Instinctive
Footballguy
Oh I agree wholeheartedly, but I have to assume that was the injury he meant. Unless McFadden finally got the elusive injury that makes you play significantly better?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Dynasty Rankings (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Concept Coop
Footballguy
What does that have to do with anything? Mcfadden couldn't beat out Bush and has shown nothing to suggest he can carry the load, outside of two games.
It has everything to do with it. When youre competiton gets hurt, and you play well, your competition has a hard time getting thier job back. Mcfadden is a 23 yeard old top 5 pick that is finally healthy AND playing very well. He is obviously going to lose some touches to Bush when he gets back, but Mcfadden is still the #1 back there and will ge plenty of touches.
My current rankings are "first impression rankings", and I continue to tweak them throughout the week as I continue to think about the situations. I record every team's Short Cut and wind up watching every single game during the week. McFadden's a guy I'm going to be keeping my eye on, because I definitely feel a strong impulse to move him up above where he currently is. I've been hesitant to move him much because you have to remember that he's doing all of this with Michael Bush out- once Bush returns, McFadden's role will almost certainly decrease by SOME degree, it's just a question of how much.In case anyone cares, here are my other hunches on what sort of movement you'll continue to see in my rankings as the week goes on:
Potential Risers: Vick, Gradkowski, Clausen, Orton, McCoy, McFadden, Demaryius, Hernandez
Potential Fallers: Kolb, Campbell, Moore, Moreno, BJax, Maclin, Celek
Demaryius is underlined because I have a feeling he'll be making a strong move after I rewatch the Denver/Seattle game.
If anyone has any other suggestions on players to keep an eye on, I'm all ears.
Actually, RBs are not more consistent than WRs. Their additional consistency owes to the fact that they score more points, and the more points a player scores, the more consistent his scoring tends to be. If you compare RBs against WRs who score a similar number of points, you'll find that neither position is inherently more consistent than the other.The rest of your post was pretty solid. I've been advocating for a while now grabbing elite talented WRs over mediocre RBs, mostly because they're pieces you can build around for years to come. In a recent startup, I started off with an RB (I had a top-4 pick, which makes RB in round 1 a slam dunk), but then went WR-WR-WR in rounds 2-4. Go Deep started a thread earlier this offseason about how silly it was to take a QB in the first round of a dynasty startup, and in that thread I posted that there are a grand total of 4 RBs that I would draft in the first round of a startup. Obviously I'm in agreement with you.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
You statement is fine, dandy, and valid. But it does nothing to address my concern. He has not proven that he can be a back that can carry the ball 20-25 times a game, outside of the first two games of a season. In a dynasty league, I need proof before I drastically adjust my rankings. I think his career CPG is going to be much closer to 10 than 20, from here on out.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
:(The rest of your post was pretty solid. I've been advocating for a while now grabbing elite talented WRs over mediocre RBs, mostly because they're pieces you can build around for years to come. In a recent startup, I started off with an RB (I had a top-4 pick, which makes RB in round 1 a slam dunk), but then went WR-WR-WR in rounds 2-4. Go Deep started a thread earlier this offseason about how silly it was to take a QB in the first round of a dynasty startup, and in that thread I posted that there are a grand total of 4 RBs that I would draft in the first round of a startup. Obviously I'm in agreement with you.
Vicktimized
Footballguy
I'd agree, but one would think based on early returns that he's going to rack up touches through the air like a Westbrook.EDIT: Ack. Thought this was still about Best. Yeah, I don't know how McFadden is going to hold up, long term.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
He could, and I would look to adjust my rankings, should that happen. Maybe I am stubborn, but I want to see that happen first. There are not very many Brian Westbrooks around. I think there is a thin line between projecting someone to be Westbrook and projecting someone to be Kevin Faulk. One was a one man, jack of all trades, wrecking crew and the other was nice change of pace back.EDIT: Feel comfortable making the same statement about Best.
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
I don't know of any Michael Westbrooks...I think McFadden has the job at this point. If he struggles and Bush comes in hot, perhaps he loses it. But with Gradkowski back there (should have been starting since last season...) I think they have a better downfield passing game, which opens up the underneath as well as the draw play for McFaddenI think he's a nice play at this point.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Ever watch MMA? My bad. Nice play, no doubt. I have him in one PPR league and feel brilliant for grabbing him. In redraft, I like him a lot. It just takes more for me to move a player up my dynasty rankings.
Let's talk some Max Hall...i had a grand plan in my dynasty league last week to take Hall with waiver 1 and stephen williams with waiver 2 - Hall was taken and I only ended up with Williams - however the owner taking Hall is willing to give him up - free for Hall was one thing, but if you had to trade a pick or prospect for him, it becomes another - he is already saying a 3rd rounder 2011 isn't enough based on our reaction to his waiver claim (he immediately got a few texts from owners with the same hopes - as did i with williams) - i was looking to lock up the Hall - Williams connection for 2013 - is this something worth pursuing now while its still low on radars? as a side note for dynasty owners - neve react to someone's waiver claim with a "S-O-B i wanted him text" - it immediately handicaps you in negotations - just play it cool and pick up that player as a throw in on another trade if you really want him
I'd like your detailed thoughts on Gradkowski. My gut says he keeps the job the rest of the year and he's a solid QB2 the rest of the way. But my head worries that he's had a journey-man like career thus far and he's nothing special. In fact, it could be a wasted roster spot if Oakland flip-flops him and Campbell depending on their mood.So would love to hear your thoughts on (1) general talent level, (2) has he improved since Tampa, (3) is he good enough to hold off Campbell in an alternating type situation, and (4) what's his upside.
I wish I had access to and time for shortcuts.
Im all for taking WR's in the first round, or in the 1st four rounds of a dynasty start-up. Its just QB's i wouldnt take in the first round....under most circumstances anyway.My current rankings are "first impression rankings", and I continue to tweak them throughout the week as I continue to think about the situations. I record every team's Short Cut and wind up watching every single game during the week. McFadden's a guy I'm going to be keeping my eye on, because I definitely feel a strong impulse to move him up above where he currently is. I've been hesitant to move him much because you have to remember that he's doing all of this with Michael Bush out- once Bush returns, McFadden's role will almost certainly decrease by SOME degree, it's just a question of how much.
In case anyone cares, here are my other hunches on what sort of movement you'll continue to see in my rankings as the week goes on:
Potential Risers: Vick, Gradkowski, Clausen, Orton, McCoy, McFadden, Demaryius, Hernandez
Potential Fallers: Kolb, Campbell, Moore, Moreno, BJax, Maclin, Celek
Demaryius is underlined because I have a feeling he'll be making a strong move after I rewatch the Denver/Seattle game.
If anyone has any other suggestions on players to keep an eye on, I'm all ears.
Actually, RBs are not more consistent than WRs. Their additional consistency owes to the fact that they score more points, and the more points a player scores, the more consistent his scoring tends to be. If you compare RBs against WRs who score a similar number of points, you'll find that neither position is inherently more consistent than the other.The rest of your post was pretty solid. I've been advocating for a while now grabbing elite talented WRs over mediocre RBs, mostly because they're pieces you can build around for years to come. In a recent startup, I started off with an RB (I had a top-4 pick, which makes RB in round 1 a slam dunk), but then went WR-WR-WR in rounds 2-4. Go Deep started a thread earlier this offseason about how silly it was to take a QB in the first round of a dynasty startup, and in that thread I posted that there are a grand total of 4 RBs that I would draft in the first round of a startup. Obviously I'm in agreement with you.
(1) one of the worse starters in the league, one of the better backups.(2) I'm sure he certainly has, since those were his first two seasons in the league.(3) Very possibly. I doubt they'd be going to him this early in the season if Oakland didn't think he was.(4) I have a hard time imagining him finishing higher than QB16 or so.
I didn't bring up that thread to restart the debate, I was just referring to a specific post from that thread.
HenryMuto
Footballguy
I was one of those wait on a QB guys for my dynasty start up as I watched the stars go off the board and by waiting I ended up with Kolb, Henne and Freeman.
So maybe you don't take a QB in the 1st round but by waiting until the 7th I got hammered and now I am in a world of hurt.
There is something to be said for taking that stud QB that has proven it over time to plug in your line up all year.
Right now what am I going to do at QB ? I went for the upside of Kolb trying to hit the HR and still burned a high 7th round pick on him.
I could have landed a Romo, Schuab, Brady, Rivers ect in round 3-4 but instead I have Greene and Stewart doing nothing on my roster right now.
So maybe you don't take a QB in the 1st round but by waiting until the 7th I got hammered and now I am in a world of hurt.
There is something to be said for taking that stud QB that has proven it over time to plug in your line up all year.
Right now what am I going to do at QB ? I went for the upside of Kolb trying to hit the HR and still burned a high 7th round pick on him.
I could have landed a Romo, Schuab, Brady, Rivers ect in round 3-4 but instead I have Greene and Stewart doing nothing on my roster right now.
I understand, i was just agreeing with you.
Last edited by a moderator:
You could have also taken Eli, Ryan, Ben, or Cutler in the 7th.Stewart in the 4th is still a GREAT pick.
For those of you who haven't checked out Patoon's blog yet (www.RetiredRookie.net), I'd recommend it. It's always an interesting and entertaining read.
With that said, he recently wrote an article about why you should be looking to sell Roddy White and Andre Johnson, and I think he's way off base with it. I think he's falling into the trap of equating perceived value with actual value. I wanted to take the opportunity to write a rebuttal.
First off, Patoons mentioned 16 WRs in his study. Three of those WRs (Anquan Boldin, Andre Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald) have not yet played their age 30 season, so I'm going to ignore them and focus on the other 13 WRs. That list consists of Jimmy Smith, Terrell Owens, Isaac Bruce, Rod Smith, Derrick Mason, Marvin Harrison, Donald Driver, Hines Ward, Randy Moss, Torry Holt, Reggie Wayne, Chad Ochocinco, and Steve Smith. Also, for the purpose of this post, whenever I refer to a WR's age, I'm always referring to his age as of December 31st. That means that this is Roddy White's Age 29 season, even though at the moment he's only 28 years old.
I assume that the premise of the article (and, Patoons, you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that you should trade 29 year old WRs for WRs who are younger but still productive so you do not take a hit on "perceived value". My contention is that this strategy might leave your team with a higher "perceived value", but will result in taking a strong hit in actual on-the-field production.
My first question is, who are you going to trade these 29 year old WRs for? I think the ideal situation is that you trade a 29-year old member of that list for, say, a 25-year old member of that list. The problem is that, of the 13 WRs on that list, 6 of them failed to register a single point of VBD at age 25 (and two more scored less than 10 VBD). 6 of them failed to register a single point of VBD at age 26, as well (and one more scored under 10 points of VBD). This means, of the 13 WRs on that list, more than half were functionally worthless (or, at the very least, certainly not viewed as "the next big thing") at age 25 and 26. By age 27, all thirteen of those WRs had broken out, but that essentially means you're trading a 29 year old WR for a 27 year old WR. That trade exposes you to risk, and the worst part is that you're just going to have to do it all over again in another two years. Now, if you can trade a 29 year old Andre Johnson for a 27 year old Larry Fitzgerald, then by all means go ahead, but for the most part you simply are not going to be able to trade a 29 year old established stud for a comparable younger value, because a comparable younger value simply doesn't exist. Too many players with hot starts fizzle out early, and too many of the players who ultimately have staying power don't get started until late.
Putting aside questions of who you're going to trade your "old" stud for, let's look at production. The average WR on that list, at age 28, produced 52.7 points of VBD and finished with a rank of 14.0. The average WR on that list, at age 29 (the season you'd be looking to trade him), produced 59.0 points of VBD and finished with a rank of 12.8. The average WR on that list, at age 30, produced 60.7 VBD, and finished with a rank of 13.8. If you exclude Steve Smith (who has not yet played his age 31 season), the average WR on that list at age 31 produced 50.7 VBD and finished with a rank of 12.2. That's three additional seasons of elite, stud, high-end production that you miss out on by trading early. From there, the numbers decline steadily, but very slowly. From age 32 to 35 (4 years), the receivers on that list (excluding the players who have yet to play their age 32-35 seasons) averaged 29 VBD a year (an average that includes 0 VBD from every receiver who could have played their age 32-35 season, but was out of the league or didn't finish among the top 40 fantasy WRs). Of the 8 WRs on the list who were eligible for their age 34 season, for instance, 7 of them were still producing as fantasy starters, and 6 of them finished as WR25 or better (headlined by 1st and 2nd place finishes by Marvin Harrison and Terrell Owens). This is a TON of production left on the table. The 13 WRs on the list accounted for 32 top-12 finishes and and 56 top-24 finishes (plus three more 25th place finishes) at age 29 or later... a number made all the more remarkable by the fact that most of the WRs on that list are still active and will continue to add to that number (Smiff is 31, Wayne and Ocho are 32, Moss is 33, Ward is 34, Driver is 35, Mason is 36, Owens is 37). That's an obscene amount of production that you're leaving on the table by trading a player when he's 29. How on earth are you going to recoup that production? The guy you trade for will need to be a total home run in order for you to recoup the ACTUAL value you lose by chasing PERCEIVED value.
The 13 players on that list compiled a combined 2479 VBD from age 25-28 (four years), and a combined 2467 VBD from ages 29-32 (four years)... and again, that data still doesn't include Smiff's 31 and 32 seasons, Wayne's 32 season, or Ocho's 32 season. I think it's a near lock that the 13 player sample you selected will wind up having accrued more value from age 29-32 than they did from age 25-28.
Trading away 29 year old WRs might leave you with a better-looking team on paper, but it's almost certain to leave you with a worse-looking team on the scoreboard.
With that said, he recently wrote an article about why you should be looking to sell Roddy White and Andre Johnson, and I think he's way off base with it. I think he's falling into the trap of equating perceived value with actual value. I wanted to take the opportunity to write a rebuttal.
First off, Patoons mentioned 16 WRs in his study. Three of those WRs (Anquan Boldin, Andre Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald) have not yet played their age 30 season, so I'm going to ignore them and focus on the other 13 WRs. That list consists of Jimmy Smith, Terrell Owens, Isaac Bruce, Rod Smith, Derrick Mason, Marvin Harrison, Donald Driver, Hines Ward, Randy Moss, Torry Holt, Reggie Wayne, Chad Ochocinco, and Steve Smith. Also, for the purpose of this post, whenever I refer to a WR's age, I'm always referring to his age as of December 31st. That means that this is Roddy White's Age 29 season, even though at the moment he's only 28 years old.
I assume that the premise of the article (and, Patoons, you can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that you should trade 29 year old WRs for WRs who are younger but still productive so you do not take a hit on "perceived value". My contention is that this strategy might leave your team with a higher "perceived value", but will result in taking a strong hit in actual on-the-field production.
My first question is, who are you going to trade these 29 year old WRs for? I think the ideal situation is that you trade a 29-year old member of that list for, say, a 25-year old member of that list. The problem is that, of the 13 WRs on that list, 6 of them failed to register a single point of VBD at age 25 (and two more scored less than 10 VBD). 6 of them failed to register a single point of VBD at age 26, as well (and one more scored under 10 points of VBD). This means, of the 13 WRs on that list, more than half were functionally worthless (or, at the very least, certainly not viewed as "the next big thing") at age 25 and 26. By age 27, all thirteen of those WRs had broken out, but that essentially means you're trading a 29 year old WR for a 27 year old WR. That trade exposes you to risk, and the worst part is that you're just going to have to do it all over again in another two years. Now, if you can trade a 29 year old Andre Johnson for a 27 year old Larry Fitzgerald, then by all means go ahead, but for the most part you simply are not going to be able to trade a 29 year old established stud for a comparable younger value, because a comparable younger value simply doesn't exist. Too many players with hot starts fizzle out early, and too many of the players who ultimately have staying power don't get started until late.
Putting aside questions of who you're going to trade your "old" stud for, let's look at production. The average WR on that list, at age 28, produced 52.7 points of VBD and finished with a rank of 14.0. The average WR on that list, at age 29 (the season you'd be looking to trade him), produced 59.0 points of VBD and finished with a rank of 12.8. The average WR on that list, at age 30, produced 60.7 VBD, and finished with a rank of 13.8. If you exclude Steve Smith (who has not yet played his age 31 season), the average WR on that list at age 31 produced 50.7 VBD and finished with a rank of 12.2. That's three additional seasons of elite, stud, high-end production that you miss out on by trading early. From there, the numbers decline steadily, but very slowly. From age 32 to 35 (4 years), the receivers on that list (excluding the players who have yet to play their age 32-35 seasons) averaged 29 VBD a year (an average that includes 0 VBD from every receiver who could have played their age 32-35 season, but was out of the league or didn't finish among the top 40 fantasy WRs). Of the 8 WRs on the list who were eligible for their age 34 season, for instance, 7 of them were still producing as fantasy starters, and 6 of them finished as WR25 or better (headlined by 1st and 2nd place finishes by Marvin Harrison and Terrell Owens). This is a TON of production left on the table. The 13 WRs on the list accounted for 32 top-12 finishes and and 56 top-24 finishes (plus three more 25th place finishes) at age 29 or later... a number made all the more remarkable by the fact that most of the WRs on that list are still active and will continue to add to that number (Smiff is 31, Wayne and Ocho are 32, Moss is 33, Ward is 34, Driver is 35, Mason is 36, Owens is 37). That's an obscene amount of production that you're leaving on the table by trading a player when he's 29. How on earth are you going to recoup that production? The guy you trade for will need to be a total home run in order for you to recoup the ACTUAL value you lose by chasing PERCEIVED value.
The 13 players on that list compiled a combined 2479 VBD from age 25-28 (four years), and a combined 2467 VBD from ages 29-32 (four years)... and again, that data still doesn't include Smiff's 31 and 32 seasons, Wayne's 32 season, or Ocho's 32 season. I think it's a near lock that the 13 player sample you selected will wind up having accrued more value from age 29-32 than they did from age 25-28.
Trading away 29 year old WRs might leave you with a better-looking team on paper, but it's almost certain to leave you with a worse-looking team on the scoreboard.
EBF
Footballguy
Like any other kind of trade, it all depends on who you get back. If you pick the right player then you're not missing out on anything. I play in some leagues with Patoons and he's generally pretty good about picking the right player. I don't remember all of his deals, but I recall one in which he moved Brian Westbrook for Chris Johnson and a 1st round rookie pick early in CJ's rookie season. That's obviously a best case scenario, but what's lost in your post is that you can actually gain value by trading away an aging player for a younger prospect if you have the ability to discern which young players are destined for stardom. Just like there are owners who will overvalue youth and potential, there are owners who will overvalue aging veterans with a long track record of production, readily selling a top young prospect for a "name" vet because the volatility of the youngster scares them. That's exploitable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your Westbrook-for-CJ3 example is comparing apples to dump trucks. It's one thing to sell high on a 29 year old RB. It's another thing entirely to sell high on a 29 year old WR. 29 year old RBs have historically been at the death rattle of their careers. 29 year old WRs have historically just been getting warmed up. If Patoons was posting that you should be looking to unload 31 or 32 year old WRs, I could readily get behind that premise, but he's not. He's talking about selling Roddy White, who is currently 28 years old.Now, *CAN* such a move pay off? Sure. Perhaps he sells Roddy White for Dez Bryant and Bryant winds up becoming the next Larry Fitzgerald. Of course, Dez Bryant could just as easily wind up becoming the next Charles Rodgers or the next David Terrell. Maybe he trades his "aging" Reggie Wayne for a 25-year old Braylon Edwards fresh off of a top-5 season. That's the point- while any single one of those trades could possibly wind up being a win, the long-term EV of doing trades like that is going to be decidedly negative. Sometimes you'll trade Roddy White away and wind up with the next Roddy White, but most of the time you'll trade Roddy White away and wind up with a radically inferior asset. In addition to being a risky move, it's also a move with little upside. WRs produce just as much at age 29-31 as they do at age 28, so even if the trade is a success, it'll take 3+ years before you get any positive returns (if you ever do).
And now for something completely different!
With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30.
So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?
With the lockout looming, I've been strongly rethinking my rankings of some older players. My current rankings make perfect sense to me if there's no work stoppage next season... but if there is a lockout, guys like DeAngelo and Gore are ranked too high. I mean, by the time the 2009 season rolls around, those two backs will be 29. Michael Turner will be 30.
So, with that in mind, let's discuss the lockout. How likely do you guys think it is? Are any of you accounting for it in your rankings?
Football Jones
Footballguy
I'm going to have to take a look at McFadden's shortcuts & see what the eyeballs tell me (I always DVR all the shortcuts). I haven't had time to watch either of Oakland's games. In fact, I'll make time in the next couple of days.
Anyway, this could be a good example of what can happen when a RB gets a legit shot. McFadden absolutely hasn't had one until now. In his previous 2 seasons, he's averaged a little over 8 carries a game. Only twice has he carried the ball 15+ times (& one of those was a very productive game).
Why would he start performing well now (other than being given a chance)? Maybe a lot of reasons. I've been neutral on this guy ever since he came out. Kind of a hard player to evaluate. I'll know a lot more after I watch.
Anyway, this could be a good example of what can happen when a RB gets a legit shot. McFadden absolutely hasn't had one until now. In his previous 2 seasons, he's averaged a little over 8 carries a game. Only twice has he carried the ball 15+ times (& one of those was a very productive game).
Why would he start performing well now (other than being given a chance)? Maybe a lot of reasons. I've been neutral on this guy ever since he came out. Kind of a hard player to evaluate. I'll know a lot more after I watch.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Not necessarily. It might be the case that 50% of "the next big thing" prospects ultimately disappoint, but this doesn't mean that a person who acquires a "next big thing" prospect has a 50% chance of getting a bust. It's not like flipping coins because the outcome is not random. There are specific reasons why some players succeed and other players fail. If an owner has an exceptional ability to accurately interpret each particular player, he could conceivably hit on every single pick. Dynasty leagues involve a lot of uncertainty. We deal in unknown players and prospects with uncertain futures. Will Trent Richardson be a top 10 dynasty back in four years? Most people would say that we don't have enough information to answer that question yet. They would say that all we can do is assign Richardson's career outlook various probabilities based on historical trends. They might conclude that if only 40% of ultra hyped sophomore NCAA running backs eventually become top 10 dynasty backs, Richardson has only a 40% chance of becoming a top 10 dynasty backs.
What this line of thinking misses is that it's possible to know. It was possible to know that Calvin Johnson and Randy Moss would be elite NFL players. It was possible to know that Mike Williams and Darrrius Heyward-Bey would be busts. Success and failure are not random. Elite players with elite skills are actually close to 100% locks for success. The real trick is in determining who makes the grade and who's a fraud. As we know, many of the players expected to achieve great things fail. I don't disagree with that. However, I also recognize that some owners are considerably better than average at gauging uncertainty and predicting the future.
If I know with 100% certainty that Trent Richardson is destined to become a top 5 dynasty RB, can you really say that I'm not correct? You can say that the outcome I'm predicting is unlikely, but this doesn't mean that I'm not right. In one of my leagues a few years ago a shrewd owner traded Anquan Boldin (then a proven star in the prime of his career) for Brandon Marshall (then a 4th round pick coming off a modest rookie season) and Dwayne Bowe (then a rookie who hadn't played an NFL snap). At the time I thought he got fleeced. In hindsight, he probably had a very strong feeling that the guys he was getting were legit talents. He played against the odds and won. You can't chalk it up to sheer luck. Maybe he "knew" that Marshall was elite before the public caught on. It's not impossible. In fact, I'd argue that the best dynasty owners are the ones who can anticipate value peaks and valleys before they occur.
I don't actually disagree with your central point that WRs are downgraded prematurely, but I also don't think that "you shouldn't trade an elite 29 year old WR for a 21 year old WR prospect" is always good advice to live by. There might be specific cases where you "know" that the young guy is destined for stardom. If you're selective in your targets and your accuracy is fairly high, you can show a profit by making these moves.
It would be one thing if Patoons were designating certain "can't miss players" as "must buys". If he was, then your point that we can somehow know who is going to bust and who isn't would hold more weight. He wasn't, though. He was categorizing Roddy White as a "must sell". I think that's crazy.What's that line you're always saying about buying people at their upside? You don't want to trade a high asset for a player like Shonn Greene or Darren McFadden because you feel like you're buying at their upside, and that they present little possibility to outperform their cost but a strong possibility to underperform? Trading Roddy White or Andre Johnson for "the next big thing" is a great example of buying at someone's upside. Best case scenario for "the next big thing" is that he's the next Roddy White or Andre Johnson. Why would you do a trade where you're selling Andre Johnson and getting back someone who, best case scenario, is just Andre Johnson? Where's the upside in that move? Where's the upside in trading a perennial 180-point WR in exchange for a prospect that you hope might become a perennial 180-point WR? As I said, WR production remains level from age 28 to age 31, so you're looking at 3+ years before you ever see any returns even in the best case scenario. I just don't see how that's a smart move to make. Sure, there may be situations where it works out, but I think over the long run it's a losing move.As for your claim that we can tell the studs from the busts ahead of time... how do you explain Charles Rodgers? How do you explain Braylon Edwards? How do you explain Reggie Bush? If we know what to look for, we might have a better than average chance of identifying the studs and the busts, but there's no such thing as a sure thing in fantasy football. Well, except for a 29-year old stud WR with multiple top-10 finishes. Those guys are about as close to a sure thing as you'll ever find.
EBF
Footballguy
You're arguing against a philosophy that the Patoons article doesn't advocate. He never says you should trade an old WR for a younger WR. This is what he says:
The bolded portion is critical.I don't think Patoons (or myself) would advocate trading a great player in his prime for a great prospect who might become a great player. However, when you throw added value into the equation, things change. I wouldn't trade Larry Fitzgerald for Dez Bryant, but I might trade Larry Fitzgerald for Dez Bryant and three first round rookie picks. There's a big difference.
Moreover, the Patoons article is coming at things from a trade value perspective. While it's true that aging receivers like Wayne and Ochocinco continue to produce elite numbers, they no longer carry elite trade value. This drastically limits your flexibility if you own these guys. Want to convert your elite WR into an elite RB? Not happening. Want to convert your elite WR into an elite prospect because you're rebuilding? You won't get fair value in return. Sometimes the actual functional value isn't as important as the player's trade value.
I liked Bush and Rogers when they were prospects, but that doesn't mean there weren't skeptics. There were. Rogers was a known headcase who failed a pre-draft drug test. Many people thought Bush would be exactly what he is in the NFL: a change of pace back. I never thought Edwards was a special WR. He was a fringe first round prospect until his senior year and only returned to school because he would've fared poorly in competition against Larry Fitzgerald, Roy Williams, Reggie Williams, and Lee Evans. I have never owned him on a FF team and I passed on him in a dynasty startup after his breakout year in favor of the older Reggie Wayne strictly because I wasn't convinced that he was for real. I'm not saying that I have the ability to predict every success and every failure or that it would be easy to do so. However, it's clear to me from playing in dynasty leagues for 7-8 years that some owners gauge uncertainty very well and do an excellent job of moving known quantities for unknown quantities who end up being worth more than what they cost to acquire. If you're one of those guys then you can get away with making trades that look borderline suicidal on the surface.
Last edited by a moderator:
munchkin
Footballguy
SSOG, I watched the Demaryius Thomas highlights via the NFL Rewind last night to gauge hid potential value for a Blind Bid WW pick up; he looked pretty good running a variety of routes and catching the ball when he knew he was going to get hammered. No body catching to be found. The defender did fall on his TD catch but given the knocks against him coming into the draft (a nine route guy playing in a gimmicky offense) he looked pretty solid. He followed his blocks well on a bubble screen and fights for the extra yardage.
I don't know how precise his routes were as I haven't done much of these analyses; he was where he needed to be for Orton to get him the ball.
Oh yeah, and I didn't get him. Someone used 82% of their dollars to be sure they had him on their roster.
I don't know how precise his routes were as I haven't done much of these analyses; he was where he needed to be for Orton to get him the ball.
Oh yeah, and I didn't get him. Someone used 82% of their dollars to be sure they had him on their roster.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is exactly the purpose of my "article".SSOG, I do appreciate your perspective that points are greater than perceived value. I've had numerous discussions about this with others and it's virtually impossible to agree. It's just a different strategy. The "what you're doing for me now" is certainly a way to win dynasty leagues and I see it implemented quite frequently.
However, my personal strategy in dynasty is to always be trading value for production and more value. This ensures that I'm competitive each season and I keep a relatively "young" team. It also means bitting the bullet on a top stud and taking a risk, sure, but I don't think enough people do this.
I'm not advocating dealing Andre Johnson for Johnny Knox, few future picks, a song and a dance. I'm more suggesting to deal Andre Johnson for guys like Crabtree/picks or Dez Bryant/picks (assuming you're not contending this season). Reggie Wayne was commanding TOP dollar a few years back and now he's a hot potato. No one wants him. If people followed this philosophy and dealt Wayne a few years back, you could be sitting with Andre Johnson AND more and be able to buy Wayne back at a much cheaper price a year or two later (i.e., right now). It's a huge boost for a team.
I'll take a risk to downgrade from Andre Johnson/Roddy White to a guy like younger potential stud + value (most times picks) since I'm convinced that they'll be a top dynasty receiver in the near term (presumably this season). As we discussed in a few pages back in this thread, you can always find a filler older WR at a discounted price and have solid perceived value player on your team for the short-term should the younger guy take some more time to develop. Yea, you're losing a stud guy, but if you're not certain you're going to compete to take the crown, now is the time to sell.
In the end, in a year or two White/AJ are going to come at super undervalued prices. Why not take advantage now and get another potential stud and value. Andre Johnson commands king's ransom right now and a year from now, he's not going to. It's a fact outlined by the data set on my blog post.
Two deals that I made this offseason that I'm sure you'll think are crazy:
- Andre Johnson for Calvin Johnson (thrilled with this one!)
- Roddy White/2012 1st/2012 2nds for Crabtree (I know you're going to love this one. Most do. Admittedly, this is a big risk and the deal was last week, but I'm confident Crabtree will end the year with over 1000 yds receiving. Nuts? Maybe. I think I stuck my neck out a bit too far here, but we'll have to see this play out.)
See my post above. I'm not saying he's a "must sell". I understand that someone may not sell because they think they have a shot, but just understand that your window of commanding top value (and production) is about to close. You know how people feel holding Ocho Cinco right now? That's going to be White in a year or two. Why not trade White now and, if you love his production so much, buy him back in a year and a hugely discounted price when he's undervalued. We unfairly undervalue 30-33 year old receivers and it should be taken advantage of.Owners hold on to studs too long, never win a championship and are stuck holding an older receiver who's productive, but can't be dealt to improve the overall team. For example, I have an owner in one of my leagues who made the playoffs 5 years in a row with McNabb, LT, Ocho Cinco, Steve Smith (CAR), Mason, TO. He held all of them, had a solid team, but never won or got to the big dance. Now he's stuck with next year's pick trying to build his team from the ground up. Do I fault him? No, but I never want to be in that situation. That's just one owner, but there are plenty others like him.You can build a powerhouse if you bite the bullet and deal stud production for younger potential stud production and more value. Too many people are missing that.
Endangered Monk
Footballguy
It seems like the time to sell Roddy is after this season, not during it, unless you already are looking to rebuild/reload. I can't see his value diminishing much between right now and this time next season.Patoons said:
az_prof
Footballguy
In principle, I agree with your philosophy, but in the case of AJ and White, the window will not close in one year. They are in their prime now, not on the verge of exiting their prime. Unless they get hurt, their value will not be less at the end of this season. Two season? Yes, probably. White is 28 now and turns 29 in November. He will still be 29 at the start of next season and will have at least two more years of top production ahead of him. Sam for Johnson although he will turn 30 next summer. RBs are old at 30, but not WRs. Wrs don't start to lose value until they are 31 or 32.Patoons said:
So, bottom line is that you aren't going to gain much by trading those two now, unless you think they are going to get hurt and unless you definitely have no chance of making the playoffs this season.
I believe it will - the trigger of the 30 season is pretty big.
I disagree, but I suppose it's a fundamental difference in opinion. As you can see from my #'s in my blog post - the difference in value from 29-30 is substantial (drops ranking of roughly 7 positions). While I agree 30 isn't old, that's when value falls. That's why deal before the season of 30 and buy after the season of 30 is my philosophy and my conclusion based on my analysis.
jwb
Footballguy
I disagree. I guarantee after this season, (when his profile says "29"), you will will get a ton of "he's almost 30!" comments if you try to move him. He's at his absolute peak right now - a proven stud, and 28. As soon as this year's trading deadline hits, fair or not, White's trade value starts falling. A little at first, then a big drop after 30.Next year is when the savvy owner buys him. THIS year is when the savvy owner sells him.This isn't to say you *should* move him, of course, but I totally get what Patoons is saying - if it's feasable, trade these guys now for a King's ransom, and buy them back in a year or two.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Or doesn't feel that losing top production for 2 seasons is ONLY worth a 1st round draft picks worth of value, which is all I can imagine one one would get, after "buying" the player back.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
1. If you play with good owners, they realize this too, and this is not going to work. You are going to sell your stud (AJ) for a good player and a pick (Crabtree, 1st). Then in 2 years when AJ has completed his 4th consecutive 1,500 season, you are going to contact the original owner, who will demand the same ransom that you charged them. Plus, you hurt your team for 2 years. 30 simply isn't old for a WR, and good owners had that figured out a long time ago. 2. My teams are in the top 1/3 of the league a lot more often than not. Maybe that is why I just don't get this logic. But anyone willing to potentially miss out on a championship to get Dez Bryant or Michael Crabtree and a 1st for Andre Johnson is silly, IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
The big problem with this whole "we know that White/AJ are going to be undervalued in a year or two" is that we really know no such thing. Sure, past trends suggest that might be the case, but the market is not a static creature. It is constantly changing and adapting to new information. A couple of years ago, you could have gotten huge value in return for 28-year old Tomlinson or Westbrook. HUGE value. Nowadays, everyone is so gun-shy after watching Shaun Alexander, Tomlinson, and Westbrook fall off the cliff that they're undervaluing guys who are 26 or 27 years old. The market has changed, it has reacted to new information.Who's to say that next year, people won't say "wow, I once thought that 30 was old for WRs, but after watching Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, and even guys like Driver, Ward, and Mason continue to take the league by storm well into their 30s, I find I'm more willing to pay fair value for the old guys"? I think it's a near lock that Andre Johnson is still a top-3 dynasty WR a year from now. The only thing that will drop Roddy White's value is Roddy White's performance, not Roddy White's age. I think people are becoming more and more open to the idea that just because RBs fall off a cliff at 30 doesn't mean WRs do, too.Patoons said:
At the end of the day, I don't disagree with the idea (trade aging receivers before the bottom drops out), I just disagree with the timing. The time to sell is not at age 29. It's 31 or 32. I traded Randy Moss last offseason (before his age 32 season) because I knew the bottom was going to drop out on him soon, and because I know that studs traditionally start tapering off at 32. I netted a pair of top-4 rookie picks. I traded Terrell Owens at age 34 or 35 in exchange for Antonio Gates. Value can still easily be found later on in a WR's career, after you've taken advantage of two or three more high-end stud-level seasons out of the WR first. And if value can't be found, so what? There are worse fates than getting stuck with 3 more WR1 seasons and 3 more WR2 seasons out of a guy.
The other big problem I have is your claim that you can just sell Roddy now and then turn around and buy him back next year after another owner has absorbed the depreciation hit. I sincerely doubt you'd be able to pull that one off. Generally, the guys looking to buy Roddy at age 29 are the guys like me, who do not think 29/30 is "old". If you want to buy him back, you're likely going to have to pay comparable to what you received for him in the first place. If you want 2-3 years, then yeah, you can certainly get him back at a discount... but 3 years from now he'll be leaving the "stud WR1" phase of his career and entering the "reliable WR2" phase of his career.
At the end of the day, I remain resolutely convinced that trading a WR for age-related reasons as 29 years old is crazy. Especially because the numbers show that stud WRs typically accrue more VBD *AFTER* age 29 than they do *BEFORE* age 29.
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
Well, that's true with prettymuch any strategy or similar that we discuss in this thread, no?
You can be a top team and still do this. I have some top teams, I have some middle teams, and I have two dogs that need some work. Sometimes I trade studs like this, and sometimes I don't (listen, if I'm competing now, no, I'm not trading AJ for Crabby and a pick... I don't think anyone is advocating that). I'm just saying I see the reasoning behind what Patoons wrote in his post.
That Owens/Gates deal shocks me. A pair of top 4 rookie picks for Moss shocks me considering I couldn't trade Roddy White for the 1.01 pick this season in several PPR leagues. I just can't imagine that these are typical trades made for a 33-35 year old receiver. I strongly disagree that this type of value can still be *easily* found. It's the exception to the norm from my vantage point. For what you can get for a guy like Wayne (31) right now, it isn't worth trading him. The window is past on his top value and his production is MUCH more valuable. If you own him, you're better off holding him until he retires and get whatever he has left. Do you really want to trade Wayne for a guy like Steve Smith (NYG), Harvin, Holmes, Nicks? The comparable value of a 31+ receiver are not going to be your stud caliber guys save Nicks (depending on how you feel about his ceiling). Yea, it's value, but not the guys who are likely to be perenial top 10 recievers. You're also assuming that these guys play until 34-35, I'm not sure all of these "top" guys will with the turnover in the NFL. There are very view that last that long at high production.
shader
Footballguy
Roddy White, a 2012 1st and 2nd for Crabtree? That is just a horrible trade for you, no offense. If Crabtree ends the year with 1,000 yards receiving, I'll be floored, and he'll still be a couple hundred yards behind Roddy. That's overthinking things a little too much.Patoons said:
That's what a lot of people think, we'll see. The season's not close to over and I'm not only playing for this year, but long-term. Still a long way to go in evaluating this trade.
This is a really interesting topic. My understanding from the columns I've read is that a lockout is very likely. And, I have not really accounted for it at all in my rankings. I'll be honest that an underling incentive in starting the discussion on Darren McFadden is that as an owner of DeAngelo Williams in a contract league I am starting to wonder if I need to sell him know in order to get any value for him. He is reaching that point in his career where I need to decide to either trade him or own him until he dies. When looking around my league it is guys like McFadden, Greene, Moreno, etc. who are the likely trade partners. Trying to determine which of those guys is going to be the most valuable for the next few years helps to determine who you should be targeting with offers of your DeAngelo, Gore, or Turner for their McFadden, Greene, Moreno + young WR or draft picks.I hadn't thought of the fact that if there is no football next year then those guys basically have 14 usefull weeks left for my team.SSOG said:
shader
Footballguy
Actually, I'm thinking along the lines of if the trade was done today. If you said you made it a few weeks ago, I MIGHT can understand it. I thought Crabtree was poised for a breakout season this year, as did many others.I'm just surprised you had to give up those draft picks. Any trade where you are trading a top 3-4 WR AND giving up draft picks better net me something in return.Roddy White for Crabtree before this season started, might be defendable. I just don't see why you had to add the draft picks in.But right now you have to be hurting over that one. Roddy looks outstanding and won't show signs of slowing down for 3-4 years in all likelihood. Crabtree has issues.
ZWK
Footballguy
Do you have a link to that result? I just ran a quick and dirty analysis (using these numbers), and over the past 5 years 59% of WR VBD has been scored by guys under age 29, versus only 31% scored by guys over 29. Here's the distribution (with age and total VBD scored at that age; total VBD was 6028):21 20
22 110
23 398
24 499
25 747
26 585
27 539
28 678
29 589
30 481
31 365
32 176
33 231
34 366
35 182
36 62
There's a long peak from 25-29, gradual falloff on each end to 23 and 31, and decent production from age 32 till 34 or 35.
I also looked up the top 100 WR receiving seasons of the past 20 years (measured by receiving yards). 63 of those seasons happened before age 29 and only 23 happened after age 29. That distribution has about the same pattern with a 25-29 peak and gradual falloff at each end, but it's even less favorable to receivers in their 30s. Here's the distribution (with age and number of seasons at that age in the top 100):
21 1
22 2
23 8
24 4
25 11
26 11
27 11
28 15
29 14
30 8
31 5
32 4
33 3
34 2
35 1
Neither of these analyses track individual WRs over the course of their career, which would be harder for me to do.
shader
Footballguy
Great question.There are so many issues with the lockout, that in general, I just ignore it.For instance, if there is a lockout, what will the upcoming juniors (Mark Ingram) do. Will they declare? Would a guy like Ingram, who's NFL future is secure, risk injury by coming back for his senior season or sit out an entire year?If most of the Juniors stay in school, the 2011 draft will be pretty poor, and the 2012 draft will be loaded. In general, the NFL as it looks at the end of 2010 might be DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT, in terms of starters and roster composition, if they are locked out for the entirety of the 2011 season, when 2012 rolls around. There are so many variables though, that I think the only thing a smart owner can do is try and make smart, sound decisions and play as if a lockout isn't coming.SSOG said:
Wouldn't this support my position? Trade guys around 29 and buy the undervalued older top receiver after age 29, or in other words, cash in on value (production or perceived value) when it's at it's height?
Sebowski
Footballguy
In my main dynasty I just don't think I'd be able to get a WR over 30 at a bargain price, unless the owner was in fire sale mode.What have you seen Ocho go for this year? Who else would you be targeting right now with this strategy?
Hey, you're the guy who provided the list of receiver comps in your study. Every single receiver you listed provided starter-caliber production at age 34 except for Torry Holt. 6 of the 8 receivers who have played their age 34 season already were top 25, a seventh finished 30th, and then there was Holt, whose career has been derailed by degenerative knee injuries.Okay, maybe "easy" wasn't the right word to describe getting good value for Moss or Owens, maybe "possible" is a much better word. Lots of people spent a lot of time trying to lowball me for those two. I held firm and said "this is where I've got them ranked, this is what I think they'll produce going forward, don't bother making an offer until you're willing to meet that price". Eventually, a receiver gets hot or an owner gets needy and you can get something done. Wayne's value might be down right now, but last year he was 31 and people were berating me for DARING to rank someone other than Reggie Wayne as my #5 dynasty WR, just because Wayne was playing hot. If he plays hot this year, people will forget all about his age again.
Those numbers are heavily skewed by the unspecial guys on the list (as well as partly by the young guys who haven't played their age 31+ seasons, since it seems to me that the quality of receiving in the NFL is on the rise). I was basing my claim off of the list of 13 WRs that Patoons provided. Those WRs represented the best of the best. Those 13 WRs scored 2479 total VBD from age 25-28 and 2467 VBD from age 29-32... and that second figure doesn't yet include Smiff's 31 or 32 seasons, Ocho's 32 season, or Wayne's 32 season. I think it's a safe bet that in the 13-receiver sample that Patoons himself provided to make his point, the WRs will have accrued significantly more VBD after age 29 than they did before.
Your position is that you should be getting rid of receivers at 29, not that you should be acquiring them at 29. As a result, you're missing out on their post-29 production, which is greater than the pre-29 production you already cashed in on.
Ocho, Wayne, Santana Moss specifically. Even Steve Smith (CAR). Hines Ward and Donald Driver as well, but they'll come much cheaper. Re: Steve Smith - he's being ranked top 10, but his trade value sure isn't at that spot right now. No one wants to touch him for some reason (even before the injury last week).I've seen Ocho Cinco go for Johnny Knox this year (offseason) and also for Donald Brown (offseason). Obviously, only 2 leagues, but he's being ranked around the likes of Percy Harvin, Dewayne Bowe, etc.
But my position is to sell before 29 and buy after 30, which would align our positions (as stated in my blog post). Receivers 30 years old+ become VBD after 30 (atleast from my numbers - if you have different numbers - please share). Why hold them when this happens when there's a one year window of opportunity to gain value?Also, the reason I supplied top receivers in my analysis is because those are the only guys that would produce any kind of meaningful result based on consistent top performance and years in the league. Otherwise the result would be extremely volatile and unclear. In my opinion, the sampling based on these # of WRs supports even further that you should deal at 29 years old since there are very few who play for a large number of years after that. That's a topic for another day though.
This is exactly my point, though you miss out on the 1 year drop in value if you hold the receiver from 29 - 30. I strongly encourage buying "older" receivers after they turn 30-31.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
