs suck for dynasty, but *ALL* of the dynasty RBs suck right now, so there's nothing exceptional about Forte in that regard. I mean, Jamaal Charles is pretty clearly a top-5 dynasty back right now, and he turns 27 in a month, too. Adrian Peterson turns 29 in March. Marshawn Lynch, like Forte, is not too far away from his 28th birthday. It sucks if you own these guys, because you know that the end is going to come pretty soon... but who is younger and productive right now? Unless you have one of the rookies or Ridley/Martin/Morris, your choice is pretty much between a back who is young and crappy or productive and old. In my mind, "productive and old" is the lesser of those two evils.

I'm heavily biased towards "cerebral" coaches, which means I love Marc Trestman (also: Chip Kelly), and I'd be happy to invest in anyone associated with him.

 

[ex-ghost]

How about Forte vs Rice? Rice having a down year or is he just on his way down?

 

[JFS171]

Where does a guy like Spiller fit? How much do we blame injury vs lack of usage (two regimes have now put him in a time share).

Supporters point to lack of wear and tear early on, but I'm more of the opinion that the age-related decline concerns are more significant. Who's to say one Jackson declines that Spiller gets I all? Or can handle it?

Tough for me to gauge him in dynasty. Would appreciate other opinions...

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Where does a guy like Spiller fit? How much do we blame injury vs lack of usage (two regimes have now put him in a time share).

Supporters point to lack of wear and tear early on, but I'm more of the opinion that the age-related decline concerns are more significant. Who's to say one Jackson declines that Spiller gets I all? Or can handle it?

Tough for me to gauge him in dynasty. Would appreciate other opinions...

Spiller is 26, so it's pretty safe to say there's no age related decline. He's just been dealing with a HAS. There's also no shame in splitting touches with Fred Jackson, who is really good -- good enough to push Marshawn Lynch right out of Buffalo. Spiller doesn't need a huge workload either -- just last year he finished as RB6 on only 250 total touches. He's a top-5 dynasty RB IMO.

 

[Gottabesweet]

It's funny that most posts are my dynasty backs. Spiller, Rice, Richardson I've been starting McCoy and Lacy and want to win now . I tried getting Peterson for Rice and Richardson bit turned down.

The thing is not many RBs to trade for to help this year and future. I'm stuck here and want to sell Rice ahead of curve and Richardson because I give up

 

[Ernol]

What is the dynasty take on Forte? Turning 28 next month.

28-year-old RBs suck for dynasty, but *ALL* of the dynasty RBs suck right now, so there's nothing exceptional about Forte in that regard. I mean, Jamaal Charles is pretty clearly a top-5 dynasty back right now, and he turns 27 in a month, too. Adrian Peterson turns 29 in March. Marshawn Lynch, like Forte, is not too far away from his 28th birthday. It sucks if you own these guys, because you know that the end is going to come pretty soon... but who is younger and productive right now? Unless you have one of the rookies or Ridley/Martin/Morris, your choice is pretty much between a back who is young and crappy or productive and old. In my mind, "productive and old" is the lesser of those two evils.

I'm heavily biased towards "cerebral" coaches, which means I love Marc Trestman (also: Chip Kelly), and I'd be happy to invest in anyone associated with him.

I agree that 28/29 year old RBs (Forte, Bush, etc.) can be as good as the undesireable alternatives out there. However, unless you are able to transition to Gio, then rather than settling for a choice between the best of weaker dynasty choices at RB (even if they are considered “Top 5 or 10”), I’d be looking to take advantage of another team’s need at RB and transfer value out of RB entirely (while Forte/Bush/ADP still have value), even if it means suffering in the short term.

You can fill in holes in the meantime by cycling in cheap players with potential for a starting role (even if temporary) or even non-starters that can score an occasional double digits (in PPR). Guys like Donald Brown and Brian Leonard were on the waiver wire just a few weeks ago (or if not on the wire, then available for peanuts). You don’t necessarily need to hit on a Stacy or Moreno either. Even with lesser RB fill-ins, you can build a competitive short term team just by stocking up at WR/TE while still maximizing long term dynasty value. Hit it big on a RB or two and you now not only have stable dynasty value (because of your WR/TE centric team), but you also have one of the top win-now teams in the league.

Of course, you can also hit it big by stocking up on “stud” RBs and getting lucky at WR (the more conventional method), but the problem there is that from a dynasty perspective, you are heavily invested in assets that depreciate quickly. You may end up feeling like the window on your team is constantly closing and may be tempted to make questionable “win now” trades that may not be in the best interest of your dynasty team as a result.

Take your lumps now (well, not necessarily NOW if you are in a playoff race, but perhaps in the offseason) by transitioning away from RB, and you’ll likely be better off in the long term (and possibly even the near term if you get moderately “lucky” at RB).

 

[EBF]

A shot at some dynasty RB rankings for PPR leagues:

7. CJ Spiller, BUF - A mystifying player who obviously has a lot of talent, but can't seem to get the consistent touches he needs. He turns 27 in August and his game is predicated totally on speed.

What happened here? He was awesome last year, albeit on a relatively small amount of carries. Had a huge YPC and was one of the best in the NFL at breaking long runs. Now it's like a flashback to 2010-2011. He's just a bit player and totally unreliable from week-to-week.

Very happy not to own him anywhere, as he's been a huge bust this year.