Dynasty Rankings (9 Viewers)

[SSOG]

On to Reggie Bush.....I believe that people will be quite surprised at how well Bush runs moving forward for the rest of his career. Based on what I observed late last season and in the playoffs last year, the "light" has somehow turned on and the results, on his limited number of carries, will be much different than his previous NFL years

On this subject, the whole "light came on" thing is perhaps my least favorite football-related metaphor. There's no magical light that comes on. There's no "switch" that gets "flipped". There's no magical panacea, no cure-for-what-ails-you. All there is is incremental improvement. Might Reggie Bush be improving incrementally in terms of consistently getting positive yardage? I would be surprised if he wasn't. Will he produce magical wholesale changes this late in his career? I would be shocked if he did.Remember how decent Reggie Bush was running the football over the last 8 or so games of his rookie year? Remember how everyone was going on and on about how the "light had come on", how he'd "flipped a switch" and "turned a corner" and all those other cheesy metaphors that people substitute for actual analysis? Yeah, in hindsight, not so much. Turns out it was just another example of people finding trends in meaningless statistical variation.

It's a bit low, but I don't think it's all that crazy. I mean, most people had VJax lower than the two of you to begin with (and the poster did say PPR as well). Not many people had him higher than 10th going into the offseason, he should drop a few spots because of the suspension, holdout, etc., and then he could drop another 4-5 spots if he ends up in worse situation. Personally, I'd have a hard time ranking him lower than 15th or so, but definitely wouldn't be in my top 10.

Follow up F&L- VJax or Finley right now in a non-ppr 1 TE mandatory league?

I think it's certifiably insane. I don't care what offense he's playing in, Vincent Jackson should never be rubbing elbows with Mike Wallace in anyone's rankings.

WR production is pretty closely tied to QB play and offensive philosophy. I don't think 'Rivers made V-Jax good,' but, I do think he has enabled Jackson to achieve his potential. If he went to Seattle his performance would fall. Look at what it did to Housh. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him going from a top 10 WR to a 20-30 WR in 2010. Dynasty ranking I would drop him into the 10-15 range if he goes to a team like Seattle with a drop off in QB play.

WR production is pretty closely tied to targets.The three highest-paid WRs in the league today are Andre Johnson, Brandon Marshall, and Larry Fitzgerald. Over the last 3 seasons, those guys have gone over 150 targets 8 times. The only guy to fail to reach the 150 target plateau was Andre Johnson in 2007... when he only played 9 games. He was on pace for 153 targets that season. Vincent Jackson's contract demands are such that no team will acquire him unless they're willing to pay him in that stratosphere... and if a team pays him that kind of money, he's a stone-cold lock for 140+ targets a year. That's why I was asking what people would set his over/under at if he went to Seattle. To illustrate what kind of impact those kinds of target numbers would have on his value...

Last season, Vincent Jackson had 1167 yards on 107 targets, good for 10.91 ypt. In order to match that yardage number on 140 targets, he would only need to average 8.33 ypt. On 150 targets, he'd only need 7.78 ypt. On 160 targets, he'd only need 7.29 ypt. To put those numbers into perspective... T.J. Houshmandzadeh, career second banana and abject failure of a free agent signing, averaged 6.75 yards per target last year in Seattle. Is Vincent Jackson 1 ypt better than Housh? I'd sure bet on it.

Last season, Vincent Jackson had 68 catches on 107 targets, good for a 63.6 catch%. In order to get 68 catches on 140 targets, he'd only need a 48.6 catch%. On 160 targets, he'd need a 42.5 catch%. In other words, Vincent Jackson is a stone cold lead pipe LOCK for an increase in receptions once he leaves San Diego- which should only help his value in PPR leagues, right? Even if Vincent Jackson sees his yards per reception drop to 14, and he sees his catch% plummet to 55% (despite running much shorter routes), over 140 targets that still works out to 77/1078- which is a tenth of a point MORE than he scored from receptions and yards last season in PPR leagues. On 160 targets, 55% catch and 14 yards per reception translates to 88/1232 receiving. In PPR leagues, I can't help but see how Vincent Jackson leaving San Diego could possibly be construed as anything but a positive.

In non-PPR leagues, I can understand how going to Seattle might look like a negative, but again, the massive increase in targets that he'd be guaranteed to see would do a whole lot to mitigate the big drop in efficiency he'd experience.

 

[humpback]

I like VJax as well, but I can't help but think that some bias is getting in the way here. It almost seems that people are convincing themselves that being in San Diego is actually a bad thing for him, and I can't buy that. Sure, maybe his targets go up in another offense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his fantasy production will. Besides, I'm assuming most people are projecting his production to go up if he stays in San Diego. You wouldn't have him as the #4 or #6 ranked WR if his production didn't increase quite a bit, right? So we're talking about comparing his projected production for the rest of his career in San Diego vs. other teams, not just comparing his past production in San Diego with his future production with another team.

IMO, there are very few situations that would be as good for him- he has a young, stud QB and very good offensive minded head coach. Hasselback and McNabb aren't as good as Rivers right now, not to mention they won't be around much longer. Even if a team gets a young "stud" QB in the draft next year, most likely it'll take a couple of years to get up to speed, and even then there's a very good chance they won't be as good as Rivers. It may not be a reason to knock him down 10 spots, but I just don't agree with the argument that it would increase his value.

I completely agree that he shouldn't be ranked with Wallace, but it's all relative- I don't have Wallace ranked close to #15, and my guess is the other poster doesn't have him in the #20-#25 range. I'm not saying he should drop down from #6 to #20 in your rankings if he went to Seattle, but if the other poster already had him at #15 or so, then to say he should drop down to #20-#25 isn't all that unrealistic IMO. He'd still be way ahead of Wallace. You have to remember, just because some one's rankings are different than yours doesn't mean they're wrong.

It is possible for his production to increase in a lesser situation, maybe even increase more than it would have if he had stayed in San Diego (although there would be no way to know for sure obviously). We're talking about his value here, and I'm pretty sure in most peoples minds his value would be less in Seattle than if he were in San Diego. It could all change if he went somewhere else and tears it up, but I know the owners in my leagues think his value would be lower from talking to them.

 

[Bears_Man2]

PPR: Jackson moves in the neighborhood of WR20-25 for me going to Seattle.

REALLY? That's Mike Sims-Walker, Wes Welker, Mike Wallace territory. You'd really drop Jackson that far if he went to Seattle?

I have Welker ahead of V-Jax in PPR if V-Jax was in uniform right now in SD. (I value Welker as a Top 10 PPR WR & have for a couple seasons now.)PPR:

V-Jax in SD: I have him just outside Top 12/WR1.

I would take Wallace over V-Jax if he lands in Seattle. MSW, no (never been a big fan & he's yet to string something together for a full season).

JMO Wallace is going to be the breakout WR of 2010 barring Dennis Dixon starting a large portion of the season.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Much like you seem with Welker (having him in 20-25 PPR territory), I'm not as high on Jackson in PPR leagues as others. (I very rarely upgrade WR's changing teams in Year 1. Of all the WR's changing teams this offseason, the only one I upgraded at all is T.O. (Palmer is an upgrade from the UFL quality in Buffalo).

 

[Patoons]

On to Reggie Bush.....I believe that people will be quite surprised at how well Bush runs moving forward for the rest of his career. Based on what I observed late last season and in the playoffs last year, the "light" has somehow turned on and the results, on his limited number of carries, will be much different than his previous NFL years

On this subject, the whole "light came on" thing is perhaps my least favorite football-related metaphor. There's no magical light that comes on. There's no "switch" that gets "flipped". There's no magical panacea, no cure-for-what-ails-you. All there is is incremental improvement. Might Reggie Bush be improving incrementally in terms of consistently getting positive yardage? I would be surprised if he wasn't. Will he produce magical wholesale changes this late in his career? I would be shocked if he did.

While I don't think there's a "switch", I do agree with kremenull that there can be a point in a player's career when, for whatever reason, he puts everything he's learned in recent years together. Maybe it's not "pow" now he's awesome, but it's a point in a guy's career where he finally puts it all together, stops thinking, and can go out and play football and put his best foot forward. That's exactly what a breakout year is.

 

[EBF]

On to Reggie Bush.....I believe that people will be quite surprised at how well Bush runs moving forward for the rest of his career. Based on what I observed late last season and in the playoffs last year, the "light" has somehow turned on and the results, on his limited number of carries, will be much different than his previous NFL years

On this subject, the whole "light came on" thing is perhaps my least favorite football-related metaphor. There's no magical light that comes on. There's no "switch" that gets "flipped". There's no magical panacea, no cure-for-what-ails-you. All there is is incremental improvement. Might Reggie Bush be improving incrementally in terms of consistently getting positive yardage? I would be surprised if he wasn't. Will he produce magical wholesale changes this late in his career? I would be shocked if he did.

While I don't think there's a "switch", I do agree with kremenull that there can be a point in a player's career when, for whatever reason, he puts everything he's learned in recent years together. Maybe it's not "pow" now he's awesome, but it's a point in a guy's career where he finally puts it all together, stops thinking, and can go out and play football and put his best foot forward. That's exactly what a breakout year is.

Tiki Barber, Thomas Jones, and Cedric Benson offer some cause for optimism.I'm not about to launch a Reggie Bush bandwagon, but I do think there are some legitimate reasons that might help explain his poor rushing numbers. Health has been a problem for him throughout his NFL career.

 

[cr8f]

lm/coaching session (NFLN behind the scenes segment) between Vikings RBs Coach Eric Bienemy and Adrian Peterson was what revealed this info about Peterson (lacking the patience of CJ2k). This film session was great coaching and priceless video for fans and other coaches (at all levels).

I do believe that patience for a runner is a trait that can be learned, and the process is accelerated when a RB has great, natural instincts. A guy like Peterson may never be the most patient runner, but I feel he is dedicated, as well as astute, enough to develop more patience in his game to allow him to improve.........also, if he learns to not absorb so many hits, it can extend his career, or at least give him a few more highly productive seasons as opposed to limiting his window of high productivity with the way he currently is wearing his body down with his running style.

On to Reggie Bush.....I believe that people will be quite surprised at how well Bush runs moving forward for the rest of his career. Based on what I observed late last season and in the playoffs last year, the "light" has somehow turned on and the results, on his limited number of carries, will be much different than his previous NFL years

I thought so until yesterday still seeing a lot of dancing on several runs.

 

[EBF]

All this talk about Vincent Jackson and barely a peep about Santonio Holmes, who had more yards and catches last season. Holmes is also younger than VJax. Unless Mark Sanchez continues to average 1 yard per attempt, Holmes might be the real buy low gem of the offseason. He went from being a trendy player that everyone wanted to a complete pariah in a matter of days. I think he has a long and productive career ahead of him if he decides to work hard and stay focused. The early results are encouraging judging by his appearances on Hard Knocks.

 

[SSOG]

I like VJax as well, but I can't help but think that some bias is getting in the way here. It almost seems that people are convincing themselves that being in San Diego is actually a bad thing for him, and I can't buy that. Sure, maybe his targets go up in another offense, but that doesn't necessarily mean that his fantasy production will. Besides, I'm assuming most people are projecting his production to go up if he stays in San Diego. You wouldn't have him as the #4 or #6 ranked WR if his production didn't increase quite a bit, right? So we're talking about comparing his projected production for the rest of his career in San Diego vs. other teams, not just comparing his past production in San Diego with his future production with another team.

Staying in San Diego isn't a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that staying in San Diego would be the best thing. His target numbers to date have been unbelievably paltry for a player of his caliber. If those target numbers didn't improve (and I would expect them to improve, but I acknowledge the possibility that they might not), then Vincent Jackson's upside would always be limited, and he'd never be a difference maker unless he continued to produce at his current absurd efficiency levels (which are almost certainly unsustainable).Also, as a quibble, I could easily rank VJax as the #6 WR even if I didn't think his numbers were going to go up any. I've said for months that Roddy White was a top 5 dynasty WR even though I didn't think he was going to be racking up a lot of top 5 fantasy finishes. If I thought VJax was going to produce another 6 seasons like last year (seasons in the WR6-12 range), then I would still rank him as a top 5 dynasty WR. VJax's production doesn't have to increase to justify his current ranking, it just has to hold steady for years to come.

IMO, there are very few situations that would be as good for him- he has a young, stud QB and very good offensive minded head coach. Hasselback and McNabb aren't as good as Rivers right now, not to mention they won't be around much longer. Even if a team gets a young "stud" QB in the draft next year, most likely it'll take a couple of years to get up to speed, and even then there's a very good chance they won't be as good as Rivers. It may not be a reason to knock him down 10 spots, but I just don't agree with the argument that it would increase his value.

In PPR leagues, VJax can go to a worse situation and see a value increase because 85/1000 is worth as much as 65/1200.In non-PPR... I don't buy the theory that the quality of the situation is directly tied to the quality of the QB. Do you think Marques Colston is in the ideal situation right now? How about Reggie Wayne? Greg Jennings? I'd say Andre Johnson is in a MUCH better situation than either of them, despite the fact that Schaub is nowhere near as good as Manning or Brees. Jackson's new QB doesn't need to be anywhere near as good as Rivers for Jackson's new situation to be as good as San Diego. And I really, truly, and honestly believe that Washington is better situation than San Diego. This isn't because of McNabb, this is because of Mike Shanahan.

I have Welker ahead of V-Jax in PPR if V-Jax was in uniform right now in SD. (I value Welker as a Top 10 PPR WR & have for a couple seasons now.)

PPR:

V-Jax in SD: I have him just outside Top 12/WR1.

I would take Wallace over V-Jax if he lands in Seattle. MSW, no (never been a big fan & he's yet to string something together for a full season).

JMO Wallace is going to be the breakout WR of 2010 barring Dennis Dixon starting a large portion of the season.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Much like you seem with Welker (having him in 20-25 PPR territory), I'm not as high on Jackson in PPR leagues as others. (I very rarely upgrade WR's changing teams in Year 1. Of all the WR's changing teams this offseason, the only one I upgraded at all is T.O. (Palmer is an upgrade from the UFL quality in Buffalo).

Yeah, I forgot about the PPR stipulation when I mentioned Welker. I have no problem with anyone who has Welker in the top 10 in PPR. I wouldn't because I think Moss is gone next year, and I think that Welker has been growing fat on the defensive inattention that Moss supplies... but the dude is a reception monster, there's no denying that.I'm a big fan of Mike Wallace, but his upside is that he winds up being as talented as Vincent Jackson... and I'd say the odds of him reaching that upside are slim. We're talking about an almost guaranteed talent disparity here. A big one. I like Wallace's situation a lot, but I can't fathom ever trading Jackson for Wallace straight up, even if Jackson gets traded to the Siberia Icebergs.

 

[SSOG]

All this talk about Vincent Jackson and barely a peep about Santonio Holmes, who had more yards and catches last season. Holmes is also younger than VJax. Unless Mark Sanchez continues to average 1 yard per attempt, Holmes might be the real buy low gem of the offseason. He went from being a trendy player that everyone wanted to a complete pariah in a matter of days. I think he has a long and productive career ahead of him if he decides to work hard and stay focused. The early results are encouraging judging by his appearances on Hard Knocks.

I like Santonio, and agree that people are sleeping on him. I have him at 20th and have considered him as high as 17th. With that said, the difference between Holmes and VJax is TDs. I expect Jackson to score a lot more of them going forward.

 

[dmac37]

On to Reggie Bush.....I believe that people will be quite surprised at how well Bush runs moving forward for the rest of his career. Based on what I observed late last season and in the playoffs last year, the "light" has somehow turned on and the results, on his limited number of carries, will be much different than his previous NFL years

On this subject, the whole "light came on" thing is perhaps my least favorite football-related metaphor. There's no magical light that comes on. There's no "switch" that gets "flipped". There's no magical panacea, no cure-for-what-ails-you. All there is is incremental improvement. Might Reggie Bush be improving incrementally in terms of consistently getting positive yardage? I would be surprised if he wasn't. Will he produce magical wholesale changes this late in his career? I would be shocked if he did.

While I don't think there's a "switch", I do agree with kremenull that there can be a point in a player's career when, for whatever reason, he puts everything he's learned in recent years together. Maybe it's not "pow" now he's awesome, but it's a point in a guy's career where he finally puts it all together, stops thinking, and can go out and play football and put his best foot forward. That's exactly what a breakout year is.

In addition to this I think Bush was finally healthy as the year went on last year.

 

[Instinctive]

All this talk about Vincent Jackson and barely a peep about Santonio Holmes, who had more yards and catches last season. Holmes is also younger than VJax. Unless Mark Sanchez continues to average 1 yard per attempt, Holmes might be the real buy low gem of the offseason. He went from being a trendy player that everyone wanted to a complete pariah in a matter of days. I think he has a long and productive career ahead of him if he decides to work hard and stay focused. The early results are encouraging judging by his appearances on Hard Knocks.

I like Santonio, and agree that people are sleeping on him. I have him at 20th and have considered him as high as 17th. With that said, the difference between Holmes and VJax is TDs. I expect Jackson to score a lot more of them going forward.

Still have Santonio as a top 10 guy, I just haven't been pushing him lately because it'd just have led to flaming no reasonable discussion.I think he's immensely talented, and there is absolutely no reason he can't be as good or better with Sanchez from now on compared to Pittsburgh. Great hands, great speed, and great route running. What else do you wan in a receiver? Age? Oh yeah, he's young too.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

Follow up F&L- VJax or Finley right now in a non-ppr 1 TE mandatory league?

Way too close to call on two different positions without particulars. Startup or established league? If startup, what does the rest of your roster look like? What does the draft landscape look like? If established, what does the rest of your roster look like? How is your depth relative to WR vs. TE? Who are your nucleus players? Is it easier is to acquire a quality TE than it is to acquire a quality WR in your league?

 

[Fear & Loathing]

there is absolutely no reason he can't be as good or better with Sanchez from now on compared to Pittsburgh.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you messing with us? Have you reached a new level of understanding about the game, leaving the rest of us behind? Have you been drinking heavily?

 

[Tau837]

I was in a startup this weekend and ended up pairing up both Bush and McFadden and Harrison and Hardesty. Any thoughts on this as a strategy, for these pairs as well as others?

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I was in a startup this weekend and ended up pairing up both Bush and McFadden and Harrison and Hardesty. Any thoughts on this as a strategy, for these pairs as well as others?

I am a staunch opponent of this strategy. I always try to nail the winner of the competition and the one with more staying power as opposed to picking both. The primary reasons are twofold:1. Let's say I like McFadden and Hardesty more than Bush and Harrison. In that case, I know there is going to be at least one owner in the league that likes Bush and Harrison more than I do. I'd be reaching ahead of him to protect my flank. I don't want to reach for players if I don't think they have staying power. The lesser half of a committee or the loser in a competition generally doesn't have much staying power. If I don't believe in a player, I don't want him on my roster.2. Roster space. Spots are precious. I'd rather have a developmental project that could eventually hit big. If I'm carrying an insurance policy, that's one less spot I have on a high upside backup.

 

[SSOG]

I was in a startup this weekend and ended up pairing up both Bush and McFadden and Harrison and Hardesty. Any thoughts on this as a strategy, for these pairs as well as others?

Not a fan. It's just as likely that neither team sees a true winner emerge, or that someone other than those 4 actually winds up being the real bellcow on the team in a year or two, leaving you burning 4 roster spots and coming away with 0 fantasy relevant RBs to show for it. When I'm drafting, I don't make a point of targeting guys who might be the primary committee RB on an offense like Oakland or Cleveland. If they fell to the point where they represented value, I'd snatch them up, but I wouldn't go in with the intent to lock down those committees.For what it's worth, I'm also not a fan of handcuffing, especially in dynasty.

 

[Instinctive]

there is absolutely no reason he can't be as good or better with Sanchez from now on compared to Pittsburgh.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you messing with us? Have you reached a new level of understanding about the game, leaving the rest of us behind? Have you been drinking heavily?

What's not to understand? I think Sanchez passing to him on the Jets will be a good situation, and so Santonio's stats will be as good or better than they were with Roethlisberger throwing to him in Pittsburgh. And I said I don't see a reason why not.Or did I miss something and Santonio Holmes no loner plays for the Jets? Did Sanchez sustain a career-ending injury in his last preseason game and I missed it? Now you have me confused as well.I think Santonio will be a great fantasy piece in the coming years, although perhaps not THIS year early on with the suspension and such.ETA: I don't drink.

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

I was in a startup this weekend and ended up pairing up both Bush and McFadden and Harrison and Hardesty. Any thoughts on this as a strategy, for these pairs as well as others?

I am a staunch opponent of this strategy. I always try to nail the winner of the competition and the one with more staying power as opposed to picking both. The primary reasons are twofold:1. Let's say I like McFadden and Hardesty more than Bush and Harrison. In that case, I know there is going to be at least one owner in the league that likes Bush and Harrison more than I do. I'd be reaching ahead of him to protect my flank. I don't want to reach for players if I don't think they have staying power. The lesser half of a committee or the loser in a competition generally doesn't have much staying power. If I don't believe in a player, I don't want him on my roster.

2. Roster space. Spots are precious. I'd rather have a developmental project that could eventually hit big. If I'm carrying an insurance policy, that's one less spot I have on a high upside backup.

I was in a startup this weekend and ended up pairing up both Bush and McFadden and Harrison and Hardesty. Any thoughts on this as a strategy, for these pairs as well as others?

Not a fan. It's just as likely that neither team sees a true winner emerge, or that someone other than those 4 actually winds up being the real bellcow on the team in a year or two, leaving you burning 4 roster spots and coming away with 0 fantasy relevant RBs to show for it. When I'm drafting, I don't make a point of targeting guys who might be the primary committee RB on an offense like Oakland or Cleveland. If they fell to the point where they represented value, I'd snatch them up, but I wouldn't go in with the intent to lock down those committees.For what it's worth, I'm also not a fan of handcuffing, especially in dynasty.

F&l, SSOG...I follow both of your guys rankings and posts, and I respect both of you highly, but I'm not sure if I agree with your answers to instinctive in this case. In his post, I read that he "ended up" with these pairs...not that he went in targeting these pairs in order to lock-up a back field. If I read it correctly (and I may not have), then I think this is a perfectly valid strategy...provided it meets one certain criteria. F&L touched upon it, and that is that one does not reach for a player in order to obtain the pair. If drafted where one would normally value each part of the pair, then I think it would be hard to pass up. If I did pass up the second of the pair, then I would be instead drafting a prospect that I originally valued less than what was available...just because I already owned the first. I do not believe that having two backs on the same team decreases the individual value of either.

Now, if I am wrong about my understanding of the question, the I agree with you guys. But otherwise, I think this strategy makes good sense.

 

[Instinctive]

Decent post, But I agree with them both on the strategy of only grabbing the guy you think has staying power. Why grab a lesser back "just in case?"

I think they were responding to JWB

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

I think they were responding to JWB

Haha..my apologoies. Ok guys, please note the correction.

 

[Instinctive]

I think the biggest point is that you shouldn't go out of your way to acquire both guys. If you get to the point in a draft where the lesser guy (in your mind) is suddenly becoming a huge value, the sure, take a shot at him.

I suppose what I'm saying is that your ownership or lack thereof of any player should not affect who you draft thereafter.

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

Decent post, But I agree with them both on the strategy of only grabbing the guy you think has staying power. Why grab a lesser back "just in case?"

Now, regarding the substance. Actually, I think passing on your 2nd choice of a certain backfield just because you have the 1st, and then taking someone you originally valued lower than the 2nd choice is the option where you are selecting the lesser back. Both F&L and SSOG have value ranking for all four of these backs, so they all have some value in their opinion. Thus, why pass on the 2nd of the pair and then choose someone lower on your original value list just because you have the 1st?

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

I think the biggest point is that you shouldn't go out of your way to acquire both guys. If you get to the point in a draft where the lesser guy (in your mind) is suddenly becoming a huge value, the sure, take a shot at him.I suppose what I'm saying is that your ownership or lack thereof of any player should not affect who you draft thereafter.

Ah, I agree. I posted the above before I saw this explanation.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

there is absolutely no reason he can't be as good or better with Sanchez from now on compared to Pittsburgh.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you messing with us? Have you reached a new level of understanding about the game, leaving the rest of us behind? Have you been drinking heavily?

What's not to understand? I think Sanchez passing to him on the Jets will be a good situation, and so Santonio's stats will be as good or better than they were with Roethlisberger throwing to him in Pittsburgh. And I said I don't see a reason why not.Or did I miss something and Santonio Holmes no loner plays for the Jets? Did Sanchez sustain a career-ending injury in his last preseason game and I missed it? Now you have me confused as well.I think Santonio will be a great fantasy piece in the coming years, although perhaps not THIS year early on with the suspension and such.ETA: I don't drink.

I just don't understand how he's going to go from one of the best QBs in the league in a pass-first offense to a below-average QB in a run-first offense and do as good or better.

 

[Instinctive]

there is absolutely no reason he can't be as good or better with Sanchez from now on compared to Pittsburgh.

I don't understand this sentence. Are you messing with us? Have you reached a new level of understanding about the game, leaving the rest of us behind? Have you been drinking heavily?

What's not to understand? I think Sanchez passing to him on the Jets will be a good situation, and so Santonio's stats will be as good or better than they were with Roethlisberger throwing to him in Pittsburgh. And I said I don't see a reason why not.Or did I miss something and Santonio Holmes no loner plays for the Jets? Did Sanchez sustain a career-ending injury in his last preseason game and I missed it? Now you have me confused as well.I think Santonio will be a great fantasy piece in the coming years, although perhaps not THIS year early on with the suspension and such.ETA: I don't drink.

I just don't understand how he's going to go from one of the best QBs in the league in a pass-first offense to a below-average QB in a run-first offense and do as good or better.

I suppose I don't think they're going to be a run first offense then lol. Tough to watch a team go out and draft a top 5 QB, trade for one guy who has the physical potential to be one of the best receivers in the game and then trade for another guy who is one of the best receivers in the game, cut one of only TWO RBs in the NFL with 1000+ rushing yards each of the last 5 years and then go sign one of the best receiving backs in the league and then assume they continue to want to run the ball and get shredded by the teams with the high powered passing offenses like NO and Indy.I don't think Ben's one of the best---I think he's great, but "the best" for me is Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Brady. Rodgers is the one closest to the bubble. I Now, Ben's in my tier two (this is guys I'd want to QB my real NFL team, not fantasy) with Rivers and Romo and Eli, but I guess I'm really just nitpicking there.It all comes down to our perceptions. I think Sanchez has all the tools to be a top 3 QB in the NFL at some point in his career (unless Manning and Brady start pulling Favres on us) while you think he is below average. I think that Pittsburgh wants to run more...they drafted great run blocking OLinemen and traded AWAY one of the best receivers in the game (none of that "it's what they do in PIT crap...I just think those aren't moves you make if you want to pass first) and their goal is to pass more with lesser weapons?I think the two teams are going in opposite directions is all.

 

[SSOG]

F&l, SSOG...I follow both of your guys rankings and posts, and I respect both of you highly, but I'm not sure if I agree with your answers to instinctive in this case. In his post, I read that he "ended up" with these pairs...not that he went in targeting these pairs in order to lock-up a back field. If I read it correctly (and I may not have), then I think this is a perfectly valid strategy...provided it meets one certain criteria. F&L touched upon it, and that is that one does not reach for a player in order to obtain the pair. If drafted where one would normally value each part of the pair, then I think it would be hard to pass up. If I did pass up the second of the pair, then I would be instead drafting a prospect that I originally valued less than what was available...just because I already owned the first. I do not believe that having two backs on the same team decreases the individual value of either.

Now, if I am wrong about my understanding of the question, the I agree with you guys. But otherwise, I think this strategy makes good sense.

I think the key here is that he called it a "strategy". A strategy, in my mind, is an intentional effort to acquire certain players. For instance, if I say my strategy at QB this year is to rely on Roethlisberger as my QB1 and then rely on a cheap QB to get me through the first part of the season until he returns, then that suggests that I'm going into my draft with the intention of acquiring Roethlisberger. That's different than drafting Roethlisberger because he presents the best value of anyone on the board.Is there anything wrong with winding up with McFadden/Bush/Hardesty/Harrison? No, not if they happen to be the best value picks left on the board. Is there anything wrong with entering a draft with the intention of acquiring that foursome, or basing your team on the strategy of acquiring that foursome? Personally, I think so. I don't think the results are going to be favorable enough for me to intentionally try to roster that particular combination of players.

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

F&l, SSOG...I follow both of your guys rankings and posts, and I respect both of you highly, but I'm not sure if I agree with your answers to instinctive in this case. In his post, I read that he "ended up" with these pairs...not that he went in targeting these pairs in order to lock-up a back field. If I read it correctly (and I may not have), then I think this is a perfectly valid strategy...provided it meets one certain criteria. F&L touched upon it, and that is that one does not reach for a player in order to obtain the pair. If drafted where one would normally value each part of the pair, then I think it would be hard to pass up. If I did pass up the second of the pair, then I would be instead drafting a prospect that I originally valued less than what was available...just because I already owned the first. I do not believe that having two backs on the same team decreases the individual value of either.

Now, if I am wrong about my understanding of the question, the I agree with you guys. But otherwise, I think this strategy makes good sense.

I think the key here is that he called it a "strategy". A strategy, in my mind, is an intentional effort to acquire certain players. For instance, if I say my strategy at QB this year is to rely on Roethlisberger as my QB1 and then rely on a cheap QB to get me through the first part of the season until he returns, then that suggests that I'm going into my draft with the intention of acquiring Roethlisberger. That's different than drafting Roethlisberger because he presents the best value of anyone on the board.Is there anything wrong with winding up with McFadden/Bush/Hardesty/Harrison? No, not if they happen to be the best value picks left on the board. Is there anything wrong with entering a draft with the intention of acquiring that foursome, or basing your team on the strategy of acquiring that foursome? Personally, I think so. I don't think the results are going to be favorable enough for me to intentionally try to roster that particular combination of players.

No argument with any of this. But, after thinking a little on this, I might go a step further. When we discussed ranking (in genera)l the other day, I stated that while I respect people that compile a sequential list of their entire rankings, I never do so myself. I tend to have a short sequential list for maybe the first two rounds, but after that, I tend to use tiers of players that I value equally. I will then choose from the best available tier based on how the draft is going for me (e.g. addressing strengths and weaknesses as they progress on my squad, balancing high risk/high reward w/ low risk stability as needed, etc.).

Now, I am not really looking to debate that part of my strategy, but for someone who does choose to use that strategy, I could argue that locking up a back-field could push one player's value over another if they both fall within the same tier for me. Thus, I guess I could be guilty of using a strategy of some type to lock-up a RBBC and/or a handcuff. But, it only occurs as a tie-breaking mechanism rather than a significant value changing mechanism. A good example of this is if I had Joseph Addai and felt that Donald Brown may replace him this year during the season. In this case, I would not take Brown over anyone in the tier above him, but I would definitely take Brown over another RB that I place beside him in a "tier of equality". (EDIT: Forgot this was dynasty, thus, if I had Donald Brown and the best tier of RB's available contained Addai and other backs I viewed as equally valuable, I would choose him to lock up the Colts backfield.)

 

[Man of Constant Sorrow]

*double post - board unusually slow*

 

[munchkin]

PPR: Jackson moves in the neighborhood of WR20-25 for me going to Seattle.

REALLY? That's Mike Sims-Walker, Wes Welker, Mike Wallace territory. You'd really drop Jackson that far if he went to Seattle?

I have Welker ahead of V-Jax in PPR if V-Jax was in uniform right now in SD. (I value Welker as a Top 10 PPR WR & have for a couple seasons now.)PPR:

V-Jax in SD: I have him just outside Top 12/WR1.

I would take Wallace over V-Jax if he lands in Seattle. MSW, no (never been a big fan & he's yet to string something together for a full season).

JMO Wallace is going to be the breakout WR of 2010 barring Dennis Dixon starting a large portion of the season.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Much like you seem with Welker (having him in 20-25 PPR territory), I'm not as high on Jackson in PPR leagues as others. (I very rarely upgrade WR's changing teams in Year 1. Of all the WR's changing teams this offseason, the only one I upgraded at all is T.O. (Palmer is an upgrade from the UFL quality in Buffalo).

Be careful where you place Welker in your rankings. I would expect his targets to go down appreciably ( I was going to say significantly but that may be a bit of an over over-statement). The Patriots are working a lots of new toys for Brady. If Hernandez, Gronkowski, Edelman and Tate don't turn out to be preseason mirages this is going to look like the Pats of old with the ball being spread around like a cold in a classroom of Kindergartners. This team needs to be more creative on Offense and they may finally have the players to do it. Welker looks great; but why expose him more than necessary? Brady is building confidence with the other receiving targets and baring major setbacks the target dispersion will look much different than in the past few years. They have also shown an early commitment to running the ball. They need to be able to sustain drives and score in the Red Zone (of course that is what every team strives for) but they weren't fooling a lot of defenses last year.

 

[MAC_32]

On to Reggie Bush.....I believe that people will be quite surprised at how well Bush runs moving forward for the rest of his career. Based on what I observed late last season and in the playoffs last year, the "light" has somehow turned on and the results, on his limited number of carries, will be much different than his previous NFL years

On this subject, the whole "light came on" thing is perhaps my least favorite football-related metaphor. There's no magical light that comes on. There's no "switch" that gets "flipped". There's no magical panacea, no cure-for-what-ails-you. All there is is incremental improvement. Might Reggie Bush be improving incrementally in terms of consistently getting positive yardage? I would be surprised if he wasn't. Will he produce magical wholesale changes this late in his career? I would be shocked if he did.

While I don't think there's a "switch", I do agree with kremenull that there can be a point in a player's career when, for whatever reason, he puts everything he's learned in recent years together. Maybe it's not "pow" now he's awesome, but it's a point in a guy's career where he finally puts it all together, stops thinking, and can go out and play football and put his best foot forward. That's exactly what a breakout year is.

In addition to this I think Bush was finally healthy as the year went on last year.

...because Peyton limited his reps. Good for the Saints, bad for dyno owners. I picked him up in a startup as a flex, but am not expecting anything better than sporadic blow up's from that spot. I just hope he does them when he's in my starting lineup while my army of kids develop behind him.

 

[kremenull]

Well, SSOG, I'm sorry if you intend every comment to be literal, because in sports, there will often be metaphors included to make a point. And yes, when a player finally understands something, to stop dancing and #####-footing around - be decisive and just go- as is the case with Bush, then yeah, a light will have clicked on....nothing magical about it, simply an understanding and implementation.

As to Bush's value to your lineup, I don't know how 230+ touches at 6.25-7.25 yards per touch (160 carries, 70 rec) would not be of great value to an owner, esp in PPR leagues. Based on my belief that the "light has turned on", this is what I see and project.

Man, I'm still drafting, I gotta stop helping y'all.....In two of my latest dynasty startup drafts for 2010, I targeted Bush as a 7th Rd value, and I believe he will be one of my M.V.P.s this year. Top 14 finish in PPR, book it!

 

[RockHard]

I think it's certifiably insane. I don't care what offense he's playing in, Vincent Jackson should never be rubbing elbows with Mike Wallace in anyone's rankings.

I don't see why it's crazy to put Jackson in the same neighborhood as Wallace. They both derive their value from their big plays in the passing game (17.2 for Jackson v. 19.4 for Wallace). In fact if you look at their YPT, of which you are a fan, Wallace is almost identical to Jackson (10.91 for Jackson to 10.50 for Wallace). Furthermore Wallace is more more dynamic in the open field than Jackson is.

I don't think 'Rivers made V-Jax good,' but, I do think he has enabled Jackson to achieve his potential.

I agree with the preceding quote. Jackson's pairing in SD was an perfect example of the scheme matching a players strength.

 

[humpback]

Follow up F&L- VJax or Finley right now in a non-ppr 1 TE mandatory league?

Way too close to call on two different positions without particulars. Startup or established league? If startup, what does the rest of your roster look like? What does the draft landscape look like? If established, what does the rest of your roster look like? How is your depth relative to WR vs. TE? Who are your nucleus players? Is it easier is to acquire a quality TE than it is to acquire a quality WR in your league?

I know there's an assistant coach's forum, so I was just trying to get your general thoughts, assuming dynasty start up.Since you asked, it's an established league, I have Finley and Witten at TE (start 1) and Marshall, Crabtree, MSW, TO, Jacoby Jones, Schillens, and Sanders at WR (start 3). 14 teams, non-ppr, no flex. Won the league last year, have Schaub at QB, CJ3, MJD, Bradshaw and Foster at RB (start 2), etc.

Yes, it is easier to aquire a quality TE than a quality WR, primarily because the position is so deep now. Witten's value isn't all that high in this league because there are several TEs who scored pretty close to him. It's obviously harder to get a stud like Gates, and if Finley ends up in the top 2-3 this year his value will be very high because of his age.

I was just considering playing the FF stock market, selling Finley high and grabbing VJax relatively low, but the more I watch Finley, the more excited I get. He really could be a 23 year old Gates. I've tried subbing in Witten for Finley, including adding something to the deal, but he only wants Finley. I'd still be okay at TE with Witten, but I could be taking a pretty big step back if Finley breaks out like expected. I don't really need another WR either, but adding VJax would probably give me the best WR group in the league.

Another option I have is to deal Foster and Witten for Dez. That would still leave me with Finley at TE, but then I'd only have Bradshaw as a back up RB. I'm not overly high on Foster long term, but he does have potential and his value will go up quite a bit if he holds onto the job and does well to start the season. I like Dez a lot as well, but he's yet to play a down. In any event, I think most people have VJax and Dez very close in their rankings (as do I, just both a bit lower than you two), not sure if the difference between Finley and Witten is roughly equal to Foster.

 

[Tau837]

I am a staunch opponent of this strategy. I always try to nail the winner of the competition and the one with more staying power as opposed to picking both. The primary reasons are twofold:

1. Let's say I like McFadden and Hardesty more than Bush and Harrison. In that case, I know there is going to be at least one owner in the league that likes Bush and Harrison more than I do. I'd be reaching ahead of him to protect my flank. I don't want to reach for players if I don't think they have staying power. The lesser half of a committee or the loser in a competition generally doesn't have much staying power. If I don't believe in a player, I don't want him on my roster.

2. Roster space. Spots are precious. I'd rather have a developmental project that could eventually hit big. If I'm carrying an insurance policy, that's one less spot I have on a high upside backup.

Not a fan. It's just as likely that neither team sees a true winner emerge, or that someone other than those 4 actually winds up being the real bellcow on the team in a year or two, leaving you burning 4 roster spots and coming away with 0 fantasy relevant RBs to show for it. When I'm drafting, I don't make a point of targeting guys who might be the primary committee RB on an offense like Oakland or Cleveland. If they fell to the point where they represented value, I'd snatch them up, but I wouldn't go in with the intent to lock down those committees.

For what it's worth, I'm also not a fan of handcuffing, especially in dynasty.

F&l, SSOG...I follow both of your guys rankings and posts, and I respect both of you highly, but I'm not sure if I agree with your answers to instinctive in this case. In his post, I read that he "ended up" with these pairs...not that he went in targeting these pairs in order to lock-up a back field. If I read it correctly (and I may not have), then I think this is a perfectly valid strategy...provided it meets one certain criteria. F&L touched upon it, and that is that one does not reach for a player in order to obtain the pair. If drafted where one would normally value each part of the pair, then I think it would be hard to pass up. If I did pass up the second of the pair, then I would be instead drafting a prospect that I originally valued less than what was available...just because I already owned the first. I do not believe that having two backs on the same team decreases the individual value of either.

Now, if I am wrong about my understanding of the question, the I agree with you guys. But otherwise, I think this strategy makes good sense.

I think the key here is that he called it a "strategy". A strategy, in my mind, is an intentional effort to acquire certain players. For instance, if I say my strategy at QB this year is to rely on Roethlisberger as my QB1 and then rely on a cheap QB to get me through the first part of the season until he returns, then that suggests that I'm going into my draft with the intention of acquiring Roethlisberger. That's different than drafting Roethlisberger because he presents the best value of anyone on the board.

Is there anything wrong with winding up with McFadden/Bush/Hardesty/Harrison? No, not if they happen to be the best value picks left on the board. Is there anything wrong with entering a draft with the intention of acquiring that foursome, or basing your team on the strategy of acquiring that foursome? Personally, I think so. I don't think the results are going to be favorable enough for me to intentionally try to roster that particular combination of players.

No argument with any of this. But, after thinking a little on this, I might go a step further. When we discussed ranking (in genera)l the other day, I stated that while I respect people that compile a sequential list of their entire rankings, I never do so myself. I tend to have a short sequential list for maybe the first two rounds, but after that, I tend to use tiers of players that I value equally. I will then choose from the best available tier based on how the draft is going for me (e.g. addressing strengths and weaknesses as they progress on my squad, balancing high risk/high reward w/ low risk stability as needed, etc.).

Now, I am not really looking to debate that part of my strategy, but for someone who does choose to use that strategy, I could argue that locking up a back-field could push one player's value over another if they both fall within the same tier for me. Thus, I guess I could be guilty of using a strategy of some type to lock-up a RBBC and/or a handcuff. But, it only occurs as a tie-breaking mechanism rather than a significant value changing mechanism. A good example of this is if I had Joseph Addai and felt that Donald Brown may replace him this year during the season. In this case, I would not take Brown over anyone in the tier above him, but I would definitely take Brown over another RB that I place beside him in a "tier of equality". (EDIT: Forgot this was dynasty, thus, if I had Donald Brown and the best tier of RB's available contained Addai and other backs I viewed as equally valuable, I would choose him to lock up the Colts backfield.)

Thanks for all the comments, guys.I did "end up" with both pairs; I did not enter the draft targeting them, and I do not as a general rule attempt to pair backfields or draft handcuffs. However, as the draft unfolded, there was a point in each case where I associated a bit of extra value to the second guy drafted in each pair... similar to what MOCS is describing in his last post above to distinguish between similar value RBs. That is why I used the term "strategy". Not a going in strategy, but one that emerged at those points in the draft.

I started off the draft going QB and WR heavy (QB flex league) and only had 2 RBs after 8 rounds (Thomas and Stewart). I drafted these 4 RBs in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 13th rounds as the 34th (Bush), 36th (McFadden), 39th (Harrison), and 45th (Hardesty) RBs drafted.

Entering the draft, I wanted to win this year as well as build a strong roster for the future, so part of my thinking in drafting both pairs was to try to get some short term value on my bench for byes and injuries (thinking Bush and Harrison here) while also taking a couple high potential young players (McFadden and Hardesty, who are both 23).

So I think what I did makes reasonable sense, but I don't feel particularly good about it after the fact. Just having 4 RBs from the Raiders and Browns on my team makes me cringe. That's why I posted to ask for opinions.

 

[az_prof]

Hasselbeck looked pretty good last night. Considering the schedule they play against, I think VJ would do fine in Seattle. I think the perception among many is that Rivers made Jackson, and I just don't believe that is the case. We'll see.

V-Jax would not take a hit in value if he went to Seattle, Washington, or just about any other team outside of Buffalo. And that would only be short-term as I'd expect them to get a top-notch signal caller in next year's draft. All this talk of the QB (Rivers) making V-Jax into a player is hogwash. Right now, this guy would flourish wherever.

WR production is pretty closely tied to QB play and offensive philosophy. I don't think 'Rivers made V-Jax good,' but, I do think he has enabled Jackson to achieve his potential. If he went to Seattle his performance would fall. Look at what it did to Housh. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see him going from a top 10 WR to a 20-30 WR in 2010. Dynasty ranking I would drop him into the 10-15 range if he goes to a team like Seattle with a drop off in QB play.

Housh and Vjax are two completely separate players with one having nothing to do with the other.Housmandzadeh was on a pass-happy team with a great QB and received a ton of targets. He was a bigtime redzone threat and thrived on being on a team that was on the field alot.Vincent Jackson almost equalled Housh's best year with only 68 receptions. And there's no reason VJ's numbers couldn't be top 5 if he received more targets.Rivers is a much more efficient QB last year than Palmer was in 2007.Rivers threw for 4200 yards last year on only 317 completions.It took Palmer 373 completions in 2007 to get 4,000 yards.Rivers throws the ball downfield, and the Chargers ran the ball alot. Jackson had an incredible season, especially when you look at the targets he received. In a situation where he received even more targets, he might really explode.I never bought into Housh, as he was never really explosive and just seemed to be a guy benefiting from the double coverage Ocho Cinco received.He was a number 2 WR that couldn't make the transition to a number 1 WR. This happens alot in the league.VJ was a number 1, and wouldn't have any trouble making the transition. Hasselbeck is a solid QB and would have a field day with an actual top-tier weapon in his arsenal. In fact, VJ could potentially make Housh a 1,000 yard wr again, due to the lessened attention he would receive from the opposition.

It is a bit silly to get too much into this debate when the trade hasn't happened...at this point, VJax is sitting out 2010.But as for VJ being totally different from Housh, I don't see that. You say Housh was never a WR1, which is true, but in SD let's not forget a certain TE who tends to draw a lot of double coverage and attention. You point out how much more efficient Rivers was than Palmer, but in fact, what you are proving is how good the QB play in SD with Rivers is. And lots of #1 receivers have had troubles with transitions to new teams. There are examples of WRs transitioning and doing just fine, but many, many where the WR just doesn't fit into the new scheme or click with the new QB for whatever reason.

 

[Tau837]

As to Bush's value to your lineup, I don't know how 230+ touches at 6.25-7.25 yards per touch (160 carries, 70 rec) would not be of great value to an owner, esp in PPR leagues. Based on my belief that the "light has turned on", this is what I see and project.

I'm curious what you are projecting for Bush's ypc and ypr. His career ypc average is 4.0, though he averaged 5.6 ypc last season on just 70 carries. The two seasons he approached the 160 carries you are projecting, he averaged 3.6 and 3.7 ypc. His career ypr average is 7.4, with a season high of 8.5.160 carries at 4.4 ypc = 704 rushing yards70 catches at 8.5 ypr = 595 receiving yardsThat is 230 touches for an average of 5.6 yards per touch. What are you projecting to get him up to 6.25+ yards per touch?

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I was just considering playing the FF stock market, selling Finley high and grabbing VJax relatively low, but the more I watch Finley, the more excited I get.

Never been a fan of playing the stockmarket just because I can.

Another option I have is to deal Foster and Witten for Dez.

Now this is a deal I like. You don't need Witten because you have Finley. I like Foster, but he's still a back with questionable long-term value. Bryant, on the other hand, is a nucleus player and a difference-maker.

 

[humpback]

I was just considering playing the FF stock market, selling Finley high and grabbing VJax relatively low, but the more I watch Finley, the more excited I get.

Never been a fan of playing the stockmarket just because I can.

Another option I have is to deal Foster and Witten for Dez.

Now this is a deal I like. You don't need Witten because you have Finley. I like Foster, but he's still a back with questionable long-term value. Bryant, on the other hand, is a nucleus player and a difference-maker.

Thanks for your thoughts. I wouldn't play the stockmarket just because I can, I'd play it if I thought it makes sense for my team and/or I'd end up with better value. TE's don't hold a ton of value in this league unless we're talking about the elite because there just isn't a ton of difference between the #5 and #12 or so TE, and just about everyone has a top 12 TE. In a 14-team league that starts 3 WRs, I'll always be able to get value from a solid #2 WR, which I consider to be VJax's floor, but not so much out of a mid #1 TE if that's all Finley becomes. However in terms of production, the choice comes down to if I think the difference between VJax and Crabtree or MSW will be greater than the difference between Finley and Witten, and I'm not sure that it will be.I like the Dez deal as well, but this league is a bit schizo when it comes to valuing young guys- once in a while, there is a rookie or two that people fall in love with and overvalue, but usually they want to see production before giving up a lot for them. RBs are also valued more than WRs- I think Dez was drafted like 6th in our rookie draft (which was held right after the NFL draft), behind Tate and Hardesty. I know, pretty ridiculous, but it just shows where at least some of the league values guys like Dez. I traded for the #3 pick last year and took Crabtree, and it was considered a reach. If I deal for Dez, it would be about production, not value right now. In this league especially, I think it's much more likely that Foster's value goes up than Dez's in the beginning of the season as he should step in right away and produce more than Dez will.

 

[Abraham]

There's no magical light that comes on. There's no "switch" that gets "flipped". There's no magical panacea, no cure-for-what-ails-you. All there is is incremental improvement

I disagree completely. In most cases, what we see as a "switch" being flipped is really incremental improvement born from lots of hours in the offseason. The player improves a little each day from February to August when we don't see him so that the change looks substantial when we finally do. This is the incremental improvement you refer to. But in some cases, a sudden change DOES take a player from bad to good ("on") or good to bad ("off"). Many times, this is the result of a change in system or a change in stability. Case in point: look at the 49ers. Both Alex Smith and Vernon Davis were inarguably talented in college, yet struggled for their first few years int the NFL. An argument can be made that the switch had turned "off" for both due to an endless parade of coordinators, systems, and expectations. However, 2009 showed the switch flipping back "on" as both started to capitalize on their vast potential. I agree with you that players themselves rarely (if ever) suddenly become good when previously they were bad. But situation and system are so important to a player's production that a change in those things can take a low-production player and turn him in to a high-production player. In the case of players like Thomas Jones, Kyle Orton (both "on") and Jeremy Shockey, AJ Feeley (both "off") a change of scenery and system can greatly determine a players level of play.

 

[kremenull]

As to Bush's value to your lineup, I don't know how 230+ touches at 6.25-7.25 yards per touch (160 carries, 70 rec) would not be of great value to an owner, esp in PPR leagues. Based on my belief that the "light has turned on", this is what I see and project.

I'm curious what you are projecting for Bush's ypc and ypr. His career ypc average is 4.0, though he averaged 5.6 ypc last season on just 70 carries. The two seasons he approached the 160 carries you are projecting, he averaged 3.6 and 3.7 ypc. His career ypr average is 7.4, with a season high of 8.5.160 carries at 4.4 ypc = 704 rushing yards70 catches at 8.5 ypr = 595 receiving yardsThat is 230 touches for an average of 5.6 yards per touch. What are you projecting to get him up to 6.25+ yards per touch?

165 carries for 805 yds75 rec for 670 yds

 

[SSOG]

Well, SSOG, I'm sorry if you intend every comment to be literal, because in sports, there will often be metaphors included to make a point. And yes, when a player finally understands something, to stop dancing and #####-footing around - be decisive and just go- as is the case with Bush, then yeah, a light will have clicked on....nothing magical about it, simply an understanding and implementation.

As to Bush's value to your lineup, I don't know how 230+ touches at 6.25-7.25 yards per touch (160 carries, 70 rec) would not be of great value to an owner, esp in PPR leagues. Based on my belief that the "light has turned on", this is what I see and project.

Man, I'm still drafting, I gotta stop helping y'all.....In two of my latest dynasty startup drafts for 2010, I targeted Bush as a 7th Rd value, and I believe he will be one of my M.V.P.s this year. Top 14 finish in PPR, book it!

I don't think you understand the definition of "literal". If I took your "when I watch Bush run, I see that a light has gone on" literally, I would have said "well that's why he sucked so much before- he was running in the dark! Now that the field has been properly illuminated, Bush should have an easier time finding the hole!". I understand the concept of a metaphor, and I understood exactly what point you were trying to make with that particular metaphor. I was just saying that I don't think that the "light went on" metaphor adequately describes player development in the real world.I've got no problem at all with metaphors in general, I just have a problem with that metaphor in particular. It's a bad metaphor.

I don't see why it's crazy to put Jackson in the same neighborhood as Wallace. They both derive their value from their big plays in the passing game (17.2 for Jackson v. 19.4 for Wallace). In fact if you look at their YPT, of which you are a fan, Wallace is almost identical to Jackson (10.91 for Jackson to 10.50 for Wallace). Furthermore Wallace is more more dynamic in the open field than Jackson is.

It's crazy because Mike Wallace isn't half the WR that Vincent Jackson is. I mean, why not lump Davone Bess in with Larry Fitzgerald- after all, they both derive their value from steadily moving the chain (11.3 ypr for Fitz, 10.0 for Bess), and they had comparable YPT values (6.76 for Bess, 7.14 for Fitz- that's actually closer than the Jackson/Wallace comparison). Davone Bess is not in Larry Fitzgerald's league talent-wise. He's not in Fitzgerald's league in terms of defensive coverages he faces, or in terms of how integral he is to the offensive game plan. Just because his numbers are superficially similar does not mean that he's a comparable WR, any more than it means that Mike Wallace is comparable to Vincent Jackson.Huge talent gap between the two players. In fact, it's more than a talent gap, it's a talent chasm- and this is coming from a self-professed Mike Wallace fan. There's a reason why Jackson is likely to wind up one of the 3 highest paid receivers in the NFL by this time next year.

I disagree completely. In most cases, what we see as a "switch" being flipped is really incremental improvement born from lots of hours in the offseason. The player improves a little each day from February to August when we don't see him so that the change looks substantial when we finally do. This is the incremental improvement you refer to.

But in some cases, a sudden change DOES take a player from bad to good ("on") or good to bad ("off"). Many times, this is the result of a change in system or a change in stability. Case in point: look at the 49ers. Both Alex Smith and Vernon Davis were inarguably talented in college, yet struggled for their first few years int the NFL. An argument can be made that the switch had turned "off" for both due to an endless parade of coordinators, systems, and expectations. However, 2009 showed the switch flipping back "on" as both started to capitalize on their vast potential.

I agree with you that players themselves rarely (if ever) suddenly become good when previously they were bad. But situation and system are so important to a player's production that a change in those things can take a low-production player and turn him in to a high-production player. In the case of players like Thomas Jones, Kyle Orton (both "on") and Jeremy Shockey, AJ Feeley (both "off") a change of scenery and system can greatly determine a players level of play.

None of this is an example of a "switch getting flipped", though. This is an example of a player getting put in a favorable situation. It's completely different. A player's situation is outside of his control. Improvements from a change in situation are not improvements resulting from a player suddenly becoming much better with little warning. The player remains essentially the same, it's the environment that changes. Or, to borrow the old "Talent + Opportunity = Production" adage, the increased production isn't a result of increased talent, it's a result of increased opportunity. I don't think any of this is the least bit controversial. I also don't think any of this is an example of what I was addressing. The whole "switch flipped on" concept is meant to be a metaphor for a player who previously didn't "get it" who, suddenly and without warning, "gets it". It implies that the change is both dramatic and rapid- perhaps even immediate. When you see people talking about "switch flipping", they're almost always talking about a player who just went on a hot streak. My contention is that 99.9% of the time the phrase has been used, it's not an example of a player magically flipping from "bad" to "good" over the course of a week or two, it's simply an example of a player going on a hot streak. All players do it- even bad players. For some reason, though, the human mind can't accept random chance, so it has to try to find an explanation for everything. This results in people dramatically overrating players on a hot streak because they're assuming that a "switch has flipped". For the perfect example, look at Reggie Bush over the last half of his rookie season- supposedly a switch flipped that turned him into a good runner because he got hot to end the season. How'd that wind up working out for Bush owners, again?

 

[SSOG]

Good news for Harvin owners: his collapse recently wasn't the result of migraines.

Sugarman, who along with team doctors tended to Harvin and also called 911, is confident the Vikings know why Harvin collapsed and how to prevent it from happening again. Issues that led to Harvin being unresponsive might have included an adverse reaction to medication, dehydration and blood pressure that went too low.

 

[samNhenry]

F & L, What's going on with the dynasty rankings on Rotoworld? I appreciate the spreadsheet but I loved the more detailed stuff you posted on "Sons of Tundra". Thought I saw a note where you said they might be up this weekend. Thanks. Looking forward to seeing what your stuff is going to look like incorporated into Rotoworld.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

F & L, What's going on with the dynasty rankings on Rotoworld? I appreciate the spreadsheet but I loved the more detailed stuff you posted on "Sons of Tundra". Thought I saw a note where you said they might be up this weekend. Thanks. Looking forward to seeing what your stuff is going to look like incorporated into Rotoworld.

Just trying to find the time to update the ranks and finish the notes. I put in a noon to 3 a.m. Saturday on Rotoworld news, researched an article for NBC Sports yesterday while I tried to pack up the house for a move. Back on news, Draft Guide work, and writing the NBC Sports article today/tonight. I know, nobody wants to hear about the labor pains. Just show us the baby. As soon as I can carve out the time, I'll post the Dynasty ranks.

 

[spon23]

Was wondering if I could get some thoughts on Brandon Tate, Mike Thomas and James Jones in dynasty PPR. Specifically, which of the 3 would you prefer in 2011 moving forward? My gut says that Tate could be the best of the 3 long-term, but Thomas seems to have great hands and could rack up a good amount of receptions. The recent news on Jones seems positive, but I really don't know much about him. Thanks!

 

[shader]

Was wondering if I could get some thoughts on Brandon Tate, Mike Thomas and James Jones in dynasty PPR. Specifically, which of the 3 would you prefer in 2011 moving forward? My gut says that Tate could be the best of the 3 long-term, but Thomas seems to have great hands and could rack up a good amount of receptions. The recent news on Jones seems positive, but I really don't know much about him. Thanks!

Jones is the most proven and is in the best situation, imo. I'd take Jones and wouldn't think twice.

 

[SSOG]

Was wondering if I could get some thoughts on Brandon Tate, Mike Thomas and James Jones in dynasty PPR. Specifically, which of the 3 would you prefer in 2011 moving forward? My gut says that Tate could be the best of the 3 long-term, but Thomas seems to have great hands and could rack up a good amount of receptions. The recent news on Jones seems positive, but I really don't know much about him. Thanks!

I was about to say "that's odd, someone was asking almost the exact same question over on DR.net"... until I realized that you were the one asking it over there, too.

 

[EBF]

Was wondering if I could get some thoughts on Brandon Tate, Mike Thomas and James Jones in dynasty PPR. Specifically, which of the 3 would you prefer in 2011 moving forward? My gut says that Tate could be the best of the 3 long-term, but Thomas seems to have great hands and could rack up a good amount of receptions. The recent news on Jones seems positive, but I really don't know much about him. Thanks!

Jones is the most proven and is in the best situation, imo. I'd take Jones and wouldn't think twice.

What has Jones proven? That he can be an inconsistent WR3 whose spotty play helps convince his team to re-sign the 35 year old WR that he was drafted to possibly replace? I think Jones is a decent prospect, but he hasn't proven to be anything above mediocre yet.I think it's a pretty close call between Thomas/Tate/Jones. They all sort of fall into that group of guys I wouldn't mind having on the bottom of my roster, but wouldn't actively pursue in trades as anything more than throw-ins. I might actually go with Tate because I think he probably has the most upside (although he's really more of a WR2 type in the NFL).

 

[shader]

Was wondering if I could get some thoughts on Brandon Tate, Mike Thomas and James Jones in dynasty PPR. Specifically, which of the 3 would you prefer in 2011 moving forward? My gut says that Tate could be the best of the 3 long-term, but Thomas seems to have great hands and could rack up a good amount of receptions. The recent news on Jones seems positive, but I really don't know much about him. Thanks!

Jones is the most proven and is in the best situation, imo. I'd take Jones and wouldn't think twice.

What has Jones proven? That he can be an inconsistent WR3 whose spotty play helps convince his team to re-sign the 35 year old WR that he was drafted to possibly replace? I think Jones is a decent prospect, but he hasn't proven to be anything above mediocre yet.I think it's a pretty close call between Thomas/Tate/Jones. They all sort of fall into that group of guys I wouldn't mind having on the bottom of my roster, but wouldn't actively pursue in trades as anything more than throw-ins. I might actually go with Tate because I think he probably has the most upside (although he's really more of a WR2 type in the NFL).

Jones has more experience and in my opinion has had some very impressive games in the NFL. Tate has not played yet and Thomas had an uneventful rookie season.As far as situations go, Jones looks like he's ready-made to take over for Driver with a nice young QB. Thomas has a pretty poor QB and situation. Tate has Brady, but there are gobs of weapons on that team, and I don't think it's a sure thing that Brady is there in 2011. I realize that in dynasty, most people worry about talent first and situation second, but since I don't see how a legitimate argument could be made that Tate or Thomas have any "talent advantage" over Jones, I'll go with the best situation every time.

 

[Meast21]

Does anyone have any thoughts on Leon Washington? I haven't heard much to date on him but saw the update in the daily email mentioning he looked great in his first game back. I always felt he was under utilized in New York.