Dynasty Rankings (3 Viewers)

[Lott's Fingertip]

I think the only thing Lynch lacks is that sudden burst and top end speed. He seemed faster in college. But I think he is a good receiver, has good vision and lateral agility, and has very good power.

Too bad burst and speed are so important.

 

[SSOG]

Wait, a guy who has a career high of 9 TDs is like Larry Fitzgerald in the redzone?And that's on a team who's QB has thrown 62 passing TDs in the last two years, no less.

Red Zone stats from the past 2 seasons-Larry Fitzgerald: 54 targets, 27 Rec (50%), 23 FD (43%), 18 TD (33%), 3.43 yards per targetVincent Jackson: 28 targets, 17 Rec (61%), 14 FD (50%), 11 TD (39%), 5.43 yards per target

Agreed. I would probalby field offers and if someone wants to pay top 10 RB, I'd deal but I could really see him explode. He's still very young and runs with power and can catcht the ball. He's a risk sure, but I could see him right after ADP/MJD/Johnson/Rice in the right situation.

I couldn't. There's no way I could ever envision Lynch ever leaping Gore, SJax, or Williams. Even if you have a terrible team and need to take a long window to compete (and therefore don't want to acquire any of the 27-year old studs), Stewart and Charles are both younger, and I'd have an incredibly hard time envisioning Lynch jumping either of them.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Wait, a guy who has a career high of 9 TDs is like Larry Fitzgerald in the redzone?

And that's on a team who's QB has thrown 62 passing TDs in the last two years, no less.

Red Zone stats from the past 2 seasons-Larry Fitzgerald: 54 targets, 27 Rec (50%), 23 FD (43%), 18 TD (33%), 3.43 yards per target

Vincent Jackson: 28 targets, 17 Rec (61%), 14 FD (50%), 11 TD (39%), 5.43 yards per target

I don't think that really tells us anything. Fitzgerald got a lot of his redzone looks because he's so good in the redzone, often when he was heavily covered. I watched a lot of SD games this year (own Rivers/Gates in my dynasty), and it seemed Vjax got redzone looks only when he was open.Obviously one guy is going to have higher success rates when he's getting the throws only when he's open, as compared to a guy who's getting the ball forced into him at times even when he's covered.

Where do you get your redzone stats? I'd be interested to see if some of the player's with the highest success rates in the redzone aren't mediocre or below average receivers because of this.

For instance, I'd bet Calvin Johnson's redzone success rates are among the worst, because they forced it to him in heavy coverage very often there this year.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think that really tells us anything. Fitzgerald got a lot of his redzone looks because he's so good in the redzone, often when he was heavily covered. I watched a lot of SD games this year (own Rivers/Gates in my dynasty), and it seemed Vjax got redzone looks only when he was open.

Obviously one guy is going to have higher success rates when he's getting the throws only when he's open, as compared to a guy who's getting the ball forced into him at times even when he's covered.

Where do you get your redzone stats? I'd be interested to see if some of the player's with the highest success rates in the redzone aren't mediocre or below average receivers because of this.

For instance, I'd bet Calvin Johnson's redzone success rates are among the worst, because they forced it to him in heavy coverage very often there this year.

I get all the redzone data from the Data Dominator. Fitzgerald's First Down% in the Red Zone this year was 43.5%. Here's a brief list of players who averaged at least 1 red zone target per game who topped that figure-

Andre Johnson

Tony Gonzalez

Marques Colston

Sidney Rice

Roddy White

Heath Miller

Visanthe Shiancoe

That's 5 of the best receivers in the league, along with a pair of TEs who have based their entire careers on being a weapon in the red zone. Not really any "mediocre or below average" receivers there- not even any second options (provided you count Rice and Shiancoe as options 1A and 1B in the red zone). You're right that VJax had fewer red zone targets (he just missed my 1 target per game cutoff)... but among non-qualifiers, only Vernon Davis and Antonio Gates could match his efficiency. Gates, on the same number of targets, had 2 fewer receptions, 1 fewer first down, and the same number of TDs. We already know that Antonio Gates is one of the greatest red zone options in the entire NFL, and he's on the same team as VJax catching passes from the same QB, but VJax still marginally outperformed him.

Anyway, the sample sizes involved are all very small here, which is why I used a 2-year window in my last comparison. On that 2-year list, VJax ranks 29th in targets, but 12th in first downs and 12th in TDs.

I understand that Jackson's usage level in the red zone isn't anywhere near Fitzgerald's, but I do believe that he is potentially every bit the red zone weapon that Fitzgerald is.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I don't think that really tells us anything. Fitzgerald got a lot of his redzone looks because he's so good in the redzone, often when he was heavily covered. I watched a lot of SD games this year (own Rivers/Gates in my dynasty), and it seemed Vjax got redzone looks only when he was open.

Obviously one guy is going to have higher success rates when he's getting the throws only when he's open, as compared to a guy who's getting the ball forced into him at times even when he's covered.

Where do you get your redzone stats? I'd be interested to see if some of the player's with the highest success rates in the redzone aren't mediocre or below average receivers because of this.

For instance, I'd bet Calvin Johnson's redzone success rates are among the worst, because they forced it to him in heavy coverage very often there this year.

I get all the redzone data from the Data Dominator. Fitzgerald's First Down% in the Red Zone this year was 43.5%. Here's a brief list of players who averaged at least 1 red zone target per game who topped that figure-

Andre Johnson

Tony Gonzalez

Marques Colston

Sidney Rice

Roddy White

Heath Miller

Visanthe Shiancoe

That's 5 of the best receivers in the league, along with a pair of TEs who have based their entire careers on being a weapon in the red zone. Not really any "mediocre or below average" receivers there- not even any second options (provided you count Rice and Shiancoe as options 1A and 1B in the red zone). You're right that VJax had fewer red zone targets (he just missed my 1 target per game cutoff)... but among non-qualifiers, only Vernon Davis and Antonio Gates could match his efficiency. Gates, on the same number of targets, had 2 fewer receptions, 1 fewer first down, and the same number of TDs. We already know that Antonio Gates is one of the greatest red zone options in the entire NFL, and he's on the same team as VJax catching passes from the same QB, but VJax still marginally outperformed him.

Anyway, the sample sizes involved are all very small here, which is why I used a 2-year window in my last comparison. On that 2-year list, VJax ranks 29th in targets, but 12th in first downs and 12th in TDs.

I understand that Jackson's usage level in the red zone isn't anywhere near Fitzgerald's, but I do believe that he is potentially every bit the red zone weapon that Fitzgerald is.

Wait, why are we talking about first down % here? When I talk about red zone target I figure we're talking about a guy's propensity for scoring touchdowns down there. Looking at first downs in the redzone seems about as useful as looking at first downs between the 45 and 46 yard line. What do I care if a guy makes a catch for a first down at the 13 yard line when we're talking about this?Granted, I know that's "technically" the redzone, but I figure when most people talk about great red zone targets they're talking about their ability to score when the field is compressed.

What does the touchdown percentage look like in that area? Catch percentage? What about inside the 10?

 

[SSOG]

Wait, why are we talking about first down % here? When I talk about red zone target I figure we're talking about a guy's propensity for scoring touchdowns down there. Looking at first downs in the redzone seems about as useful as looking at first downs between the 45 and 46 yard line. What do I care if a guy makes a catch for a first down at the 13 yard line when we're talking about this?Granted, I know that's "technically" the redzone, but I figure when most people talk about great red zone targets they're talking about their ability to score when the field is compressed.What does the touchdown percentage look like in that area? Catch percentage? What about inside the 10?

Touchdowns also count as First Downs. As a rule, I prefer FD% to TD% because it's exactly the same as TD% except it doesn't penalize someone for something ridiculous like getting an 18 yard reception from the 19 yard line.

 

[Tau837]

Wait, why are we talking about first down % here? When I talk about red zone target I figure we're talking about a guy's propensity for scoring touchdowns down there. Looking at first downs in the redzone seems about as useful as looking at first downs between the 45 and 46 yard line. What do I care if a guy makes a catch for a first down at the 13 yard line when we're talking about this?Granted, I know that's "technically" the redzone, but I figure when most people talk about great red zone targets they're talking about their ability to score when the field is compressed.What does the touchdown percentage look like in that area? Catch percentage? What about inside the 10?

Touchdowns also count as First Downs. As a rule, I prefer FD% to TD% because it's exactly the same as TD% except it doesn't penalize someone for something ridiculous like getting an 18 yard reception from the 19 yard line.

IMO the relevant discussion here should be focused on red zone success, and a first down is a successful play regardless of where it occurs on the field.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Wait, why are we talking about first down % here? When I talk about red zone target I figure we're talking about a guy's propensity for scoring touchdowns down there. Looking at first downs in the redzone seems about as useful as looking at first downs between the 45 and 46 yard line. What do I care if a guy makes a catch for a first down at the 13 yard line when we're talking about this?Granted, I know that's "technically" the redzone, but I figure when most people talk about great red zone targets they're talking about their ability to score when the field is compressed.What does the touchdown percentage look like in that area? Catch percentage? What about inside the 10?

Touchdowns also count as First Downs. As a rule, I prefer FD% to TD% because it's exactly the same as TD% except it doesn't penalize someone for something ridiculous like getting an 18 yard reception from the 19 yard line.

IMO the relevant discussion here should be focused on red zone success, and a first down is a successful play regardless of where it occurs on the field.

Ok, but aren't we talking about fantasy football here? Do you get points for first downs in your league?Let's face it, when you said that he's "Larry Fitzgerald in the redzone", I'm guessing you meant to imply that fantasy wise, that means he could score a lot of TDs. A six yard catch from the 19 yard line down to the 13 is completely irrelevant to that, and it completely clouds up the data. I could really care less if Jackson is just as good at catching 6 yard passes from the 19 as Fitzgerald is, because we don't get any points for that, and it's not in any way a predictor for anything else that we're talking about.Unfortunately, I don't have access to the DD to get the numbers that I do feel are relevant, but I'd imagine they're just as easy to bend around.Can someone give me the numbers on Calvin Johnson's redzone efficiency? Or, even better, his inside the 10 efficiency?

 

[SSOG]

Ok, but aren't we talking about fantasy football here? Do you get points for first downs in your league?Let's face it, when you said that he's "Larry Fitzgerald in the redzone", I'm guessing you meant to imply that fantasy wise, that means he could score a lot of TDs. A six yard catch from the 19 yard line down to the 13 is completely irrelevant to that, and it completely clouds up the data. I could really care less if Jackson is just as good at catching 6 yard passes from the 19 as Fitzgerald is, because we don't get any points for that, and it's not in any way a predictor for anything else that we're talking about.Unfortunately, I don't have access to the DD to get the numbers that I do feel are relevant, but I'd imagine they're just as easy to bend around.Can someone give me the numbers on Calvin Johnson's redzone efficiency? Or, even better, his inside the 10 efficiency?

I was offering the red zone numbers as a predictive indicator, not a descriptive indicator. If a WR had 60 catches that all wound up on the 1 yard line, but not a single TD, then I think it would be relevant from a fantasy "going forward" mindset to note that, while the WR didn't score a TD, he did have a mind-boggling 60 catches where he was tackled at the 1. If a guy has 50 first downs in the red zone but only 2 TDs, you can bet that the team noticed and will continue going to him in the red zone. Unless you think that the skillset required for getting TDs in the red zone is radically different than the skillset for getting First Downs in the red zone, I don't see what the problem is. To me, it looks like both are a question of getting open in tight spaces. If you'd rather just look at TDs, that's fine- I genuinely focused on First Downs because I believe it's a better measure, not because it helps VJax's case. In fact, the disparity between VJax's and Fitz's TD%s is greater than the disparity between their FD%s.If you want to look just at TDs, then I'd recommend looking at stats inside the 10 instead of stats inside the 20. Of course, that metric will destroy already tiny sample sizes, but I'd be happy to go there. Fitz had 5 TDs on 8 targets this year (62.5%). VJax had 4 TDs on 6 targets (67%). Of course, "Fitzgerald is a target magnet in the red zone" is a much more valid statement than "Fitzgerald is a target magnet inside the 10". Fitz was tied for 8th for red zone targets, but was only tied for 18th in targets inside the 10 (and it was a 10-way tie, at that).As for Calvin Johnson... he had 3 TDs on 11 Targets inside the 10. That might seem terrible, but it actually rates comparably to Tony Gonzalez (3 TDs on 11 targets), Reggie Wayne (5 on 15), or Marques Colston (3 on 10). Meanwhile, Roy Williams had 6 TDs on 10 Targets. That's what happens when you're dealing with sample sizes that small.

 

[MountainMan0726]

Some developments today which may have some dynasty implications...

1) Brian Westbrook released by the Eagles. McCoy owners, rejoice. Timeshare with Weaver?

2) Vincent Jackson pleads guilty to a 2009 DUI. As his second alcohol-related offense, ESPN is reporting that a mandatory league suspension is on the way. How long will that be? That's 2 arrests for suspicion of driving under the influence, with a 3rd arrest for driving with a suspended license and expired tags.

3) Jets sign K Nick Folk. Adjust your draft boards accordingly.

 

[1421]

Could do with some help/advice, my league is more Keeper (non ppr) than dynasty, but thought this thread looked a good place to ask.

I basically have one keeper spot left on my team (the rest of them are obvious) and the choice is between Donald Brown and Jerome Harrison.

Who would you keep?

 

[SSOG]

Could do with some help/advice, my league is more Keeper (non ppr) than dynasty, but thought this thread looked a good place to ask.I basically have one keeper spot left on my team (the rest of them are obvious) and the choice is between Donald Brown and Jerome Harrison.Who would you keep?

Brown.1st round pedigree trumps 5th round pedigree. Colts trumps Browns. Guy who couldn't get on the field much as a rookie trumps guy who couldn't get on the field much as a rookie... or a sophomore... or a 3rd year player. Guy brought in by the current regime trumps guy brought in by the last regime. 23.5 years old trumps 27.7 years old. Guy who only topped 4 ypc 3 times in 11 games trumps guy who only topped 4 ypc 3 times in 13 games. Brown wins on pretty much all counts, imo. Harrison might be trendy because he had that MONSTROUS game against the (woeful) Kansas City Chiefs, but in his final two games, despite getting 72 carries, he only averaged 3.8 ypc with them. I'm not sold on Harrison as anything other than a replaceable talent. Of course, I'm not sold on Brown as anything other than a replaceable talent, either... but when in doubt, go with the rookie replaceable talent who is 4 years younger and carries a 1st round pedigree.

 

[thevidon]

Could do with some help/advice, my league is more Keeper (non ppr) than dynasty, but thought this thread looked a good place to ask.I basically have one keeper spot left on my team (the rest of them are obvious) and the choice is between Donald Brown and Jerome Harrison.Who would you keep?

Brown.1st round pedigree trumps 5th round pedigree. Colts trumps Browns. Guy who couldn't get on the field much as a rookie trumps guy who couldn't get on the field much as a rookie... or a sophomore... or a 3rd year player. Guy brought in by the current regime trumps guy brought in by the last regime. 23.5 years old trumps 27.7 years old. Guy who only topped 4 ypc 3 times in 11 games trumps guy who only topped 4 ypc 3 times in 13 games. Brown wins on pretty much all counts, imo. Harrison might be trendy because he had that MONSTROUS game against the (woeful) Kansas City Chiefs, but in his final two games, despite getting 72 carries, he only averaged 3.8 ypc with them. I'm not sold on Harrison as anything other than a replaceable talent. Of course, I'm not sold on Brown as anything other than a replaceable talent, either... but when in doubt, go with the rookie replaceable talent who is 4 years younger and carries a 1st round pedigree.

Couldn't have said it better myself SSOG.Brown and Harrison are both pretty pedestrian, but Brown is set up for more long term keeper potential with the offense around him and his age.

 

[squistion]

Could do with some help/advice, my league is more Keeper (non ppr) than dynasty, but thought this thread looked a good place to ask.I basically have one keeper spot left on my team (the rest of them are obvious) and the choice is between Donald Brown and Jerome Harrison.Who would you keep?

Brown.1st round pedigree trumps 5th round pedigree. Colts trumps Browns. Guy who couldn't get on the field much as a rookie trumps guy who couldn't get on the field much as a rookie... or a sophomore... or a 3rd year player. Guy brought in by the current regime trumps guy brought in by the last regime. 23.5 years old trumps 27.7 years old. Guy who only topped 4 ypc 3 times in 11 games trumps guy who only topped 4 ypc 3 times in 13 games. Brown wins on pretty much all counts, imo. Harrison might be trendy because he had that MONSTROUS game against the (woeful) Kansas City Chiefs, but in his final two games, despite getting 72 carries, he only averaged 3.8 ypc with them. I'm not sold on Harrison as anything other than a replaceable talent. Of course, I'm not sold on Brown as anything other than a replaceable talent, either... but when in doubt, go with the rookie replaceable talent who is 4 years younger and carries a 1st round pedigree.

After all that maybe we should rename him Donald Trumps. Seriously, good explanation on the respective merits of each, particularly the negatives surrounding Harrison.

 

[mcintyre1]

Went back a few pages and didn't see anything, might have just missed it:

What's Chester Taylor's value in a dynasty, assuming he signs with another team? Is there any expectation that he could get lead role in a timeshare? He's got pretty low mileage for a 30 year old back.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Went back a few pages and didn't see anything, might have just missed it:What's Chester Taylor's value in a dynasty, assuming he signs with another team? Is there any expectation that he could get lead role in a timeshare? He's got pretty low mileage for a 30 year old back.

Hope that Taylor signs with Minnesota and then trade him to the AP owner for a late 2nd or early 3rd round pick, maybe a good defense? Taylor will turn 31 on September 22nd, and I think you know how Dynasty owners feel about 30+ year old backs, especially backs who were never that great to begin with.Edit: Didn't really answer your question. I think Taylor's value actually drops if he signs with another team. I think, at best, Taylor's role would stay the same, maybe even decrease with another team. And, he could sign with a team like Detroit, or some other team that doesn't have near the offense that Minnesota currently does.

 

[1421]

Thanks for the breakdown on brown/harrison. Was thinking much of this was just getting tempted by Harrisons few big games.

I know its not a good choice to have

 

[SSOG]

Went back a few pages and didn't see anything, might have just missed it:What's Chester Taylor's value in a dynasty, assuming he signs with another team? Is there any expectation that he could get lead role in a timeshare? He's got pretty low mileage for a 30 year old back.

Once upon a time, I was a big believer in the "mileage determines decline more than age" viewpoint. Over time, I've changed my opinion. I now believe that age is more important than workload in predicting decline. As a result, I'm not a huge fan of Chester Taylor. He might have some use if he gets a starting job as a 1-year expiring asset while you're developing younger players like JStew or Donald Brown... but beyond that, I wouldn't count on much from him.

 

[The Real Yoda]

Went back a few pages and didn't see anything, might have just missed it:What's Chester Taylor's value in a dynasty, assuming he signs with another team? Is there any expectation that he could get lead role in a timeshare? He's got pretty low mileage for a 30 year old back.

Once upon a time, I was a big believer in the "mileage determines decline more than age" viewpoint. Over time, I've changed my opinion. I now believe that age is more important than workload in predicting decline. As a result, I'm not a huge fan of Chester Taylor. He might have some use if he gets a starting job as a 1-year expiring asset while you're developing younger players like JStew or Donald Brown... but beyond that, I wouldn't count on much from him.

That seems like an interesting talking point. What made you transition your opinion on that? I assume you did a disgustingly in depth statistical study and I won't ask you to write one of your infamously long/awesome dissections of this (but if you already have, feel free to put it here haha). Are you seeing that peak physical conditioning simply can't keep up past 30 regardless of mileage(in most cases, obv not all of them)?

 

[SSOG]

That seems like an interesting talking point. What made you transition your opinion on that? I assume you did a disgustingly in depth statistical study and I won't ask you to write one of your infamously long/awesome dissections of this (but if you already have, feel free to put it here haha). Are you seeing that peak physical conditioning simply can't keep up past 30 regardless of mileage(in most cases, obv not all of them)?

There was nothing major or earthshattering that led to the transition, it was mostly just a lot of little things. Partly, it was just looking at what kind of RBs were still productive at 30 (lots of Curtis Martin's on that list). Partly it was looking at the aging patterns of WR and just cementing my opinion that age really does have a serious and noticeable deleterious effect on NFL players, and that the precipice looms for everyone regardless of usage to date. Is it possible that workload hastens the demise? Sure, I'd buy that... but at the same time, workload or no workload, 30 is very old for an RB.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

Thought SSOG might like this...

(Rotoworld) The Cardinals are expected to make Steve Breaston a first-round tender offer in the coming days.

Analysis: The tender will position Breaston to receive $2.946M in 2010, when he may ascend to a starting job for the first time in his career. The Cards couldn't get away with tendering him at a lower level without risking a team swooping in to offer him a long-term deal. Fellow RFAs Deuce Lutui, Lyle Sendlein, Ben Patrick, and Gabe Watson are in line for second-round tenders.

Does this put an end to the Early Doucet hype, or am I reading too much into this? I think Breaston is a great buy low. He will never be a stud, but IMO, he has the ability to be one of those Derrick Mason type WR's who continuously produces despite what the naysayers say. I'm not an eloquent guy, but Breaston just seems smooth to me.

 

[PranksterJD]

That seems like an interesting talking point. What made you transition your opinion on that? I assume you did a disgustingly in depth statistical study and I won't ask you to write one of your infamously long/awesome dissections of this (but if you already have, feel free to put it here haha). Are you seeing that peak physical conditioning simply can't keep up past 30 regardless of mileage(in most cases, obv not all of them)?

There was nothing major or earthshattering that led to the transition, it was mostly just a lot of little things. Partly, it was just looking at what kind of RBs were still productive at 30 (lots of Curtis Martin's on that list). Partly it was looking at the aging patterns of WR and just cementing my opinion that age really does have a serious and noticeable deleterious effect on NFL players, and that the precipice looms for everyone regardless of usage to date. Is it possible that workload hastens the demise? Sure, I'd buy that... but at the same time, workload or no workload, 30 is very old for an RB.

About 3 years ago, one of the FBG staffers did a pretty compelling study that made the case for age over mileage. I've lost the bookmark, so this isn't really the best information.... but I do remember it being a key turning point for me in this debate. Anyone happen to have the link?

 

[Christo]

Any chance Michael Bush becomes startable (or at least good bye week fill in) over the next few years?

 

[SSOG]

Thought SSOG might like this...

(Rotoworld) The Cardinals are expected to make Steve Breaston a first-round tender offer in the coming days.

Analysis: The tender will position Breaston to receive $2.946M in 2010, when he may ascend to a starting job for the first time in his career. The Cards couldn't get away with tendering him at a lower level without risking a team swooping in to offer him a long-term deal. Fellow RFAs Deuce Lutui, Lyle Sendlein, Ben Patrick, and Gabe Watson are in line for second-round tenders.

Does this put an end to the Early Doucet hype, or am I reading too much into this? I think Breaston is a great buy low. He will never be a stud, but IMO, he has the ability to be one of those Derrick Mason type WR's who continuously produces despite what the naysayers say. I'm not an eloquent guy, but Breaston just seems smooth to me.

I do like that. I never got why Doucet got so much hype when he was still behind Breaston (and would likely remain so).

Any chance Michael Bush becomes startable (or at least good bye week fill in) over the next few years?

Yup. I'd say a pretty good chance, although unlike some I don't exactly think it's a foregone conclusion.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Any chance Michael Bush becomes startable (or at least good bye week fill in) over the next few years?

I actually like his talent, but this may be why he hasn't been give more of an opportunity, from Rotoworld:

The Raiders have reportedly been "privately" discouraged by Michael Bush's tendency to tap out of games when he's on a roll.Bush is Oakland's top all-around back and best bet for yards on any given play (career 4.6 YPC), but this may explain Tom Cable's lack of commitment to the explosive 245-pound runner. Bush's role in 2010 remains unclear.

 

[The Real Yoda]

Is anyone else seeing only the latest RB/WR rankings on the blog/site? All of a sudden I can't see any of the older rankings, no QB no TE...

http://dynastyrankings.blogspot.com/search...onal%20Rankings

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

Is anyone else seeing only the latest RB/WR rankings on the blog/site? All of a sudden I can't see any of the older rankings, no QB no TE...

http://dynastyrankings.blogspot.com/search...onal%20Rankings

Noticed the same thing yesterday.

 

[EBF]

Bush is only good in comparison to the other RBs on the roster.

I don't think the Raiders have a true franchise back right now.

 

[n20]

Is anyone else seeing only the latest RB/WR rankings on the blog/site? All of a sudden I can't see any of the older rankings, no QB no TE...

http://dynastyrankings.blogspot.com/search...onal%20Rankings

Noticed the same thing yesterday.

Just click on "older posts" to the bottom right of the last ranking you see. They're all there, just moved to the next page so it doesn't load 100 posts on one page.

 

[thehornet]

That seems like an interesting talking point. What made you transition your opinion on that? I assume you did a disgustingly in depth statistical study and I won't ask you to write one of your infamously long/awesome dissections of this (but if you already have, feel free to put it here haha). Are you seeing that peak physical conditioning simply can't keep up past 30 regardless of mileage(in most cases, obv not all of them)?

There was nothing major or earthshattering that led to the transition, it was mostly just a lot of little things. Partly, it was just looking at what kind of RBs were still productive at 30 (lots of Curtis Martin's on that list). Partly it was looking at the aging patterns of WR and just cementing my opinion that age really does have a serious and noticeable deleterious effect on NFL players, and that the precipice looms for everyone regardless of usage to date. Is it possible that workload hastens the demise? Sure, I'd buy that... but at the same time, workload or no workload, 30 is very old for an RB.

About 3 years ago, one of the FBG staffers did a pretty compelling study that made the case for age over mileage. I've lost the bookmark, so this isn't really the best information.... but I do remember it being a key turning point for me in this debate. Anyone happen to have the link?

I saw that study and it is a good read. i dont necessrily agree though. I posted a ton last season in a Clinton Portis thread debating the exact opposite. I truly believe mileage/tread over age is the determining factor. Each has their own opinion.

 

[SSOG]

I saw that study and it is a good read. i dont necessrily agree though. I posted a ton last season in a Clinton Portis thread debating the exact opposite. I truly believe mileage/tread over age is the determining factor. Each has their own opinion.

Portis didn't wear down because he had high mileage, he wore down because his knees were shot. Granted, his knees were shot mostly BECAUSE of his high mileage... but a 28 year old with high mileage and perfect knees would still be wildly productive. A 28 year old with low mileage and shot knees would still be done. The predictive variable isn't "mileage", it's "knees".Similarly, I suspect that most high-mileage athletes who wore down prior to the typical breakdown age probably did so because of cumulative injuries. Mileage is telling only when it leads to physical deterioration. In the absence of the physical loss, mileage doesn't mean much of anything, as guys like Curtis Martin and Walter Peyton and Emmitt Smith keep on keeping on despite their unbelievable mileage until they finally start hitting the "over the hill" age ranges.A good WR comparison to Portis would be Torry Holt. Holt has fallen off the face of the planet well before the expected WR dropoff age, but it's not because of his mileage, it's because of his knees. Other WRs with comparable mileage (Owens, Harrison, Ward, Driver) remained productive for longer simply because their knees weren't bone-on-bone.

 

[thehornet]

I saw that study and it is a good read. i dont necessrily agree though. I posted a ton last season in a Clinton Portis thread debating the exact opposite. I truly believe mileage/tread over age is the determining factor. Each has their own opinion.

Portis didn't wear down because he had high mileage, he wore down because his knees were shot. Granted, his knees were shot mostly BECAUSE of his high mileage... but a 28 year old with high mileage and perfect knees would still be wildly productive. A 28 year old with low mileage and shot knees would still be done. The predictive variable isn't "mileage", it's "knees".Similarly, I suspect that most high-mileage athletes who wore down prior to the typical breakdown age probably did so because of cumulative injuries. Mileage is telling only when it leads to physical deterioration. In the absence of the physical loss, mileage doesn't mean much of anything, as guys like Curtis Martin and Walter Peyton and Emmitt Smith keep on keeping on despite their unbelievable mileage until they finally start hitting the "over the hill" age ranges.A good WR comparison to Portis would be Torry Holt. Holt has fallen off the face of the planet well before the expected WR dropoff age, but it's not because of his mileage, it's because of his knees. Other WRs with comparable mileage (Owens, Harrison, Ward, Driver) remained productive for longer simply because their knees weren't bone-on-bone.

names like Smith, Martin and Peyton roll off your tongue like it's the norm. These names are tossed around this board as a baseline for comparitive debate when in fact they are nothing like the majority of running backs that enter and leave this league. Sure, it makes your argument look rock solid on the surface, but it doesnt hold much water with me when you are comparing physical freak, hall of famers to other running backs. And as good Portis has benn, he's none of them. I dont have the energy to look back at the numbers, but i wholheartedly disagree. Portis had 31 year old rushing attempt numbers in a 28 year old body. THAT MEANS SOMETHING. Portis didnt have surgery, he didn't have it drained, he had a sprain, he was tired, his legs couldnt hold up, he suffered myriad injuries by overcompensating in one area and showing vulnerability in other areas.....and that's what happens to MOST tired old running backs. Portis lacked burst from the second camp started. He had a couple good games. Sure, his line stunk, but so did he. his vision was downright awful because his legs were spent. Call it what you will but Portis at 28 with close to 2000 career carries is much different than a portis at the same age with roughly 700-800 fewer.

 

[az_prof]

That seems like an interesting talking point. What made you transition your opinion on that? I assume you did a disgustingly in depth statistical study and I won't ask you to write one of your infamously long/awesome dissections of this (but if you already have, feel free to put it here haha). Are you seeing that peak physical conditioning simply can't keep up past 30 regardless of mileage(in most cases, obv not all of them)?

There was nothing major or earthshattering that led to the transition, it was mostly just a lot of little things. Partly, it was just looking at what kind of RBs were still productive at 30 (lots of Curtis Martin's on that list). Partly it was looking at the aging patterns of WR and just cementing my opinion that age really does have a serious and noticeable deleterious effect on NFL players, and that the precipice looms for everyone regardless of usage to date. Is it possible that workload hastens the demise? Sure, I'd buy that... but at the same time, workload or no workload, 30 is very old for an RB.

I completely agree with SSOG. It has taken me time and I didn't do an exhausive survey of NFL backs, but just my observation over the last dozen years or so. And it almost seems like the backs who DO do well post 30 are often those with a lot of mileagle like Smith or Curtis Martin. I think that those guys have bodies that must be very durable. High mileage and low mileage might make sense for machines but we are talking about people. I don't think the analogy works. Try this on for size: how many 30 year old or older backs who did NOT start in the previous two years (and/or have "low mileage") go on to put up top 10 numbers? Right. I can't think of any either.

 

[SSOG]

Try this on for size: how many 30 year old or older backs who did NOT start in the previous two years (and/or have "low mileage") go on to put up top 10 numbers? Right. I can't think of any either.

That's actually a really easy one. Mike Anderson 2005. He was 32. A lot of people would call Barber ('05-'06) and Priest Holmes ('03) "low-mileage" backs, but I have a problem with that, because I'd need to see an actual definition of "low mileage" beyond just "well, it seems like they haven't been used much". For instance... why did Holmes count as a "low-mileage" back in '03 when he was coming off back-to-back 380 touch seasons? How about in '04 when he broke down? If his low mileage kept him productive at 30, then why did he break down at 31? Charlie Garner in 2002 is another great example. I mean, sure, he put up great stats as a "low mileage" RB at age 30 (#9 fantasy finish)... but on the other hand, he only had 180 carries that year, so is that really a case of him being durable more durable than his age would suggest, or just him being incredibly productive with a light workload? And if his low mileage kept him fresh, why did he fall off a cliff the next season?I don't know, it just seems to me that there's some selective memory at work. People might remember a low-mileage RB's phenomenal 30-year old season, and then forget his terrible 31 year old season. Meanwhile, they'll forget a high-mileage RB's fantastic 30 year old season, and then remember him falling off a cliff at 31.

 

[az_prof]

Try this on for size: how many 30 year old or older backs who did NOT start in the previous two years (and/or have "low mileage") go on to put up top 10 numbers? Right. I can't think of any either.

That's actually a really easy one. Mike Anderson 2005. He was 32. A lot of people would call Barber ('05-'06) and Priest Holmes ('03) "low-mileage" backs, but I have a problem with that, because I'd need to see an actual definition of "low mileage" beyond just "well, it seems like they haven't been used much". For instance... why did Holmes count as a "low-mileage" back in '03 when he was coming off back-to-back 380 touch seasons? How about in '04 when he broke down? If his low mileage kept him productive at 30, then why did he break down at 31? Charlie Garner in 2002 is another great example. I mean, sure, he put up great stats as a "low mileage" RB at age 30 (#9 fantasy finish)... but on the other hand, he only had 180 carries that year, so is that really a case of him being durable more durable than his age would suggest, or just him being incredibly productive with a light workload? And if his low mileage kept him fresh, why did he fall off a cliff the next season?I don't know, it just seems to me that there's some selective memory at work. People might remember a low-mileage RB's phenomenal 30-year old season, and then forget his terrible 31 year old season. Meanwhile, they'll forget a high-mileage RB's fantastic 30 year old season, and then remember him falling off a cliff at 31.

But SSOG, you can name only ONE? And Anderson isn't a great analogy because he didn't switch teams. Switching teams add another comlication because you don't know how the guy will fit into a new offense. I still think that supports my point: the odds a guy who is low mileage AND 30 or olders even gets a chance to be a featured back is small. And then he has to perform. Derrick Ward is close to fitting the criteria; he was 29 last year, had low mileage, and had done well in his previous year, and moved to a new team. Yet, he stunk it up for TB after getting starter type money.I LOVE Taylor but it is hard to believe that any team will really make him their featured back at his age, mileage or no mileage.

 

[SSOG]

In honor of the Chargers all but packing Sproles' bags and driving him to the airport, I thought I'd dig up this post:

Geez, reading a bunch of threads around here on some of what I thought were my "high upside" backups, it appears I'm doing it wrong. I have Sproles, Norwood, Choice, and Bush. I have been hopeful that Norwood gets a shot somewhere next year- is that not going to happen? Should I start offering these guys up for mere draft picks? (In re: to Norwood, I also have Turner)

I was all over Norwood a couple of years ago, but at some point, you have to accept that NFL coaches know more than we do. It's like with Mewelde Moore. Everyone on the planet knew he was the most talented RB in Minnesota. Everyone on the planet knew he was the most talented RB in Pittsburgh. Despite that, THREE different coaching staffs used him as a change of pace back rather than featuring him. At some point, you've gotta just accept that there's something to it and move on. In Norwood's case, when he had a clear shot at the starting job in Atlanta and the front office instead paid uber bucks for Michael Turner so they wouldn't have to turn it over to Norwood. You don't pay megabucks for a free agent RB if you think you've already got the guy on your roster. Since then, I've stopped looking at Norwood as a high-upside developmental player and started looking at him as an absurdly good NFL player and a quality asset to any franchise... as a change of pace back.The reason why I call Leon Washington "Norwood North" and Sproles "Norwood West" is because both front offices have shown the exact same unwillingness to commit to those two guys as a featured RB. It's not a knock on Norwood, Washington, or Sproles, any more than it was a knock on MeMo- just because they're not featured RB material doesn't mean they're not good NFL players. They're all just guys who are better NFL assets than fantasy assets, which means people will see how great they look on the field and consistently overrate them.

It might be hard to remember, but there was significant momentum last offseason to the idea that Darren Sproles could be a featured back just because "little" RBs like Chris Johnson and Maurice Jones-Drew were getting the job. There was similar momentum gaining among the Leon Washington camp, though it looks like Shonn Greene is putting most of that to rest, too. Some guys are just very talented CoP backs. No shame in that from an NFL perspective, but those aren't they types of "high upside gambles" you want to be taking a chance on from a fantasy perspective.

 

[SSOG]

But SSOG, you can name only ONE? And Anderson isn't a great analogy because he didn't switch teams. Switching teams add another comlication because you don't know how the guy will fit into a new offense. I still think that supports my point: the odds a guy who is low mileage AND 30 or olders even gets a chance to be a featured back is small. And then he has to perform. Derrick Ward is close to fitting the criteria; he was 29 last year, had low mileage, and had done well in his previous year, and moved to a new team. Yet, he stunk it up for TB after getting starter type money.I LOVE Taylor but it is hard to believe that any team will really make him their featured back at his age, mileage or no mileage.

I don't think that's a very compelling argument. "Nobody's ever done it before because nobody's ever been in that position before" doesn't mean that "people in that position rarely do it". It just means that we have no precedent, so we don't know which direction is historically more likely.

 

[az_prof]

But SSOG, you can name only ONE? And Anderson isn't a great analogy because he didn't switch teams. Switching teams add another comlication because you don't know how the guy will fit into a new offense. I still think that supports my point: the odds a guy who is low mileage AND 30 or olders even gets a chance to be a featured back is small. And then he has to perform. Derrick Ward is close to fitting the criteria; he was 29 last year, had low mileage, and had done well in his previous year, and moved to a new team. Yet, he stunk it up for TB after getting starter type money.I LOVE Taylor but it is hard to believe that any team will really make him their featured back at his age, mileage or no mileage.

I don't think that's a very compelling argument. "Nobody's ever done it before because nobody's ever been in that position before" doesn't mean that "people in that position rarely do it". It just means that we have no precedent, so we don't know which direction is historically more likely.

Couldn't disagree more. No one has done because it is highly unlikely; guys who are THAT good usually do not make it to 30 with "low mileage." Of course, anything is possible. There's always an exception to the rule.

 

[Frank Costanza's Lawyer]

Is the door opening for Ogletree?

From ESPN.com:

INDIANAPOLIS -- Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Roy Williams, who is guaranteed $12.9 million in bonuses and base salary this year, will have to compete to keep his starting job.

"We are going to play the best player, no matter what," Cowboys coach Wade Phillips said when asked whether Patrick Crayton or Kevin Ogletree could beat out Williams.

Williams has been a disappointment since the Cowboys traded first-, third- and sixth-round picks to the Detroit Lions for the receiver and a seventh-rounder in the middle of the 2008 season. He has 57 catches for 794 yards and eight touchdowns in 25 games with the Cowboys.

Crayton had more yards and only one fewer catch than Williams last season despite serving as the team's third receiver in the final 10 games. Toward the end of the season, undrafted rookie Ogletree got some playing time in two-receiver sets at Williams' expense.

Phillips has said it's up to the coaching staff to figure out how to best use Williams, who signed a five-year, $45 million extension the week after being traded to Dallas. Phillips reiterated Friday that he believes Williams can perform at a Pro Bowl level, as he did when he caught 82 passes for 1,310 yards for Detroit in 2006.

"I think a guy that has been a Pro Bowler like Roy, he's got to take part of it too," Phillips said. "Miles [Austin] has come so far that nobody knew he was going to be that good. He has to maintain being that good, and Roy has to get to that level again."

 

[az_prof]

Any chance Michael Bush becomes startable (or at least good bye week fill in) over the next few years?

I actually like his talent, but this may be why he hasn't been give more of an opportunity, from Rotoworld:

The Raiders have reportedly been "privately" discouraged by Michael Bush's tendency to tap out of games when he's on a roll.Bush is Oakland's top all-around back and best bet for yards on any given play (career 4.6 YPC), but this may explain Tom Cable's lack of commitment to the explosive 245-pound runner. Bush's role in 2010 remains unclear.

I saw this too and seeing this story NOW, where obviously someone in the Raider's coaching staff leaked information, made me think that the Raiders are trying to motivate Bush to take his off season training more seriously. It sounds like they are trying to motivate him and let him know that he COULD start this coming season IF he comes into camp fit and ready to carry the load.

 

[KingDain]

I know that this is not an Assistant Coach Topic but i truly need your opinions on a Possible Dynasty Trade (16 Teams with Contract Years).

I can buy Ray Rice (3 Years Contract Remaining) for 1.01 and 2011 First Round (from 1.08 to 1.16) or Micheal Turner (also 3 Years Contract) for 2.01 and 2011 First Round (from 1.08 to 1.16).

I Know both Chris and SSOG think that the Young Stud is Always better, but since i can keep both of them for no more than 4 Years (3+1 Tag) i'm just wondering if it is better to have Spiller or Matthews (with a 5 Years Contract) + Turner or only Rice. I Know that Rice is #4 and Turner is #13 on Sons Of Tundra, but on his article on Rotoworld FOL put Turner at #8, so i'm just wondering what should i expect from turner for the next 2/3 Years (I can buy im now and sell him whenever i want).

Thank you Guys!!

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I know that this is not an Assistant Coach Topic but i truly need your opinions on a Possible Dynasty Trade (16 Teams with Contract Years).I can have Ray Rice (3 Years Contract) for 1.01 and 2011 First Round (from 1.08 to 1.16) or Micheal Turner (also 3 Years Contract) for 2.01 and 2011 First Round (from 1.08 to 1.16).I Know both Chris and SSOG think that the Young Stud is Always better, but since i can keep both of them for no more than 4 Years (3+1 Tag) i'm just wondering if it is better to have Spiller or Matthews (with a 5 Years Contract) + Turner or only Rice. I Know that Rice is #4 and Turner is #13 on Sons Of Tundra, but on his article on Rotoworld FOL put Turner at #8, so i'm just wondering what should i expect from turner for the next 2/3 Years (I can buy im now and sell him whenever i want).Thank you Guys!!

Keep Rice

 

[gheemony]

I know that this is not an Assistant Coach Topic but i truly need your opinions on a Possible Dynasty Trade (16 Teams with Contract Years).I can buy Ray Rice (3 Years Contract Remaining) for 1.01 and 2011 First Round (from 1.08 to 1.16) or Micheal Turner (also 3 Years Contract) for 2.01 and 2011 First Round (from 1.08 to 1.16).I Know both Chris and SSOG think that the Young Stud is Always better, but since i can keep both of them for no more than 4 Years (3+1 Tag) i'm just wondering if it is better to have Spiller or Matthews (with a 5 Years Contract) + Turner or only Rice. I Know that Rice is #4 and Turner is #13 on Sons Of Tundra, but on his article on Rotoworld FOL put Turner at #8, so i'm just wondering what should i expect from turner for the next 2/3 Years (I can buy im now and sell him whenever i want).Thank you Guys!!

Take Rice. Take the known quantity. You don't even know that Spiller or Matthews will be the best back in this class. See if you can get a second rounder in return. I think you'll find a good RB or WR late.

 

[BINGBING]

4th page??? This thread slipped to the 4th page?

C'mon slackers.

I need some opinions on Doucet and Breaston now that Boldin is gone. I've heard it discussed on here before...but thought a few more might chime in now that Boldin is officially gone.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

4th page??? This thread slipped to the 4th page?

C'mon slackers.

I need some opinions on Doucet and Breaston now that Boldin is gone. I've heard it discussed on here before...but thought a few more might chime in now that Boldin is officially gone.

Thought SSOG might like this...

(Rotoworld) The Cardinals are expected to make Steve Breaston a first-round tender offer in the coming days.

Analysis: The tender will position Breaston to receive $2.946M in 2010, when he may ascend to a starting job for the first time in his career. The Cards couldn't get away with tendering him at a lower level without risking a team swooping in to offer him a long-term deal. Fellow RFAs Deuce Lutui, Lyle Sendlein, Ben Patrick, and Gabe Watson are in line for second-round tenders.

Does this put an end to the Early Doucet hype, or am I reading too much into this? I think Breaston is a great buy low. He will never be a stud, but IMO, he has the ability to be one of those Derrick Mason type WR's who continuously produces despite what the naysayers say. I'm not an eloquent guy, but Breaston just seems smooth to me.

Steve Breaston is in line to be the Cardinals' starting flanker following the team's trade of Anquan Boldin.

Everyone in Arizona takes a fantasy hit with Kurt Warner giving way to Matt Leinart, but Breaston is the presumed favorite to replace Boldin on the first-team offense. We wouldn't be shocked if Early Doucet got a fighter's chance to win the job, but Breaston's starting capability is well established. He'll be a WR3 fantasy target, while Doucet could approach WR4 value. Mar. 5 - 9:16 pm et

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...9252&spln=1I think Breaston is the starter.

 

[BINGBING]

4th page??? This thread slipped to the 4th page?

C'mon slackers.

I need some opinions on Doucet and Breaston now that Boldin is gone. I've heard it discussed on here before...but thought a few more might chime in now that Boldin is officially gone.

Thought SSOG might like this...

(Rotoworld) The Cardinals are expected to make Steve Breaston a first-round tender offer in the coming days.

Analysis: The tender will position Breaston to receive $2.946M in 2010, when he may ascend to a starting job for the first time in his career. The Cards couldn't get away with tendering him at a lower level without risking a team swooping in to offer him a long-term deal. Fellow RFAs Deuce Lutui, Lyle Sendlein, Ben Patrick, and Gabe Watson are in line for second-round tenders.

Does this put an end to the Early Doucet hype, or am I reading too much into this? I think Breaston is a great buy low. He will never be a stud, but IMO, he has the ability to be one of those Derrick Mason type WR's who continuously produces despite what the naysayers say. I'm not an eloquent guy, but Breaston just seems smooth to me.

I think Breaston is the starter.

I think he is too, but I don't think the gap between his numbers and Doucet's numbers will be anywhere close to the gap between Boldin and Breaston's. Could Leinart rely heavily on the slot guy also?

 

[GECKO]

4th page??? This thread slipped to the 4th page?

C'mon slackers.

I need some opinions on Doucet and Breaston now that Boldin is gone. I've heard it discussed on here before...but thought a few more might chime in now that Boldin is officially gone.

Thought SSOG might like this...

(Rotoworld) The Cardinals are expected to make Steve Breaston a first-round tender offer in the coming days.

Analysis: The tender will position Breaston to receive $2.946M in 2010, when he may ascend to a starting job for the first time in his career. The Cards couldn't get away with tendering him at a lower level without risking a team swooping in to offer him a long-term deal. Fellow RFAs Deuce Lutui, Lyle Sendlein, Ben Patrick, and Gabe Watson are in line for second-round tenders.

Does this put an end to the Early Doucet hype, or am I reading too much into this? I think Breaston is a great buy low. He will never be a stud, but IMO, he has the ability to be one of those Derrick Mason type WR's who continuously produces despite what the naysayers say. I'm not an eloquent guy, but Breaston just seems smooth to me.

Steve Breaston is in line to be the Cardinals' starting flanker following the team's trade of Anquan Boldin.

Everyone in Arizona takes a fantasy hit with Kurt Warner giving way to Matt Leinart, but Breaston is the presumed favorite to replace Boldin on the first-team offense. We wouldn't be shocked if Early Doucet got a fighter's chance to win the job, but Breaston's starting capability is well established. He'll be a WR3 fantasy target, while Doucet could approach WR4 value. Mar. 5 - 9:16 pm et

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpag...9252&spln=1I think Breaston is the starter.

Agreed however the QB situation concerns me.

 

[GreatLakesMike]

4th page??? This thread slipped to the 4th page?

C'mon slackers.

I need some opinions on Doucet and Breaston now that Boldin is gone. I've heard it discussed on here before...but thought a few more might chime in now that Boldin is officially gone.

Thought SSOG might like this...

(Rotoworld) The Cardinals are expected to make Steve Breaston a first-round tender offer in the coming days.

Analysis: The tender will position Breaston to receive $2.946M in 2010, when he may ascend to a starting job for the first time in his career. The Cards couldn't get away with tendering him at a lower level without risking a team swooping in to offer him a long-term deal. Fellow RFAs Deuce Lutui, Lyle Sendlein, Ben Patrick, and Gabe Watson are in line for second-round tenders.

Does this put an end to the Early Doucet hype, or am I reading too much into this? I think Breaston is a great buy low. He will never be a stud, but IMO, he has the ability to be one of those Derrick Mason type WR's who continuously produces despite what the naysayers say. I'm not an eloquent guy, but Breaston just seems smooth to me.

I think Breaston is the starter.

I think he is too, but I don't think the gap between his numbers and Doucet's numbers will be anywhere close to the gap between Boldin and Breaston's. Could Leinart rely heavily on the slot guy also?

I don't think Leinart is an NFL QB. He might get a shot, but Arizona is bringing someone else in.I've read rumors that Arizona is interested in Derek Anderson. Not exactly a blockbuster deal, but I don't think Anderson is as bad as people think. Cleveland WR's have dropped a ton of balls the past couple of seasons. Braylon dropped like 4 TD's in the first 6 games of 08, not to mention all the 3rd down drops. 8 drops in Anderson's 2 for 17 performance last year. He can make all the throws, which NFL coaches seem to love. I don't think McNabb gets traded, but if he does, I can see Arizona making a big push for him. Delhomme could go to a # of teams, but if I'm Arizona, I bring Delhomme in immediately for a workout.

I won't mention Vick.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Update to the rankings coming anytime soon?

 

[BespokeJort]

curious where the news about delhomme has smiff