First, yes. Do yourself a favor and buy Ben Tate now. Just like we should have purchased Foster when Tate was drafted. That is the best time to buy low.
Again, buying low means buying players whose value you think will rebound, not buying players whose value just took a hit. Yes, in the case of Arian Foster, it worked out. On the other hand, if you'd "bought low" on Chester Taylor when the Vikings brought in Peterson, and on Jerious Norwood when the Falcons brought in Turner, and on Michael Bush when the Raiders brought in McFadden, and on Marion Barber when the Cowboys brought in Felix, and on LenDale when the Titans brought in Johnson, and so on, then you would have lost your shirt. Buying players just because their value dropped is not a net positive strategy in the long run. Most players whose values drop see their value drop for a reason. It's possible that the drop is too extreme, or an overreaction to a trivial piece of evidence, but in those cases the reason to buy isn't "because his value went down", it's "because his value went down TOO MUCH". If you want to argue that now is the time to buy Forsett because people are overreacting, or because they're underestimating him, then that's one thing. If you want to argue that now is the time to buy Forsett because his value is lower today than it was a week ago, that's another thing entirely. The first is good process. The second is bad process.
As far as Forsett, he is not Jemarcus Russell. He could be Jerious Norwood or Mewelde more, or he could end up being much more than that. I am willing to pay a "Mewelde Moore" price. If he turns out to be more, I make out. If not, I get what I paid for. See why it makes sense to buy low? I don't know if you play in shallow leagues, but back up/RBBC backs still have value in the ones I play in.
My main dynasty has 270 offensive skill players rostered (QB/RB/WR/TE). It's a pretty deep league. And I used to own MeMo. He saved my bacon in a big way once when his stint as a starter in 2008 coincided with some injuries on my squad. He kept me afloat. With that said, his value was
minimal, and only barely above what I would expect from someone off the street. If I had spent a valuable fantasy asset to acquire him, I would have regretted it. I'd much rather roster upside... and MeMo has none.
As for Schaub, by tools, I means weapons around him: AJ, JJ, AW, OD and so on. AJ, JJ and OD have all been injured. I actually JUST traded for Schaub, giving up much less than I would have had to if he was playing well. This is in a MOX league full of sharks. If his value can slip there, it can slip anywhere. If you would like, I can provide the link when I get off work. (Blocked at work) You shoot down my buy low candidates, using the argument that nobody will sell low. This is a very short-sighted, simple, and quite frankly, arrogant way to view things. First, you couldn't possibly know what the majority of owners are doing with schaub, seeing as how there are literally millions of Schaub owners in the world. If this doesn't apply to the leagues that you play in, fine. And when was Marc Bulger EVER a top 8 dynasty QB? Never, and we have never had this many young, talented QBs in the NFL, since I have followed it. And by discrediting Schuab by comparing him to Bulger, you discredit your own rankings. You have Schaub ranked exactly one point behind Tom Brady. You have him 4 points behind Manning. For reference, there are a full 6 points between Manning and the higher ranked Romo. If you are going to use the Bulger comparision to downplay Schaub's status as a dynasty QB, at the very least you should be consistent and apply the same (faulty) logic to your rankings.
First off, when someone mentions a QB's "tools", they're typically talking about things like his physical attributes- his height, his arm strength, his footwork, etc. Like in baseball, a "five tool player" is a player who can hit for average, hit for power, run the bases, field, and throw. "Tools" are innate attributes. If you want to discuss a player's targets, the typical nomenclature is "weapons". Schaub's tools are not elite, but his weapons are (or, at least, one of his weapons is). Again, that's the most common usage of the words, so for clarity purposes, those are the uses that I try to limit myself to.Second off, you say that you just bought low on Schaub. What did you trade for him? What are some other trades involving QBs in that league? How low are we talking about, compared to the established market for proven QBs?
As for Bulger... back in 2006, plenty of people
had him in their top 8, including
F&L himself. F&L still had him as a top-10 dynasty QB as recently as
the 2008 offseason- which was *AFTER* his nightmarish 2007 season where he averaged under 250 yards per game for the first time in his career (he actually averaged under 200) and threw 15 INTs vs. just 11 TDs. Bulger was a legit, no question, no hesitation top-8 dynasty QB for several years.
There's no inconsistency in my rankings. I've said from Day 1 that Matt Schaub was a better fantasy player than NFL player. I've said that he's less talented than the guys around him in the rankings, but he deserves the ranking because of the stability of his situation and the consistency of his production. This "Matt Schaub is the new Marc Bulger" thing is not a new invention. F&L and I have both been saying that the players were very similar for years now.
Here's F&L in 2008 saying Matt Schaub runs the risk of being another Marc Bulger.
Here's a post where F&L calls Schaub a Bulger clone, and I quote him and agree that Schaub is a much better FF QB than NFL QB.
Here's another Bulger comparison from F&L.
Here's a post where I go over the AMAZINGLY similar career numbers of Bulger vs. Schaub and reiterate one last time that the majority of his value is derived from situation instead of natural talent. You're accusing me of inconsistency when I've been stone-cold consistent for quite some time now on Schaub. I've been saying for ages now that he's an above average NFL QB who happens to put up elite FF numbers. I've said that he merits his lofty ranking based on the back of his production and his situation, but that if his situation turns, his ranking will turn on a dime because he doesn't have the talent to support that ranking without situation propping him up. Again, complete and utter consistency, here.
I'm not using the Bulger comparison as an attempt to denigrate Matt Schaub as a dynasty asset. Marc Bulger was a *FANTASTIC* dynasty asset. He put up awesome numbers for the Rams, and many contenders were built on the back of his performance. Then, however, his situation turned and his value dropped like a stone because he didn't have the talent to continue supporting his high rankings. That's Matt Schaub- fully worthy of his high ranking right now, but Schaub owners have to be extra wary to potential shifts in situation, because Schaub is far more dependent on his situation than his peers in the rankings. That's the whole point of the Bulger comparison. It's not to say that Schaub is a great dynasty QB, or a terrible dynasty QB, it's to say that Schaub is not a top-10 NFL QB and that a disproportionate amount of his fantasy value is based on situation when compared to his peers.
Your "2.0" argument is seriously lacking and again, arrogant. Until you can provide ways that Schaub and Bulger are similar, and Forsett and Mewelde are similar, your analogies are weak. Moore and Forsett are no more or less similar than Moore and B. Westbrook. Justin Forsett = Brian Westbrook 2.0. See how silly that is. Fact is, you don't know what is in store for Justin Forsett and you don't know how the Seahawks plan to use him or Marshawn Lynch. Even if there is only a small chance that you are wrong about him, as long as you pay a back up RB price, you lose nothing if that is all he ever turns out to be. Hence the term, buy low.
So again, if you are going to use "His value is down for a reason (DUH!)" or "His value isn't low" what is the point in responding? Value is relative.
It's arrogant? Finding similarities between players is now a sign of arrogance? I'm afraid you're going to have to unpack that one for me a little bit, because I'm not following.As for similarities between Justin Forsett and Mewelde Moore... how about the fact that we now have 2 different coaching staffs who refuse to make Forsett a featured back, just like we had 3 coaching staffs refuse to do it with Mewelde, despite the fact that both players are the most efficient RBs on their respective teams? How about the fact that, despite their rate stats making it blindingly obvious that they should be getting more carries, every coach they've played for has gone out of their way to get them less carries? Philadelphia never traded future draft picks to bring in a new featured back when Brian Westbrook was in town, that's for sure.
Also, the phrase "back up RB price" is misleading. Backup RBs have zero inherent value. They'll never see your starting lineup (because they're backups), so they'll never score points for you. If all you get from an RB is backup production, then ANY PRICE YOU PAID was too high of a price. Any non-zero value traded is too much, because you're getting zero value in return.
I mean, take your "buy backups just because they're cheap!" statement to its logical conclusion. Why should I be trading for Justin Forsett in particular, here? Why shouldn't I trade for, say, Chester Taylor? He's a backup, so as long as I pay "backup price" for him, I can't possibly lose! And why stop there? Why not roster Matt Flynn and Matt Moore? They're backups, so I'll just pay "backup price" for them. And let's get Taylor Price, and Julian Edelman, and Quarless, and Martellus Bennett while we're at it. Pretty soon I'll have a roster constructed of nothing but backups... but it's okay, because I only paid backup price for them, so if they all perform like backups, it's not like I overpayed or anything. Could I possibly win a championship with that roster, though? Is acquiring cheap players on the cheap for no better reason than because they're cheap really a winning strategy, here? Of course not- you have to differentiate the guys who are cheaper than they should be, and the guys who are dirt cheap for a reason (a well-deserved reason, at that).
If you want to argue that I should be rostering Forsett because of his efficiency metrics, I'll listen. If you want to argue because of your "eyeball test", I'll listen. If you want to argue because Lynch is one misstep away from a major suspension, I'll listen. If you have inside information from the Seahawk coaching staff, I'll listen. If you have an observation about a strength that is a particularly good fit in Seattle's offense, or a particularly good fit against an opposing defense, I'll listen. Those are all examples of good process. If you want to tell me to add Forsett just because he's cheap, I'm not going to listen to you anymore. That's an example of bad process. The phrase "buy low" doesn't mean buy players whose value is low, it means buy players whose value is low
but will wind up rising. Unless you've got some reason why a player's value will rise, then he's not a "buy low". If you do have some reason why a player's value will rise, then I'm all ears, but so far all I've heard from you is "he's cheaper right now than he was a week ago" and "he's a backup, so just pay "backup price" for him!".