Dynasty Rankings (5 Viewers)

[Dr. Octopus]

No, it really wasn't. They were rated 24th in 2007 and 13th in 2008 in run blocking adjusted line yards according to Football Outsiders. They had pro bowl LT Jason Peters playing then.

24th is very bad, and 13th is slightly above average. I still don't think they were very good - but perhaps they were decent one season. Peters was always a little over-rated and even when he was good, he was more of a passing blocking OT (as a converted TE) than a road grading run blocking OT.Anyway we've beaten this dead horse enough. I don't want to come across as short changing Foster as I have him in a re-draft and came close to acquiring him during the preseason in one dyanasty, so I do like him.

 

[Concept Coop]

No. They are playing him because he looked better in camp and preseason then every other QB on their roster - Leinart, Anderson, and Skelton. They liked him enough to cut Leinart and not sign a placeholder guy like Bulger, Brunell, or Garcia even though the team wants to continue to win now.

You mean to tell me that Arizona cut Matt Leinart becuase an undrafted rookie, with limited physical skills looked better in preseason? I would be shocked if that was the case. I think Anderson looked good in pre-season and they thought he could hold the spot for a year. But, even if we assume it is, being better than Leinart and Anderson (not that Hall has proven to be) does not mean you are a long term answer at QB for anybody. And it especially does not mean you are a better player than Matt Cassel or Carson Palmer who have done it for seasons, not (pre-season) months. Even if Hall is the best QB on the AZ roster, what does that say about his long term potential as an NFL starter? Not much, if that is all we have to go by.

 

[Concept Coop]

For the record, I live in Utah and did watch Max Hall play in college. I would guess 6 or 7 games. He looked great against weaker competition. However, he couldn't handle the speed of bigger schools; he couldn't adjust. As good as he looked against Air Force and New Mexico, he looked equally bad against Utah, TCU, and Florida State. He is really smart, has good touch, and is pretty dang accurate. But he is not a special specimen, and is not ready to be a starting NFL QB, IMO.

I just don't want anyone to think I question his ability based on the fact that he went undrafted.

 

[Go deep]

It's so tough for you to believe a guy drafted 12th overall is more talented than a guy that went undrafted?

It's so tough for you to believe that I don't use draft position to judge who is more talented?

I'm not saying that it has to be your sole criteria at all - but you acted as if it was an impossibilty that Lynch was the more talented runner. I think it does say something that NFL personnel thought enough of Lynch's talents coming out of college that he was a top 12 pick overall.I personally think he is the better talent as well. I don't think Foster could do any better in Buffalo. You said they weren't bad teams during his first two seasons and that is true, but their o-line was horrible then as well. He and a decent defense was the reason they were a .500 team.I think Foster is a talent - but I also know that based on track record that offense creates productive RBs so it's harder to see juts how talented he is.

I didn't act as if it was an impossibility- did you miss this in my post? Their O-line was not horrible then, not for run blocking. I've always held the belief that Lynch is a very overrated RB, still do. FJax has outperformed him over their entire careers, and has looked better as well IMO. I'm not just using Foster's production as my basis of his talent, I'm watching him play. Same with Lynch, same with everyone when I'm talking "talent".It's fine if you disagree, I'm not trying to say Foster is head and shoulders above him, but you (Go Deep) lose credibility IMO when you say things like "I see no difference between D. Ward and Foster".

Im not here to win board cred, i am just explaining my thoughts. Im not saying Ward is better than Foster, my point is i havnt seen a difference between the two when i watch them play. It might very well be the case that Foster is better, but i havnt seen anything at this point to say for sure. If you have seen a difference, please let me know. What is Foster doing that makes him better? He doesnt look faster, run with more power, neither has shown much wiggle, both are adequate pass catchers and both have looked good in setting up their blocks and getting to the hole. Foster is an average NFL RB who is dependant on the full time gig in Houston to be a top 10 RB. If Houston signs him to a long term deal, i will be all for having Foster in or near the top 10, but at this point, i am not nearly as confident as most others. I dont hate Foster, and im not rooting against him(i own him in one dynasty league and one redraft, and traded him in another dynasty) but im not just going to shoot him way up my rankings based on statistics. edit spelling

 

[thriftyrocker]

No. They are playing him because he looked better in camp and preseason then every other QB on their roster - Leinart, Anderson, and Skelton. They liked him enough to cut Leinart and not sign a placeholder guy like Bulger, Brunell, or Garcia even though the team wants to continue to win now.

You mean to tell me that Arizona cut Matt Leinart becuase an undrafted rookie, with limited physical skills looked better in preseason? I would be shocked if that was the case. I think Anderson looked good in pre-season and they thought he could hold the spot for a year. But, even if we assume it is, being better than Leinart and Anderson (not that Hall has proven to be) does not mean you are a long term answer at QB for anybody. And it especially does not mean you are a better player than Matt Cassel or Carson Palmer who have done it for seasons, not (pre-season) months. Even if Hall is the best QB on the AZ roster, what does that say about his long term potential as an NFL starter? Not much, if that is all we have to go by.

I didn't mean to imply direct causation, just that it aided their decision. Leinart wasn't going to work out in Arizona even if they didn't have Hall. Having Hall helped them drop the hammer. I wouldn't put Hall over Cassel or Palmer. That's SSOG's argument. In fact, for those scoring at home, I'm arguing that other garbage QBs with near term opportunity like Fitzpatrick should be thought of similarly. But to say Hall has no potential and is in this situation by pure happenstance or luck ("they have nobody else") is pretty untrue.

 

[SSOG]

Lets discuss Colt McCoy. I honestly thought he'd go 8 for 25 with 3 int's and get sacked 8 or 9 times. After all it was a road game against the Steelers. His statline shocked me, though I didn't see the game.It's hard to jump on a bandwagon after one game, but he quickly moves to number 2 in the 2010 QB's after that one. If he plays well against the Saints, then the sky is the limit.

I was expecting much the same. I'm not exactly falling over myself to acquire him or anything, but I've got a slightly healthier amount of respect for Colt McCoy today than I did a week ago.I don't buy the "sky is the limit" thing, though. I still doubt he ever becomes a top-12 fantasy QB. I would bet against that all day long.

I see one name quite far down the list that I think is worthy of a bump up. Braylon Edwards. He has been putting up fairly consistent good numbers on a run first offense with a 2nd year QB (even after Santonio came back). He is still young in WR years. He could also potentially be on a new team next year that throws a bunch more. Even if he sticks with the Jets after this year he seems better than a bottom of tier 7 guy (below players like Emmanuel Sanders and Arrelious Benn??In my PPR league he is 18th among WR right now...in non-PPR I suspect he might be even higher due to his longer YPC average and strong TD numbers.

It's very possible I'm underrating Braylon. I see the pedigree, I see that New York gave up a valuable commodity to acquire him, I see the flashes of talent and the strong production, and those are all reasons to raise him up. I also see the way he's consistently crashed after teasing with potential, and I see how eager Cleveland was to get rid of him, and those are all reasons to be wary. Perhaps I'm being too wary. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm guilty of the whole "I've been burned once before..." mentality that I've warned about as textbook bad process.

Time to bump Roy Williams up too. I honestly don't know if and/when Dez will be taking his spot. He has been a monster this year.And I don't know any dynasty owners that would trade Jeremy Maclin or Mike Wallace for Ochocino. Time to drop ole 85 down at least a full tier.

Unlike with Braylon, I'm not really waffling on my Roy ranking. Over the last 4 weeks, he's put up 18/285/5. Last year, he had a 4-week stretch where he put up 18/255/4. That's always been the book on Roy- he runs hot and cold, but over the long run, he always goes back to cold. He's the Kyle Boller of WRs- keeps flashing just enough to tease you into thinking he's turning a corner, but then back to business as usual. I don't think he's got the goods to hold of Bryant and Witten long-term, and I don't think he'd be producing nearly as much without Romo under center.As for Ocho... you know one guy that would. I still believe that Ocho scores the most out of that trio over the next 10 games, as well as over next season. That belief has been shaken by Ocho's struggles over the first 6 weeks, and it's possible that the change is forthcoming... but I'm not there yet.

Is it time to restrict the first tier of RBs to CJ and AP? Rice and MJD simply don't belong on the same level, and I think the gap between the two tiers is growing. We are watching two of the best RBs in NFL history; the gap between legendary and top 5 in today's NFL is huge. In start up drafts last year, it was thought that the top 4 spots were far superior to the rest of the first round. Next year, it will be the top 2. For reference, there is not one player I would trade AP/CJ for, even for an additional first round pick, and that includes Rice and MJD. Next year, if I land a top 2 spot in a start up, I would not move the pick (alone) for the 12/13 or 14/15 turn. If I don't land a top 2 pick, there is not much I wouldn't trade to secure one. Thoughts?

I still think MJD is every bit the all-around talent Peterson is, even if he isn't as eye-popping of a runner. I brushed off the injury news in the preseason, but now I'm seriously questioning how much there was to that. Still, while ADP has been more impressive this season, MJD was more impressive to me last season.Rice isn't as good as the other three, but he's still 2 years younger, he's still very productive, and he's just now earning himself the goal line touches. And he's still more involved in the passing game than any of the others (he's currently 5th among RBs in targets, behind Best, Hillis, McCoy, and Gore). Also, in games against defenses other than NYJ and Pitt, he's averaging 22/97 (4.5 ypc) rushing and 5/25 receiving a game. He might not be as talented as CJ/ADP/MJD, but he's not too far behind, and he's quite nearly as valuable.

 

[Concept Coop]

I didn't mean to imply direct causation, just that it aided their decision. Leinart wasn't going to work out in Arizona even if they didn't have Hall. Having Hall helped them drop the hammer.

I wouldn't put Hall over Cassel or Palmer. That's SSOG's argument. In fact, for those scoring at home, I'm arguing that other garbage QBs with near term opportunity like Fitzpatrick should be thought of similarly. But to say Hall has no potential and is in this situation by pure happenstance or luck ("they have nobody else") is pretty untrue.

I don't know how that can be untrue. It is not like either of us know for sure, one way or the other. He started 3rd on the depth chart. The #2 guy ran his mouth and was a locker room issue. They got rid of him. The #1 guy played awful. I don't think it is a stetch to say it is possible that they bench Anderson, regardless of who was behind him. That person happened to be Max Hall. If it was Mike Kafka, he would be starting. If it was Matt Moore, he would be starting.

 

[humpback]

No, it really wasn't. They were rated 24th in 2007 and 13th in 2008 in run blocking adjusted line yards according to Football Outsiders. They had pro bowl LT Jason Peters playing then.

24th is very bad, and 13th is slightly above average. I still don't think they were very good - but perhaps they were decent one season. Peters was always a little over-rated and even when he was good, he was more of a passing blocking OT (as a converted TE) than a road grading run blocking OT.Anyway we've beaten this dead horse enough. I don't want to come across as short changing Foster as I have him in a re-draft and came close to acquiring him during the preseason in one dyanasty, so I do like him.

I didn't say they were very good, just that they weren't terrible. People have been making excuses for Lynch his entire career, like the team was terrible and the O-line was terrible, but it's just not true. They weren't great, but not bad enough so that he couldn't possibly do well, especially when Jackson outperformed him in most cases. Lynch is an exciting runner to watch, and the whole "beast mode" thing took off, so I think that's part of the reason why a lot of people think he's better than he is.I know you're not short changing Foster, and likewise I'm not short changing Lynch- he's not bad, I just don't think he's as talented as people had hoped.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I didn't mean to imply direct causation, just that it aided their decision. Leinart wasn't going to work out in Arizona even if they didn't have Hall. Having Hall helped them drop the hammer.

I wouldn't put Hall over Cassel or Palmer. That's SSOG's argument. In fact, for those scoring at home, I'm arguing that other garbage QBs with near term opportunity like Fitzpatrick should be thought of similarly. But to say Hall has no potential and is in this situation by pure happenstance or luck ("they have nobody else") is pretty untrue.

I don't know how that can be untrue. It is not like either of us know for sure, one way or the other. He started 3rd on the depth chart. The #2 guy ran his mouth and was a locker room issue. They got rid of him. The #1 guy played awful. I don't think it is a stetch to say it is possible that they bench Anderson, regardless of who was behind him. That person happened to be Max Hall. If it was Mike Kafka, he would be starting. If it was Matt Moore, he would be starting.

I agree if Kafka was on Arizona instead of Hall, he'd be in the same position. Kafka would have top 30 value in Arizona and Hall would be unrosterable as Philly's QB3. Very similar prospects, but Hall ended up in a better short term situation so has a lot more value as of Oct 20, 2010. That doesn't discount Hall. The Cardinals were 2-2 under DA, so don't act like it was a desperate act.Moore is Anderson. He's the terrible guy they had to bench to give the young guy a chance to sink or swim.

 

[SSOG]

Thank you for the rankings. Yours are one of two that seem to be updated. I respect your rankings and the site is awesome. Don't take my questions as insults. It takes stones to throw all of your rankings out there, and if I did it, I am sure I would catch a lot more flack than you do. That said, I have a few questions about your rankings.

1. Max Hall: How can you have him ranked ahead of Palmer, Tebow, Clausen, Cassel, Garrard, and so on? He has had one NFL start and didn't look great. He doesn't have all the measurables that you look for and there is very little chance he is starting anywhere next season. How can Matt Moore have a value of 4 and Hall have a value of 68? Matt Moore looked just as good in his first pre-season (Cowboys) and has even had flashes in the regular season. What makes you so sure that Hall is anything more than another Matt Moore?

2. Eli Manning at 20?! I don't care that Eli has only put up QB1 numbers twice, he put them up. Not only that, but his weapons are quickly becoming elite, and he is still young. How can he be behind McNabb who is performing worse this year, doesn't know where he will be next year, AND is 4 years older? And there is no way in hell that Kolb should be ahead of Manning. Kolb is not even a starting QB, and we don't if, when, or where he will be. He has had a couple good games, but he had a couple good games last year before looking awful and getting benched. At the very least Manning is much safer, as we know he will be the starting Giants QB for the next 5 years.

3. Ochocinco and Steve Smith (CAR) simply need to drop. They are no longer elite re-draft WRs, let alone dynasty WRs. 85 is not even the #1 option on his team anymore. I don't think anyone values them over guys like Wallace and Maclin.

4. Mario Manningham, Brandon Lloyd, Roy Williams, and Lance Moore are all worth more than guys like Devin Thomas (cut this bum), Antonio Bryant, Donnie Avery and so on. Streaky production is worth much more than no production. Moore and Manningham are both solid WR3; Williams and Lloyd are WR2s this year, at the very least.

5. Tier one is down to two players. MJD and Ray Rice are simply not on the level of AP and CJ, both in talent and FF production.

6. 19 points between Spiller and Best? Best is as close to AP and CJ as he is to Spiller? (opposite directions, obviously)

7. Thomas Jones: One or two years of RB2 production is better than 5-6 years as a handcuff (Snelling, Kuhn, Slaton...)

First off, I welcome all questions, comments, criticisms, and critiques of my rankings. That's why I post a change log. That's why I post my reasoning behind so much of what I do. I'm very process-driven, so I make my processes as transparent as possible and I'm always listening to everyone else's processes to borrow what seems to work.1. I'm not sure Hall is anything other than Matt Moore. I have no idea what he is. That's why he's more valuable than Cassel. I know exactly what Cassel is, and I want nothing to do with it. Matt Cassel has very, very little chance of ever being a starter-caliber fantasy QB. Max Hall might become an epic bust (can a UFA rookie really be a bust?), but his chances of ever again being fantasy relevant are higher than Cassel's. Same also applies to Garrard. As for Hall vs. Clausen and Tebow... Clausen looks epically bad, and Tebow's got a 2 year wait in front of him (at least). Hall wins on "urgency factor". I'm not sure that Hall isn't another Matt Moore... but he might not be, which is more than enough for me to rank him well above Moore.

2. I've argued in this thread that what value Manning has derives entirely from his job security, so you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. He's a quality QB2 if you've already got an established starter, because he gives you the safety and security of knowing you'll have byes and injuries covered for the next 4 years. He gets knocked down the rankings, though, because he's not a guy you'll want to start any time other than during byes and injuries if you can at all avoid it. Running Eli out as your QB1 only means every team in the league has a better QB1 than you. It's hard to win consistently when you're giving up an advantage like that right off the bat. Some people rank players based on their floors, and those guys love Eli. I rank players based on their ceilings (at least, I do at QB and TE), so I want nothing to do with him at his market price right now. As for Kolb... I've always been one of the first to badmouth Kolb, but he's looked good in his action this season, and I think he'll be starting somewhere next year. Either the Eagles let Vick walk, in which case Kolb starts in Philly... or the Eagles commit to Vick long term, in which case Kolb becomes available to the highest bidder.

Another reason why QB2 production isn't that valuable: supply and demand. The supply exceeds the demand. Guys like Hill and Fitzpatrick have given great production for a mere fraction of a penny this season. Guys like Hasselbeck and Garrard are always available for a nickle, at most. Orton was recently available at rock-bottom prices. A lot of Roethlisberger owners would have given him to you straight up for Eli. Sanchez, Freeman, McNabb, and others can get you a large fraction of the production for a small fraction of the price. Why pay top dollar for a big name like Eli when there are so many cheap alternatives out there for you to explore?

Oh, and speaking of McNabb... pop quiz. How many times has Peyton Manning finished as QB1 in points per game? Answer: 0. How many times has McNabb? Answer: 3. Dude's a stud. He's finished top 10 in PPG in 9 of the past 10 seasons, including 6 straight (and, as I mentioned, #1 overall in 3 of those 10 years). He's currently on pace for 4150 passing yards. He's playing fantastic right now, and he's paired with the best offensive mind in the league. The points will follow. Worst case scenario is that he produces like Eli Manning. Best case scenario is that he produces top 5 numbers the rest of the way.

3. Been discussed to death. I don't have anything new to bring to the table. I still think Ocho and Smiff are elite talents (although Ocho is on thin ice), and I'm still not sold on Maclin. We've discussed the concept of rankings inertia before (i.e. how much "force" is needed to result in a shift in someone's rankings), and I'm closer to the inert end of the scale. I'm not making wholesale changes to my previous opinions based on a 6-week sample.

4. I've already covered Roy Williams. Manningham's ranking is partly a result of how cool I am on Eli Manning and the Giants passing game as a whole, and also a factor of the fact that unless you're the 2004 Colts or the 2008 Cards, if you're a WR3 with no chance to rise up the depth chart, then you're useless to me. That goes double for Lance Moore, who on any given week might actually be New Orlean's WR5 (behind Colston, Henderson, Meachem, and Bush). I also think you're selling Donnie Avery short. Everyone pretty much agrees that Sam Bradford is a special talent. Well, of all the WRs currently in St. Louis, I think Avery is their best and the most likely to be the #1 for the Rams next season (provided they don't bring in outside help). I do think I'm too down on Lloyd, though- probably deserves to be more in the 30-33 range.

5. Already covered.

6. Liked Best more than Spiller coming in. Best has looked better than Spiller to solidify that. I think Spiller might be a career CoP back who always has someone else vulturing significant carries. I don't have that same concern with Best. Plus, Buffalo is terrible and there's no real light at the end of that tunnel.

7. I agree with your statement. I disagree with your implication that Thomas Jones has 1-2 years of RB2 production left in him. I think he's got more like 0 years of RB2 production left in him. He's barely an RB2 right now, and part of being as high on Charles as I am means thinking Jones will continue losing workload to him.

I agree. With all due respect to SSOG, this is just another instance where he starts with a bias and then digs in his heal's and stands pat no matter what changes.

Eli has shown improvement each season and the Giants have entrusted more and more of their offense to him. He is now surrounded by very good young talent at the skill positions and as you said, a lock to hold that job for a long time. He never misses time due to injury either which is plus. At the evry worst he should be at or near the top of the QB2 rankings, since he's so solid.

He isn't the type of fantasy QB that will win you you're league, but there's something to be said for the solid week in and week out production (and year to year production) that Manning offers. He's the starting QB of my 4-2 dynasty team that is also third in the league in scoring.

And despite the Giants "entrusting more and more of their offense to him", and despite Hakeem Nicks playing out of his mind, Eli Manning currently ranks... 9th. Go to PPG and he falls to 12th behind Tom Brady, Mike Vick, and Ryan Fitzpatrick, and in a virtual tie with Jay Cutler. Give Shaun Hill the courtesy of discounting his first game (where he wasn't the starter) and he surges past Manning, too. Carson Palmer, who's been absolutely panned this season for how terrible he looks, is sitting 1.2 points behind Manning if you pro-rate his numbers. In other words... Eli Manning is who I thought he was. And I'm not letting him off the hook.People accuse me of starting with a bias, digging in my heels, and standing pat. Personally, I don't think that's an accurate characterization. I'm more than ready and willing to admit I was wrong about players. Arian Foster. LaDainian Tomlinson. Lesean McCoy. Miles Austin last season. Kyle Orton. Just because I don't change every single player every time somebody questions the ranking doesn't mean I'm digging in my heels, it means not enough has changed to cause me to re-evaluate. In Manning's case, I don't know why I would possibly re-evaluate, seeing as he's playing exactly like I thought he would.

I would put the odds at less than 25% Max Hall is starting anywhere in the NFL next season.

I'll take those odds in a heartbeat.

You mean to tell me that Arizona cut Matt Leinart becuase an undrafted rookie, with limited physical skills looked better in preseason? I would be shocked if that was the case. I think Anderson looked good in pre-season and they thought he could hold the spot for a year.

But, even if we assume it is, being better than Leinart and Anderson (not that Hall has proven to be) does not mean you are a long term answer at QB for anybody. And it especially does not mean you are a better player than Matt Cassel or Carson Palmer who have done it for seasons, not (pre-season) months.

Even if Hall is the best QB on the AZ roster, what does that say about his long term potential as an NFL starter? Not much, if that is all we have to go by.

Ken Whisenhunt told Peter King that Max Hall was the best-looking QB on the entire roster during camps. It's commonly accepted that the reason Leinart was cut is because Arizona knew they couldn't sneak either Hall or Skelton through waivers and onto the practice squad. The fact that no UFA rookie QB has started this early in a non-strike year suggests that there's more to Hall than just another warm body or camp arm.The difference in our rankings of Hall stems from one fundamental difference in opinion: you think Hall got the Arizona job by default. I think he got it through merit. You think Hall is just like every other QB2 on every other roster, except that he happened to win the sucky-starter-lottery and get the starting nod. I happen to disagree. My rankings are based on my assumptions, and my assumption is that Hall is the starter right now on merit. Did he look great? Nope. How many rookie QBs look great in their debut- not just undrafted ones, but *ANY* rookie QBs? Guys like Bradford, Ryan, or Flacco are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Concept Coop]

I didn't mean to imply direct causation, just that it aided their decision. Leinart wasn't going to work out in Arizona even if they didn't have Hall. Having Hall helped them drop the hammer.

I wouldn't put Hall over Cassel or Palmer. That's SSOG's argument. In fact, for those scoring at home, I'm arguing that other garbage QBs with near term opportunity like Fitzpatrick should be thought of similarly. But to say Hall has no potential and is in this situation by pure happenstance or luck ("they have nobody else") is pretty untrue.

I don't know how that can be untrue. It is not like either of us know for sure, one way or the other. He started 3rd on the depth chart. The #2 guy ran his mouth and was a locker room issue. They got rid of him. The #1 guy played awful. I don't think it is a stetch to say it is possible that they bench Anderson, regardless of who was behind him. That person happened to be Max Hall. If it was Mike Kafka, he would be starting. If it was Matt Moore, he would be starting.

I agree if Kafka was on Arizona instead of Hall, he'd be in the same position. Kafka would have top 30 value in Arizona and Hall would be unrosterable as Philly's QB3. Very similar prospects, but Hall ended up in a better short term situation so has a lot more value as of Oct 20, 2010. That doesn't discount Hall. The Cardinals were 2-2 under DA, so don't act like it was a desperate act.Moore is Anderson. He's the terrible guy they had to bench to give the young guy a chance to sink or swim.

When you turn to an undrafted rookie, 3rd string QB, I don't know that there is a more fitting term than desperate. As for the rest, we are on the same page. I just don't think 10 games worth of almost literally, the worst possible QB production is worth a bump in rankings, especially above established starters and more talented rookies.

 

[SSOG]

When you turn to an undrafted rookie, 3rd string QB, I don't know that there is a more fitting term than desperate. As for the rest, we are on the same page. I just don't think 10 games worth of almost literally, the worst possible QB production is worth a bump in rankings, especially above established starters and more talented rookies.

3rd string? How is Max Hall 3rd string? Max Hall is 2nd string, and the only reason he wasn't 1st string was out of deference to Anderson's experience.Arizona went out and acquired Derek Anderson in free agency... and Hall beat him out. Arizona spent a 1st rounder on Matt Leinart and entered the season still hoping he could be the future of their franchise... and Hall beat him out. Arizona spent a draft pick on John Skelton... and Max Hall beat him out. Arizona passed on guys like Bulger because they liked the guys they already had... and Hall went out and flat out beat those guys that Arizona liked. You're making it sound like Max Hall was some dude sitting in the stands and the Arizona Cardinals held a raffle awarding the starting position to the dude in section 4, row C, seat 12.Also, you want to see the worst possible QB production, don't look at Derek Anderson- look at "more talented rookie" Jimmy Clausen. Just sayin'.

 

[Concept Coop]

When you turn to an undrafted rookie, 3rd string QB, I don't know that there is a more fitting term than desperate. As for the rest, we are on the same page. I just don't think 10 games worth of almost literally, the worst possible QB production is worth a bump in rankings, especially above established starters and more talented rookies.

3rd string? How is Max Hall 3rd string? Max Hall is 2nd string, and the only reason he wasn't 1st string was out of deference to Anderson's experience.Arizona went out and acquired Derek Anderson in free agency... and Hall beat him out. Arizona spent a 1st rounder on Matt Leinart and entered the season still hoping he could be the future of their franchise... and Hall beat him out. Arizona spent a draft pick on John Skelton... and Max Hall beat him out. Arizona passed on guys like Bulger because they liked the guys they already had... and Hall went out and flat out beat those guys that Arizona liked. You're making it sound like Max Hall was some dude sitting in the stands and the Arizona Cardinals held a raffle awarding the starting position to the dude in section 4, row C, seat 12.Also, you want to see the worst possible QB production, don't look at Derek Anderson- look at "more talented rookie" Jimmy Clausen. Just sayin'.

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon. I wouldn't expect the talanted Clausen to be able to play NFL football yet. I am not surprised by his struggles. As you said, the Bradfords of the NFL are the exception, not the rule. Max Hall is not Sam Bradford, and will do no better than Derrick Anderson was doing. After this season, Arizona will draft it's future QB, if it can't get one via FA. The the Max Hall hype train will die, and he will go back to the waiver wires, where he belongs.

 

[PranksterJD]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.

 

[Concept Coop]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.

How many Miles Austins are there? What is the ratio of 3rd string players at any position, after 3 years, turning it around to become top 3? >1%?I am not sure how relevant, while true, your comment is?

 

[PranksterJD]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.

How many Miles Austins are there? What is the ratio of 3rd string players at any position, after 3 years, turning it around to become top 3? >1%?I am not sure how relevant, while true, your comment is?

Becoming top 3 is one thing. Beating out Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel in a dynasty ranking is another thing entirely. The Austin example is extreme, but its relevant as a counter-argument to your belief that a 3rd string guy implies desperation, as it shows that a 3rd stringer starting can simply imply depth.... or at least can show that the talent level of the 3rd stringer is comparable to that of those before him, even if the experience level is not.QB2 is the most easily filled position in most dynasty leagues, so those players have little to no value. Its normally easy enough to find guys to fill that hole if QB is a position of need, so guys that have proven their lot in life is to fill that hole have equally small value.Max Hall has more value to me simply because he hasn't **proven** that's his spot. Is there a 95% chance that's where he belongs?.... probably. But so far all we know is that he's a guy willing to put his body on the line to beat the defending Super Bowl champs. That's as much as he could have realistically done in that game, and he did it... so he gets an opportunity to see whether he can capitalize on that slim 5% and become Kyle Orton.Personally, I have no problem with him being over Palmer and Cassel. I'd probably have Tebow over him, and move Freeman and Young into a tier above, but he's certainly in the right ballpark with guys like Whitehurst and Gradkowski.... which is to say, a ballpark with very little value in any case.

 

[SSOG]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.

Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

I wouldn't expect the talanted Clausen to be able to play NFL football yet. I am not surprised by his struggles. As you said, the Bradfords of the NFL are the exception, not the rule. Max Hall is not Sam Bradford, and will do no better than Derrick Anderson was doing. After this season, Arizona will draft it's future QB, if it can't get one via FA. The the Max Hall hype train will die, and he will go back to the waiver wires, where he belongs.

Traded? Who got traded? Hall ascended to the second string after he outplayed the previous 2nd string QB. That player was then cut. Isn't that how most people ascend the depth charts? By beating out the guys ahead of them? Is there some other way to do it that I'm unaware of?Matt Leinart didn't get beat out because he was a malcontent. He was a malcontent because he got beat out.

 

[Concept Coop]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.

How many Miles Austins are there? What is the ratio of 3rd string players at any position, after 3 years, turning it around to become top 3? >1%?I am not sure how relevant, while true, your comment is?

Becoming top 3 is one thing. Beating out Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel in a dynasty ranking is another thing entirely. The Austin example is extreme, but its relevant as a counter-argument to your belief that a 3rd string guy implies desperation, as it shows that a 3rd stringer starting can simply imply depth.... or at least can show that the talent level of the 3rd stringer is comparable to that of those before him, even if the experience level is not.QB2 is the most easily filled position in most dynasty leagues, so those players have little to no value. Its normally easy enough to find guys to fill that hole if QB is a position of need, so guys that have proven their lot in life is to fill that hole have equally small value.Max Hall has more value to me simply because he hasn't **proven** that's his spot. Is there a 95% chance that's where he belongs?.... probably. But so far all we know is that he's a guy willing to put his body on the line to beat the defending Super Bowl champs. That's as much as he could have realistically done in that game, and he did it... so he gets an opportunity to see whether he can capitalize on that slim 5% and become Kyle Orton.Personally, I have no problem with him being over Palmer and Cassel. I'd probably have Tebow over him, and move Freeman and Young into a tier above, but he's certainly in the right ballpark with guys like Whitehurst and Gradkowski.... which is to say, a ballpark with very little value in any case.

I just don't get this logic: "He hasn't proven he's NOT better than Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel, so I'll value him as though he IS." If you guys want to say that you watched him in college and you like him, I can see your argument. If you want to use his 3rd string pre-season reps, I will try to see your argument. But the above logic, I just don't get. Jonathan Dwyer hasn't proven that he's not better than Chris Johnson. How do you value him?

 

[Instinctive]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.

How many Miles Austins are there? What is the ratio of 3rd string players at any position, after 3 years, turning it around to become top 3? >1%?I am not sure how relevant, while true, your comment is?

Becoming top 3 is one thing. Beating out Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel in a dynasty ranking is another thing entirely. The Austin example is extreme, but its relevant as a counter-argument to your belief that a 3rd string guy implies desperation, as it shows that a 3rd stringer starting can simply imply depth.... or at least can show that the talent level of the 3rd stringer is comparable to that of those before him, even if the experience level is not.QB2 is the most easily filled position in most dynasty leagues, so those players have little to no value. Its normally easy enough to find guys to fill that hole if QB is a position of need, so guys that have proven their lot in life is to fill that hole have equally small value.Max Hall has more value to me simply because he hasn't **proven** that's his spot. Is there a 95% chance that's where he belongs?.... probably. But so far all we know is that he's a guy willing to put his body on the line to beat the defending Super Bowl champs. That's as much as he could have realistically done in that game, and he did it... so he gets an opportunity to see whether he can capitalize on that slim 5% and become Kyle Orton.Personally, I have no problem with him being over Palmer and Cassel. I'd probably have Tebow over him, and move Freeman and Young into a tier above, but he's certainly in the right ballpark with guys like Whitehurst and Gradkowski.... which is to say, a ballpark with very little value in any case.

I just don't get this logic: "He hasn't proven he's NOT better than Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel, so I'll value him as though he IS." If you guys want to say that you watched him in college and you like him, I can see your argument. If you want to use his 3rd string pre-season reps, I will try to see your argument. But the above logic, I just don't get. Jonathan Dwyer hasn't proven that he's not better than Chris Johnson. How do you value him?

Difference being that while Palmer and Cassel types are easily acquired in dynasty, Johnson is elite. Hall has potential to be elite, which Palmer and Cassel lack in many people's eyes. (I like Cassel myself, but the larger point stands)

 

[Concept Coop]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.

Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

I wouldn't expect the talanted Clausen to be able to play NFL football yet. I am not surprised by his struggles. As you said, the Bradfords of the NFL are the exception, not the rule. Max Hall is not Sam Bradford, and will do no better than Derrick Anderson was doing. After this season, Arizona will draft it's future QB, if it can't get one via FA. The the Max Hall hype train will die, and he will go back to the waiver wires, where he belongs.

Traded? Who got traded? Hall ascended to the second string after he outplayed the previous 2nd string QB. That player was then cut. Isn't that how most people ascend the depth charts? By beating out the guys ahead of them? Is there some other way to do it that I'm unaware of?Matt Leinart didn't get beat out because he was a malcontent. He was a malcontent because he got beat out.

Sorry. Cut.And Hall did not outplay him. Hall never got 2nd string reps. Those went to Anderson, then Leinart. Anderson beat out Leinart. Leinart was a locker room issue. That is why he was cut. Not becuase the coaches planned to play Max Hall, or even felt Hall was the better player.

Again. When the guy ahead of you plays awful, so they put you in, you didn't beat anybody out. Max Hall hasn't beaten anybody out. He has played one game, did not look good, and isn't even on film yet. He is in for a world of hurt; he is in over his head.

The kid couldn't handle TCU speed. There is no way he can handle NFL speed.

 

[Concept Coop]

Difference being that while Palmer and Cassel types are easily acquired in dynasty, Johnson is elite. Hall has potential to be elite, which Palmer and Cassel lack in many people's eyes. (I like Cassel myself, but the larger point stands)

You want to know who is even easier to aquire in dynasty leagues? Long-shot rookie QBs like Max Hall. Sure, you can get Cassel for a 2nd. But you can get Hall, Kafka, LeFevour for free.

 

[Herm23]

Ok. 2nd string, after the 2nd string QB was traded.Hall didn't beat anybody out. He got a shot becuase Anderson was so horrible, and Leinart was a malcontent. If he beat them all out, he would have been starting all along. Not only did he not beat them out, he didn't play any better, either. And I don't think that changes anytime soon.

And Miles Austin was the 3rd string WR until the first and second string WRs got hurt. He didn't beat anybody out either, but that doesn't mean he's not the best man for the job.

How many Miles Austins are there? What is the ratio of 3rd string players at any position, after 3 years, turning it around to become top 3? >1%?I am not sure how relevant, while true, your comment is?

Becoming top 3 is one thing. Beating out Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel in a dynasty ranking is another thing entirely. The Austin example is extreme, but its relevant as a counter-argument to your belief that a 3rd string guy implies desperation, as it shows that a 3rd stringer starting can simply imply depth.... or at least can show that the talent level of the 3rd stringer is comparable to that of those before him, even if the experience level is not.QB2 is the most easily filled position in most dynasty leagues, so those players have little to no value. Its normally easy enough to find guys to fill that hole if QB is a position of need, so guys that have proven their lot in life is to fill that hole have equally small value.Max Hall has more value to me simply because he hasn't **proven** that's his spot. Is there a 95% chance that's where he belongs?.... probably. But so far all we know is that he's a guy willing to put his body on the line to beat the defending Super Bowl champs. That's as much as he could have realistically done in that game, and he did it... so he gets an opportunity to see whether he can capitalize on that slim 5% and become Kyle Orton.Personally, I have no problem with him being over Palmer and Cassel. I'd probably have Tebow over him, and move Freeman and Young into a tier above, but he's certainly in the right ballpark with guys like Whitehurst and Gradkowski.... which is to say, a ballpark with very little value in any case.

I just don't get this logic: "He hasn't proven he's NOT better than Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel, so I'll value him as though he IS." If you guys want to say that you watched him in college and you like him, I can see your argument. If you want to use his 3rd string pre-season reps, I will try to see your argument. But the above logic, I just don't get. Jonathan Dwyer hasn't proven that he's not better than Chris Johnson. How do you value him?

It's actually insanely easy logic to follow. Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel are essentially WORTHLESS FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT. If you ever have to rely on playing them, you are sunk at the QB position. This makes them the equivalant of waiver wire fodder. The worst part is that they are essentially a waste of a roster spot- they are players you NEVER want to play nor are they young players that may have the potential to improve and develop. In other words, players like Cassel and Palmer are exactly who they are going to be for the rest of their career and from a fantasy standpoint, what they are is not good. Max Hall, on the other hand, while not a good player from a fantasy football standpoint, is a young player with the potential to improve and develop. This alone makes him more valuable than slop like Cassell and Palmer. You don't ever want to be forced to start Hall, Cassell, or Palmer, but of the 3, Hall is the ONLY one with the potential to become a guy you wouldn't mind starting.

 

[Concept Coop]

It's actually insanely easy logic to follow. Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel are essentially WORTHLESS FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT. If you ever have to rely on playing them, you are sunk at the QB position. This makes them the equivalant of waiver wire fodder. The worst part is that they are essentially a waste of a roster spot- they are players you NEVER want to play nor are they young players that may have the potential to improve and develop. In other words, players like Cassel and Palmer are exactly who they are going to be for the rest of their career and from a fantasy standpoint, what they are is not good. Max Hall, on the other hand, while not a good player from a fantasy football standpoint, is a young player with the potential to improve and develop. This alone makes him more valuable than slop like Cassell and Palmer. You don't ever want to be forced to start Hall, Cassell, or Palmer, but of the 3, Hall is the ONLY one with the potential to become a guy you wouldn't mind starting.

What?! Based on what?! There is a very slim chance he is ever a year in, year out starter like Palmer is. And you keep saying Palmer and Cassel have no value. They have more value than Max Hall, seeing as how they are owned more often, are more proven, and will put up more points.

 

[Instinctive]

Difference being that while Palmer and Cassel types are easily acquired in dynasty, Johnson is elite. Hall has potential to be elite, which Palmer and Cassel lack in many people's eyes. (I like Cassel myself, but the larger point stands)

You want to know who is even easier to aquire in dynasty leagues? Long-shot rookie QBs like Max Hall. Sure, you can get Cassel for a 2nd. But you can get Hall, Kafka, LeFevour for free.

Hall is in a completely different class than LeFevour and Kafka, for one.He's starting. That's not a longshot anymore dude, he's got his shot. And what kind of dynasty competition do you play against that Hall is available on the WW? I play in 7 dynasties. He is available in zero of them, and in all but one, he was unavailable ALREADY when Leinart got cut.Kafka's easy to acquire because he's a third string longshot. Hall is significantly more valuable because he's a STARTER who hasn't yet proven that he isn't elite. Because in dynasty, anybody who's not a young starter with potential OR elite already, is practically worthless from a value standpoint.

 

[Instinctive]

It's actually insanely easy logic to follow. Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel are essentially WORTHLESS FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT. If you ever have to rely on playing them, you are sunk at the QB position. This makes them the equivalant of waiver wire fodder. The worst part is that they are essentially a waste of a roster spot- they are players you NEVER want to play nor are they young players that may have the potential to improve and develop. In other words, players like Cassel and Palmer are exactly who they are going to be for the rest of their career and from a fantasy standpoint, what they are is not good. Max Hall, on the other hand, while not a good player from a fantasy football standpoint, is a young player with the potential to improve and develop. This alone makes him more valuable than slop like Cassell and Palmer. You don't ever want to be forced to start Hall, Cassell, or Palmer, but of the 3, Hall is the ONLY one with the potential to become a guy you wouldn't mind starting.

What?! Based on what?! There is a very slim chance he is ever a year in, year out starter like Palmer is. And you keep saying Palmer and Cassel have no value. They have more value than Max Hall, seeing as how they are owned more often, are more proven, and will put up more points.

This doesn't matter. If you're stuck starting a guy who consistently puts up QB 12-20 numbers, then yeah, he is producing more than Hall. Then again, those guys have been putting up those numbers for years and haven't improved. Hall could jump them and it honestly wouldn't surprise me. They're easy to acquire. Incredibly easy. And there will always be guys like them, just as easy to get.Hall could be great though. Not necessarily likely or anything, but he's about the same cost as those middle guys, and he has a much higher ceiling.

 

[Herm23]

It's actually insanely easy logic to follow. Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel are essentially WORTHLESS FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT. If you ever have to rely on playing them, you are sunk at the QB position. This makes them the equivalant of waiver wire fodder. The worst part is that they are essentially a waste of a roster spot- they are players you NEVER want to play nor are they young players that may have the potential to improve and develop. In other words, players like Cassel and Palmer are exactly who they are going to be for the rest of their career and from a fantasy standpoint, what they are is not good. Max Hall, on the other hand, while not a good player from a fantasy football standpoint, is a young player with the potential to improve and develop. This alone makes him more valuable than slop like Cassell and Palmer. You don't ever want to be forced to start Hall, Cassell, or Palmer, but of the 3, Hall is the ONLY one with the potential to become a guy you wouldn't mind starting.

What?! Based on what?! There is a very slim chance he is ever a year in, year out starter like Palmer is. And you keep saying Palmer and Cassel have no value. They have more value than Max Hall, seeing as how they are owned more often, are more proven, and will put up more points.

You aren't grasping the concept and I'm not sure how to simplify it any further.It aboslutely does not matter if Palmer and Cassel put up more points when those points are mid to low QB2 points. If you are EVER playing a QB that performs as a mid to low QB2, it is a losing proposition. There is a near 100% probability that you are playing a worse QB than every other team in your entire league if you are starting Cassel or Palmer. The same is true for Hall- right now, if you start him there is a near 100% probability that he would be the worst starting QB in your league.

The difference is that Palmer and Cassel are veterans who have clearly identitifed what they are. Unfortunately, what they are is not something you want in your fantasy football lineup- a mid to low QB2. Max Hall, on the other hand, HAS NOT SHOWN US WHAT HE IS. There is very good chance that he is nothing more than a bottom end QB2 at best and will not be worth rostering in the future. However, the simple fact that there is still a chance he progresses into a top end QB2 or a QB1 is exactly what makes him more valuable than any player that is locked in as a mediocre QB2 for the duration of their career.

If you want to argue that Palmer or Cassel have the opportunity to progress and become QB1 type players, that is a different argument entirely (and a pretty flawed one, might I add). However, for this argument, we are talking about 3 players THAT YOU NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER WANT IN YOUR STARTING LINEUP. Based on that, when choosing one of those 3 players that you never want to play, you should always choose the 1 that has the potential (even if the potential is small) to become someone you would want to play in the future. That player is Hall, not Palmer, Cassel, etc...

Put another way, the difference between your QB scoring you 7 points a game and your QB scoring you 9 points a game is negligable, because whether you are scoring 7 or 9 points per game out of the position, you are going to be getting destroyed by QB production from every other team in your league. If you are going to roster a sucky player, the goal should be to at least roster the sucky player who has the potential to become not-sucky.

Palmer and Cassel will be 7-9 point guys for the rest of their career. Max Hall may never be any better than that or may in fact be worse than that. However, the very fact that he brings the possibility of being better than that...a possibility that Palmer and Cassel simply do not bring...makes him, by nature, more valuable.

 

[PranksterJD]

Jonathan Dwyer hasn't proven that he's not better than Chris Johnson. How do you value him?

The better analogy is that Dwyer hasn't proven that he's not better than Cadillac Williams or Fred Taylor, and yes... I value him more highly.

Difference being that while Palmer and Cassel types are easily acquired in dynasty, Johnson is elite. Hall has potential to be elite, which Palmer and Cassel lack in many people's eyes. (I like Cassel myself, but the larger point stands)

You want to know who is even easier to aquire in dynasty leagues? Long-shot rookie QBs like Max Hall. Sure, you can get Cassel for a 2nd. But you can get Hall, Kafka, LeFevour for free.

I can also get the next Bruce Gradkowski or Shaun Hill for free, and get Palmer/Cassel level production. Why would I waste the roster spot on a guy I know is replaceable with a FA?

It's actually insanely easy logic to follow. Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel are essentially WORTHLESS FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT. If you ever have to rely on playing them, you are sunk at the QB position. This makes them the equivalant of waiver wire fodder. The worst part is that they are essentially a waste of a roster spot- they are players you NEVER want to play nor are they young players that may have the potential to improve and develop. In other words, players like Cassel and Palmer are exactly who they are going to be for the rest of their career and from a fantasy standpoint, what they are is not good. Max Hall, on the other hand, while not a good player from a fantasy football standpoint, is a young player with the potential to improve and develop. This alone makes him more valuable than slop like Cassell and Palmer. You don't ever want to be forced to start Hall, Cassell, or Palmer, but of the 3, Hall is the ONLY one with the potential to become a guy you wouldn't mind starting.

What?! Based on what?! There is a very slim chance he is ever a year in, year out starter like Palmer is. And you keep saying Palmer and Cassel have no value. They have more value than Max Hall, seeing as how they are owned more often, are more proven, and will put up more points.

1) Agreed that its a slim chance he becomes a year-in, year-out fantasy starter, and 2) I disagree that Palmer is one.Accoding to % owned, Antonio Bryant is more valuable than DHB, Seattle Mike, and a slew of others. All Carson and Cassel have proven is that they can ride name value from years ago in drastically different situations, and that they can consistently provide bye-week level points. These are not the best measures here I feel.

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

Now, outside of all that... your argument has merit. I certainly can't say that you're wrong for having Cassel and Palmer higher, as we're all really discussing semantics around a bunch of low-value guys at this point. The better question is whether Max Hall is a buy low as a guy with the opportunity to reach Stafford/Sanchez/Kolb status, or if he's destined to stay at the replacement-level.

 

[Herm23]

1) Agreed that its a slim chance he becomes a year-in, year-out fantasy starter, and 2) I disagree that Palmer is one.

Accoding to % owned, Antonio Bryant is more valuable than DHB, Seattle Mike, and a slew of others. All Carson and Cassel have proven is that they can ride name value from years ago in drastically different situations, and that they can consistently provide bye-week level points. These are not the best measures here I feel.

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

Now, outside of all that... your argument has merit. I certainly can't say that you're wrong for having Cassel and Palmer higher, as we're all really discussing semantics around a bunch of low-value guys at this point. The better question is whether Max Hall is a buy low as a guy with the opportunity to reach Stafford/Sanchez/Kolb status, or if he's destined to stay at the replacement-level.

Sometimes, there are players I feel strongly will pan out and sometimes there are players I feel strongly will not pan out. In either of those cases, it is easy to adjust my rankings and place them accordingly. However, every once in awhile there are players that I have no freaking clue on. These players are very difficult to rank, but I generally place greater value on their potential when comparing them to other mediocre/bad veteran options. Max Hall falls into this "no freaking clue" catagory for me, hence my belief that his potential is worth more than other mediocre/bad options at QB (Palmer, Cassel, etc...).

 

[plyka]

It's so tough for you to believe a guy drafted 12th overall is more talented than a guy that went undrafted?

It's so tough for you to believe that I don't use draft position to judge who is more talented?

I'm not saying that it has to be your sole criteria at all - but you acted as if it was an impossibilty that Lynch was the more talented runner. I think it does say something that NFL personnel thought enough of Lynch's talents coming out of college that he was a top 12 pick overall.I personally think he is the better talent as well. I don't think Foster could do any better in Buffalo. You said they weren't bad teams during his first two seasons and that is true, but their o-line was horrible then as well. He and a decent defense was the reason they were a .500 team.I think Foster is a talent - but I also know that based on track record that offense creates productive RBs so it's harder to see juts how talented he is.

I didn't act as if it was an impossibility- did you miss this in my post? Their O-line was not horrible then, not for run blocking. I've always held the belief that Lynch is a very overrated RB, still do. FJax has outperformed him over their entire careers, and has looked better as well IMO. I'm not just using Foster's production as my basis of his talent, I'm watching him play. Same with Lynch, same with everyone when I'm talking "talent".It's fine if you disagree, I'm not trying to say Foster is head and shoulders above him, but you (Go Deep) lose credibility IMO when you say things like "I see no difference between D. Ward and Foster".

Im not here to win board cred, i am just explaining my thoughts. Im not saying Ward is better than Foster, my point is i havnt seen a difference between the two when i watch them play. It might very well be the case that Foster is better, but i havnt seen anything at this point to say for sure. If you have seen a difference, please let me know. What is Foster doing that makes him better? He doesnt look faster, run with more power, neither has shown much wiggle, both are adequate pass catchers and both have looked good in setting up their blocks and getting to the hole. Foster is an average NFL RB who is dependant on the full time gig in Houston to be a top 10 RB. If Houston signs him to a long term deal, i will be all for having Foster in or near the top 10, but at this point, i am not nearly as confident as most others. I dont hate Foster, and im not rooting against him(i own him in one dynasty league and one redraft, and traded him in another dynasty) but im not just going to shoot him way up my rankings based on statistics. edit spelling

The problem with judging Ward on his performance thus far with Houston is the non-existent sample size. Including the 1 quarter when Foster was benched and Ward had 8-9 carries, Ward has had 16 TOTAL carries over the last 3 games. That is Foster's minimum on most days. So you have to ask yourself, can I make a judgement on so few carries? Just like watching Justin Forsett for the Seahawks this last week, since Lynch got a huge number of carries, Forsett would come in on passing downs and on a per touch basis his performance was awesome. HOwever, as we saw during the rest of the year, it is very difficult to be as effective as your carries increase.I'm not saying Ward is a bad player or a lot worse than Foster, it's just that Foster has been the #1 fantasy asset thus far into the year. His value is certain, he is very valuable. Ward is a different matter. You can't make an educated guess on such a small sample size. And to say Ward is as talented as Foster is an overstatement, since there simply isn't enough data to be able to make such a call.

 

[Concept Coop]

You aren't grasping the concept and I'm not sure how to simplify it any further.It aboslutely does not matter if Palmer and Cassel put up more points when those points are mid to low QB2 points. If you are EVER playing a QB that performs as a mid to low QB2, it is a losing proposition. There is a near 100% probability that you are playing a worse QB than every other team in your entire league if you are starting Cassel or Palmer. The same is true for Hall- right now, if you start him there is a near 100% probability that he would be the worst starting QB in your league. The difference is that Palmer and Cassel are veterans who have clearly identitifed what they are. Unfortunately, what they are is not something you want in your fantasy football lineup- a mid to low QB2. Max Hall, on the other hand, HAS NOT SHOWN US WHAT HE IS. There is very good chance that he is nothing more than a bottom end QB2 at best and will not be worth rostering in the future. However, the simple fact that there is still a chance he progresses into a top end QB2 or a QB1 is exactly what makes him more valuable than any player that is locked in as a mediocre QB2 for the duration of their career.If you want to argue that Palmer or Cassel have the opportunity to progress and become QB1 type players, that is a different argument entirely (and a pretty flawed one, might I add). However, for this argument, we are talking about 3 players THAT YOU NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER WANT IN YOUR STARTING LINEUP. Based on that, when choosing one of those 3 players that you never want to play, you should always choose the 1 that has the potential (even if the potential is small) to become someone you would want to play in the future. That player is Hall, not Palmer, Cassel, etc...Put another way, the difference between your QB scoring you 7 points a game and your QB scoring you 9 points a game is negligable, because whether you are scoring 7 or 9 points per game out of the position, you are going to be getting destroyed by QB production from every other team in your league. If you are going to roster a sucky player, the goal should be to at least roster the sucky player who has the potential to become not-sucky.Palmer and Cassel will be 7-9 point guys for the rest of their career. Max Hall may never be any better than that or may in fact be worse than that. However, the very fact that he brings the possibility of being better than that...a possibility that Palmer and Cassel simply do not bring...makes him, by nature, more valuable.

First, and most importanly, becuase I think you are dead wrong, doesn't mean I don't get what you are saying. Understand that. No need to pretend otherwise to imply that your theory is fact, and anyone that thinks differently simply must not be able to comprehend. It adds nothing to validate your opinion on the matter.Second, I have watched Hall play and no, he does not have a higher cieling. It is much lower.Lastly, we will have to agree not to. Hall has no value to me, because he is not a starting caliber QB and won't be. Palmer has value because he will be a starting QB for years. I know he will be there for me when I have a bye week, or if my main guy gets hurt. I don't feel Hall will ever offer that.

 

[Concept Coop]

Difference being that while Palmer and Cassel types are easily acquired in dynasty, Johnson is elite. Hall has potential to be elite, which Palmer and Cassel lack in many people's eyes. (I like Cassel myself, but the larger point stands)

You want to know who is even easier to aquire in dynasty leagues? Long-shot rookie QBs like Max Hall. Sure, you can get Cassel for a 2nd. But you can get Hall, Kafka, LeFevour for free.

Hall is in a completely different class than LeFevour and Kafka, for one.He's starting. That's not a longshot anymore dude, he's got his shot. And what kind of dynasty competition do you play against that Hall is available on the WW? I play in 7 dynasties. He is available in zero of them, and in all but one, he was unavailable ALREADY when Leinart got cut.Kafka's easy to acquire because he's a third string longshot. Hall is significantly more valuable because he's a STARTER who hasn't yet proven that he isn't elite. Because in dynasty, anybody who's not a young starter with potential OR elite already, is practically worthless from a value standpoint.

Hey, if you think there is any chance that Hall is elite, good luck. I feel strongly that he is not, and never will be. Under the impression that I did, I understand your logic, but would not follow your model. All is not on the wires in any of my dynasty leagues. But he was before he got the starting gig. I value Hall no more than Kafka or LeFevour. He is not as talented as they are, so your are right: they are in different classes. And the fact that he is starting means nothing, because I don't project that to continue, and have no use for low(est)-end QB stats for 10 games.

 

[az_prof]

Regarding the Qb1/QB2 debate and whether it is better to have a QB 2 who is a project with upside rather than an entrenched QB2 with little upside, a guy in my dynasty just cut Garrard. I think it speaks to this point. He is rebuilding. What good does having Garrard do him? Better to have a couple of project QBs and hope one becomes a true QB1.

Generally I agree with this strategy, but there is one caveat. If you can trade a top 5 QB and get one of those eternal QB2s PLUS a great RB or WR, then it might be worth it. You don't need to have the best players at every position. So, if you give up a couple of points a week at QB, that's ok if you can smack the opposition down at RB and WR. In other words, it's all about total value. That being said, I enjoy having a true QB1 that I can just plug in week after week, and I don't need to worry whether it's a good matchup or not. You can lose a lot of points trying to play the matchup game if you guess wrong.

 

[Herm23]

You aren't grasping the concept and I'm not sure how to simplify it any further.It aboslutely does not matter if Palmer and Cassel put up more points when those points are mid to low QB2 points. If you are EVER playing a QB that performs as a mid to low QB2, it is a losing proposition. There is a near 100% probability that you are playing a worse QB than every other team in your entire league if you are starting Cassel or Palmer. The same is true for Hall- right now, if you start him there is a near 100% probability that he would be the worst starting QB in your league. The difference is that Palmer and Cassel are veterans who have clearly identitifed what they are. Unfortunately, what they are is not something you want in your fantasy football lineup- a mid to low QB2. Max Hall, on the other hand, HAS NOT SHOWN US WHAT HE IS. There is very good chance that he is nothing more than a bottom end QB2 at best and will not be worth rostering in the future. However, the simple fact that there is still a chance he progresses into a top end QB2 or a QB1 is exactly what makes him more valuable than any player that is locked in as a mediocre QB2 for the duration of their career.If you want to argue that Palmer or Cassel have the opportunity to progress and become QB1 type players, that is a different argument entirely (and a pretty flawed one, might I add). However, for this argument, we are talking about 3 players THAT YOU NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER WANT IN YOUR STARTING LINEUP. Based on that, when choosing one of those 3 players that you never want to play, you should always choose the 1 that has the potential (even if the potential is small) to become someone you would want to play in the future. That player is Hall, not Palmer, Cassel, etc...Put another way, the difference between your QB scoring you 7 points a game and your QB scoring you 9 points a game is negligable, because whether you are scoring 7 or 9 points per game out of the position, you are going to be getting destroyed by QB production from every other team in your league. If you are going to roster a sucky player, the goal should be to at least roster the sucky player who has the potential to become not-sucky.Palmer and Cassel will be 7-9 point guys for the rest of their career. Max Hall may never be any better than that or may in fact be worse than that. However, the very fact that he brings the possibility of being better than that...a possibility that Palmer and Cassel simply do not bring...makes him, by nature, more valuable.

First, and most importanly, becuase I think you are dead wrong, doesn't mean I don't get what you are saying. Understand that. No need to pretend otherwise to imply that your theory is fact, and anyone that thinks differently simply must not be able to comprehend. It adds nothing to validate your opinion on the matter.Second, I have watched Hall play and no, he does not have a higher cieling. It is much lower.Lastly, we will have to agree not to. Hall has no value to me, because he is not a starting caliber QB and won't be. Palmer has value because he will be a starting QB for years. I know he will be there for me when I have a bye week, or if my main guy gets hurt. I don't feel Hall will ever offer that.

First, you clearly showed you do not get what some of us are saying. You keep referring back to the fact that Palmer/Cassel/etc... will score more points than Hall, which clearly shows you are not grasping the concept or the underlying point of what we are trying to say. There's no need to get defensive, as you are the one who has said "I just don't get this logic: "He hasn't proven he's NOT better than Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel, so I'll value him as though he IS." That is a word for word quite from one of your previous posts in which you admit that you do not, in fact, understand the logic that this idea is based on.Second, this is definitely not my theory or idea, I fully admit to borrowing (stealing?) it from SSOG, as he is the first person I heard readily advocate it and I now fully support it.You keep saying that Palmer/Cassel/etc... will be there if you need them, but what you keep glossing over is that what will be there is terrible, bottom of the barrel QB production that you essentially can get from the waiver wire and will all but guarantee that you get outproduced at the QB position. What benefit does rostering either of those players bring you? The only "benefit" you will receive is that when/if you are forced to plug either player into your lineup, there is a great chance that you will score fewer QB points than your opponent during whichever weeks you play said players. They don't bring you better value than players on the waiver wire (in many cases), they don't bring you the possibility of improved production (again, unless you want to try and argue they are going to improve over the next couple years), and they don't bring you the ability to package them in a trade, since most everyone views them as pretty worthless. All people are trying to tell you is that while everything I just said is very true of Max Hall (or whatever young prospect you want to use in his place), Hall (or said young prospect) brings you the potential of future improvement and thus greater value.Edit: I forgot to address your second point. We have scene Max Hall play a grand total of ONE regular season game. I can appreciate that you may believe you have the single best trained eye for talent in the history of mankind, but NOBODY is good enough to make the kind of sweeping, broad generalization that you just made. The kid has played ONE game, a game in which his team won, might I add. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I'm guessing there have been some very good QB's who have put up absolute stinkers in their first NFL games as well. Struggling during your first start in your rookie season is hardly a reason to say "I have watched Hall play and no, he does not have a higher cieling. It is much lower." as you just did.

 

[Concept Coop]

You aren't grasping the concept and I'm not sure how to simplify it any further.It aboslutely does not matter if Palmer and Cassel put up more points when those points are mid to low QB2 points. If you are EVER playing a QB that performs as a mid to low QB2, it is a losing proposition. There is a near 100% probability that you are playing a worse QB than every other team in your entire league if you are starting Cassel or Palmer. The same is true for Hall- right now, if you start him there is a near 100% probability that he would be the worst starting QB in your league. The difference is that Palmer and Cassel are veterans who have clearly identitifed what they are. Unfortunately, what they are is not something you want in your fantasy football lineup- a mid to low QB2. Max Hall, on the other hand, HAS NOT SHOWN US WHAT HE IS. There is very good chance that he is nothing more than a bottom end QB2 at best and will not be worth rostering in the future. However, the simple fact that there is still a chance he progresses into a top end QB2 or a QB1 is exactly what makes him more valuable than any player that is locked in as a mediocre QB2 for the duration of their career.If you want to argue that Palmer or Cassel have the opportunity to progress and become QB1 type players, that is a different argument entirely (and a pretty flawed one, might I add). However, for this argument, we are talking about 3 players THAT YOU NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER WANT IN YOUR STARTING LINEUP. Based on that, when choosing one of those 3 players that you never want to play, you should always choose the 1 that has the potential (even if the potential is small) to become someone you would want to play in the future. That player is Hall, not Palmer, Cassel, etc...Put another way, the difference between your QB scoring you 7 points a game and your QB scoring you 9 points a game is negligable, because whether you are scoring 7 or 9 points per game out of the position, you are going to be getting destroyed by QB production from every other team in your league. If you are going to roster a sucky player, the goal should be to at least roster the sucky player who has the potential to become not-sucky.Palmer and Cassel will be 7-9 point guys for the rest of their career. Max Hall may never be any better than that or may in fact be worse than that. However, the very fact that he brings the possibility of being better than that...a possibility that Palmer and Cassel simply do not bring...makes him, by nature, more valuable.

First, and most importanly, becuase I think you are dead wrong, doesn't mean I don't get what you are saying. Understand that. No need to pretend otherwise to imply that your theory is fact, and anyone that thinks differently simply must not be able to comprehend. It adds nothing to validate your opinion on the matter.Second, I have watched Hall play and no, he does not have a higher cieling. It is much lower.Lastly, we will have to agree not to. Hall has no value to me, because he is not a starting caliber QB and won't be. Palmer has value because he will be a starting QB for years. I know he will be there for me when I have a bye week, or if my main guy gets hurt. I don't feel Hall will ever offer that.

First, you clearly showed you do not get what some of us are saying. You keep referring back to the fact that Palmer/Cassel/etc... will score more points than Hall, which clearly shows you are not grasping the concept or the underlying point of what we are trying to say. There's no need to get defensive, as you are the one who has said "I just don't get this logic: "He hasn't proven he's NOT better than Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel, so I'll value him as though he IS." That is a word for word quite from one of your previous posts in which you admit that you do not, in fact, understand the logic that this idea is based on.Second, this is definitely not my theory or idea, I fully admit to borrowing (stealing?) it from SSOG, as he is the first person I heard readily advocate it and I now fully support it.You keep saying that Palmer/Cassel/etc... will be there if you need them, but what you keep glossing over is that what will be there is terrible, bottom of the barrel QB production that you essentially can get from the waiver wire and will all but guarantee that you get outproduced at the QB position. What benefit does rostering either of those players bring you? The only "benefit" you will receive is that when/if you are forced to plug either player into your lineup, there is a great chance that you will score fewer QB points than your opponent during whichever weeks you play said players. They don't bring you better value than players on the waiver wire (in many cases), they don't bring you the possibility of improved production (again, unless you want to try and argue they are going to improve over the next couple years), and they don't bring you the ability to package them in a trade, since most everyone views them as pretty worthless. All people are trying to tell you is that while everything I just said is very true of Max Hall (or whatever young prospect you want to use in his place), Hall (or said young prospect) brings you the potential of future improvement and thus greater value.

I don't get why you think that; I think it's faulty logic. I can read and understand that you do infact believe it and understand what it is that you do believe, however. No need to make anlything easier to understand. And if you think Palmer, who is off to a slow start, is bottom level QB play, you are mistaken. He is 15th, which in my 14 team leagues, makes him the highest scoring QB2, by avg. If you take out Big Ben, Colt McCoy, and Fitzpatrick, based on # of games played, he is 12th, a QB1. Less than 1 point lower than Schaub, Manning, and Ryan.

 

[Concept Coop]

Edit: I forgot to address your second point. We have scene Max Hall play a grand total of ONE regular season game. I can appreciate that you may believe you have the single best trained eye for talent in the history of mankind, but NOBODY is good enough to make the kind of sweeping, broad generalization that you just made. The kid has played ONE game, a game in which his team won, might I add. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I'm guessing there have been some very good QB's who have put up absolute stinkers in their first NFL games as well. Struggling during your first start in your rookie season is hardly a reason to say "I have watched Hall play and no, he does not have a higher cieling. It is much lower." as you just did.

I have watched him play in college, as did the NFL teams that decided he wasn't worth a draft pick. When I share an opinion, based on what I believe to be the case, I can add "IMO" if that makes you feel better. Obviously, I could be wrong and am not a scout.

 

[thriftyrocker]

One problem with the "long term QB2s are worthless" theory is Kyle Orton. Orton was exactly the type of guy who could be acquired for pennies if you needed someone short term. Until he wasn't. Highest ranking was QB16 until this year. I don't know if Cassel can be that guy for KC. But he has at least the same shot as Max Hall. I know it is possible because he was the #8 scoring QB his one year starting in NE.

 

[Instinctive]

One problem with the "long term QB2s are worthless" theory is Kyle Orton. Orton was exactly the type of guy who could be acquired for pennies if you needed someone short term. Until he wasn't. Highest ranking was QB16 until this year. I don't know if Cassel can be that guy for KC. But he has at least the same shot as Max Hall. I know it is possible because he was the #8 scoring QB his one year starting in NE.

Like I said, I like Cassel too.Here are guys I would put in the "I think they're at their Fantasy upside barring drastic changes and it's not that useful" category:Carson PalmerDavid Garrard Trent Edwards (at year's start)Jason Campbell (at year's start)Bruce GradkowskiMatt Hasselbeck (good earlier, but he's been in this group for me about 2 or 3 years now, iirc)Jake Delhomme (at year's start)Alex SmithTEN QB (Collins and Young both, imo)Special Cases:Matt Ryan (in my opinion he doesn't seem to have that elite potential yet, although if Douglas/Jenkins develop and running/defense gets worse, he could be)Joe Flacco (same notation)I don't want any of those guys on my teams unless I'm forced to have them, with the exception of Ryan and Flacco (they're young enough that I account for a decent potential to be wrong on them). Their upside is mediocre and easily replaced. And I back that up -- I don't have any of them on any dynasty team, iirc.Orton is an interesting case: He definitely was in the group, for me and probably most, until this summer. Many are just now making the changes, but he had a billion signs pointing to a breakout:He was getting the offense - even SI and ESPN ran stories in which McD raved about Orton's understanding of the offenseMoreno and Buck both got hurt preseasonRun blocking seemed to get worse as last year went on, and I saw no reason it would be better this yearthe defense got worse as last season wore on, and again (especially when Dumervil got hurt) didn't look like it improved this yearIn my mind, that all added up to "Breakout." So I went out and got him in my Zealots leagues (2/3 ->Rodgers/McNabb in one and needed receivers rather than a QB) to be my QB. It worked.Cassel is looking like a similar case to me. Next year, with McCluster getting experience and Charles still explosive, Bowe working harder, and the potential for them to add another playmaker through the draft...I think he's my biggest "I want him as my backup now" type player. With Weis as O-Coord, where he has been very successful before, I saw sudden potential for growth this offseason. It appears as though that growth might be occurring a bit quicker than I thought with his recent games, but that's ok.The point with Orton and, IMO, Cassel, is that they could still be had for pennies on the dollar, just like other dynasty QB2s, if you wanted them. Because we all saw them as just that - Dynasty QB2s. Easily replaceable. And so the only use they have is if you think one is going to make the jump. Fortunately, if you think so, it's pretty easy to go out and get that guy.

 

[PranksterJD]

One problem with the "long term QB2s are worthless" theory is Kyle Orton. Orton was exactly the type of guy who could be acquired for pennies if you needed someone short term. Until he wasn't. Highest ranking was QB16 until this year. I don't know if Cassel can be that guy for KC. But he has at least the same shot as Max Hall. I know it is possible because he was the #8 scoring QB his one year starting in NE.

Orton's playing fine, fine ball right now, but I think he's being over-rated for dynasty. He's a nice player, and certainly better than the Palmer tier that we've been talking about, but IMO he's nowhere close to making the jump in with the elite guys. He's comparable to Schaub... a guy with enough talent to take advantage of a situation that's incredibly favorable to QBs.... but as we're seeing with Schaub, he shouldn't be spoken about in the same breath as guys like Roethlisberger and Rivers.SSOG has warned us about ranking a guy based on a hot streak.... and its pretty obvious that Orton's on a hot streak. He's playing lights out, but he's doing it in a QB-production haven that **might** last the entire year. However there's no chance that Denver's running game remains as putrid as it has been, and Orton's numbers will plummet when it improves. He's throwing a ton of balls, and while he probably remains right around the Matt Ryan/Eli territory, and there's so many guys in that tier that all of their values are deflated. Orton's not going to be a fantasy QB1 for much longer, and thus he's not going to have premium dynasty value for much longer... if he has much now anyway. I haven't seen any deals for him, but my guess is that this is one of those Peyton Hillis situations where most owners won't take what others are willing to pay.Cassel seems to have the same upside, which is to say... not much long term. IMO, the only guys with even a slight possibility of reaching the never-bench-your-studs tier for QBs are Bradford and Cutler, and even Cutler's going to require help from his situation to get there.

 

[Kree]

Do you think hall looked good? Do you think he looked like a starting NFL QB? I sure as hell didn't. Granted, he is a rookie and should improve. But nothing about him tells me that he is even close to being a starting QB next season. He doesn't have all the physical tools and went undrafted for a reason.

Is it just me that finds it ironic that one of the players Coop is arguing over Hall is Cassel, who, for all intensive purposes could have his name replaced with Hall's in the above sentence as well as others after his first full start?Did he ascend to the starting QB thanks to luck? Brady's injury = YesWas he a high draftee? I don't know if I really consider a 7th rounder, 230th overall to have much more hold value than an UDFA who was signed and outplayed all of the other QBs on the roster during the preseason.Did he look like average in his first full start? He didn't look the worst but he sure as hell didn't look like a QB with a tonne of a future, and they actually had a running game that day vs what was an average Jets opponent and he had a much better supporting cast (IMO).The Week after vs Miami he had an average gain per pass play of only 3.4 yards, tossed an INT and threw his lone TD when the Pats were down 28-6 late in the third.Granted I'm not saying history will repeat itself, and whilst I don't think Hall is the next big thing I think he is a great hold in dynasty because 1) he was cheap, 2) he has upside, however minimal the chance of making that upside is. It is never hard to obtain a Cassel type production, but I don't see how it would hurt to have Hall who can offer that in the future if not go above that.

 

[ZWK]

One problem with the "long term QB2s are worthless" theory is Kyle Orton. Orton was exactly the type of guy who could be acquired for pennies if you needed someone short term. Until he wasn't. Highest ranking was QB16 until this year. I don't know if Cassel can be that guy for KC. But he has at least the same shot as Max Hall. I know it is possible because he was the #8 scoring QB his one year starting in NE.

Orton's playing fine, fine ball right now, but I think he's being over-rated for dynasty. He's a nice player, and certainly better than the Palmer tier that we've been talking about, but IMO he's nowhere close to making the jump in with the elite guys. He's comparable to Schaub... a guy with enough talent to take advantage of a situation that's incredibly favorable to QBs.... but as we're seeing with Schaub, he shouldn't be spoken about in the same breath as guys like Roethlisberger and Rivers.SSOG has warned us about ranking a guy based on a hot streak.... and its pretty obvious that Orton's on a hot streak. He's playing lights out, but he's doing it in a QB-production haven that **might** last the entire year. However there's no chance that Denver's running game remains as putrid as it has been, and Orton's numbers will plummet when it improves. He's throwing a ton of balls, and while he probably remains right around the Matt Ryan/Eli territory, and there's so many guys in that tier that all of their values are deflated. Orton's not going to be a fantasy QB1 for much longer, and thus he's not going to have premium dynasty value for much longer... if he has much now anyway. I haven't seen any deals for him, but my guess is that this is one of those Peyton Hillis situations where most owners won't take what others are willing to pay.Cassel seems to have the same upside, which is to say... not much long term. IMO, the only guys with even a slight possibility of reaching the never-bench-your-studs tier for QBs are Bradford and Cutler, and even Cutler's going to require help from his situation to get there.

The Orton and Schaub examples show that even "low ceiling" solid QB2s have some upside. If an above average quarterback can put up top 5 numbers in the right situation, then even guys who will never be elite quarterbacks can still be worth owning. Someone like Eli could start producing strong QB1 numbers if he finds his way into just the right situation, and then you can enjoy the ride (if the situation looks stable) or sell him at an inflated value. If he never gets that situation then you still have a dependable fill-in for byes, injuries, or times when you're between studs.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

2. I've argued in this thread that what value Manning has derives entirely from his job security, so you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. He's a quality QB2 if you've already got an established starter, because he gives you the safety and security of knowing you'll have byes and injuries covered for the next 4 years. He gets knocked down the rankings, though, because he's not a guy you'll want to start any time other than during byes and injuries if you can at all avoid it. Running Eli out as your QB1 only means every team in the league has a better QB1 than you. It's hard to win consistently when you're giving up an advantage like that right off the bat. Some people rank players based on their floors, and those guys love Eli. I rank players based on their ceilings (at least, I do at QB and TE), so I want nothing to do with him at his market price right now. As for Kolb... I've always been one of the first to badmouth Kolb, but he's looked good in his action this season, and I think he'll be starting somewhere next year. Either the Eagles let Vick walk, in which case Kolb starts in Philly... or the Eagles commit to Vick long term, in which case Kolb becomes available to the highest bidder.

People accuse me of starting with a bias, digging in my heels, and standing pat. Personally, I don't think that's an accurate characterization. I'm more than ready and willing to admit I was wrong about players. Arian Foster. LaDainian Tomlinson. Lesean McCoy. Miles Austin last season. Kyle Orton. Just because I don't change every single player every time somebody questions the ranking doesn't mean I'm digging in my heels, it means not enough has changed to cause me to re-evaluate. In Manning's case, I don't know why I would possibly re-evaluate, seeing as he's playing exactly like I thought he would.

Manning threw for over 4,000 yards and 27 TDs last season - so how exactly does he have such a low ceiling? At 29 years old, there's still a possibility that he actually improves - especially in light of having 3 very good WRs and a top nothc big play back that can catch passes. Donovan McNabb has a higher ceiling than Manning? McNabb is 34 years old and looks to be in decline. As a QB that relied on his moblity to run around and keep plays alive and then throwing deep for big plays - his "downside" is coming quickly. I'm not so sure that Chad Henne has so much of a higher ceiling than Manning either - I think they are very similiar QBs in similiar systems with similiar weapons. Sanchez, Ryan, Kold - maybe?You said a few pages back that Vick was a better passer than Manning. Whatever sabermetric measures that you thre out that "prove" that are abviously flawed to those that have watched both. But going further you argues that Vick could actually improve as a passed while completely ignoring that Manning was capable of improving as well. After all Vick is a year older than Manning.

I apologize if my characterization was a little harsh (and in ho9neslty everyone has certain bias that are hard to shed), but there is some validity to it. Perception becomes reality - especially in the message board community.

I think Eli's biggest flaw, is that he's not Peyton. If he was Eli Bradford, I think people would look at him differently.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And despite the Giants "entrusting more and more of their offense to him", and despite Hakeem Nicks playing out of his mind, Eli Manning currently ranks... 9th. Go to PPG and he falls to 12th behind Tom Brady, Mike Vick, and Ryan Fitzpatrick, and in a virtual tie with Jay Cutler. Give Shaun Hill the courtesy of discounting his first game (where he wasn't the starter) and he surges past Manning, too. Carson Palmer, who's been absolutely panned this season for how terrible he looks, is sitting 1.2 points behind Manning if you pro-rate his numbers. In other words... Eli Manning is who I thought he was. And I'm not letting him off the hook.

This is why I bring up bias - look how hard you have to work to disparage what Eli has done. I could turn it around and say right now and say since his first start in the NFL (and he was brutal at first) he's 5th in TD passes, behind only his brother, Brees, Favre and Brady and ahead of Palmer, Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger and McNabb. I know you like to look at ppg so you'll bring up that he played in every game since then while some of the others have missed a handful of games - but I'd counter that there's value in that. Having a starter that you know will play every week instead of scrambling to find a backup is value.Right now he's on pace to have a season like last year - which is more than adequate as a fantasy starter. I'm not sure why you think his price tage is so high either - he's actually quite cheap as most don't believe in him. Prior to this season I obtained him AND the 1.3 pick in the rookie draft (right before our rookie draft so that pick was Jahvid Best) for Tony Romo.

 

[renesauz]

You aren't grasping the concept and I'm not sure how to simplify it any further.

It aboslutely does not matter if Palmer and Cassel put up more points when those points are mid to low QB2 points. If you are EVER playing a QB that performs as a mid to low QB2, it is a losing proposition. There is a near 100% probability that you are playing a worse QB than every other team in your entire league if you are starting Cassel or Palmer. The same is true for Hall- right now, if you start him there is a near 100% probability that he would be the worst starting QB in your league.

The difference is that Palmer and Cassel are veterans who have clearly identitifed what they are. Unfortunately, what they are is not something you want in your fantasy football lineup- a mid to low QB2. Max Hall, on the other hand, HAS NOT SHOWN US WHAT HE IS. There is very good chance that he is nothing more than a bottom end QB2 at best and will not be worth rostering in the future. However, the simple fact that there is still a chance he progresses into a top end QB2 or a QB1 is exactly what makes him more valuable than any player that is locked in as a mediocre QB2 for the duration of their career.

If you want to argue that Palmer or Cassel have the opportunity to progress and become QB1 type players, that is a different argument entirely (and a pretty flawed one, might I add). However, for this argument, we are talking about 3 players THAT YOU NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER WANT IN YOUR STARTING LINEUP. Based on that, when choosing one of those 3 players that you never want to play, you should always choose the 1 that has the potential (even if the potential is small) to become someone you would want to play in the future. That player is Hall, not Palmer, Cassel, etc...

Put another way, the difference between your QB scoring you 7 points a game and your QB scoring you 9 points a game is negligable, because whether you are scoring 7 or 9 points per game out of the position, you are going to be getting destroyed by QB production from every other team in your league. If you are going to roster a sucky player, the goal should be to at least roster the sucky player who has the potential to become not-sucky.

Palmer and Cassel will be 7-9 point guys for the rest of their career. Max Hall may never be any better than that or may in fact be worse than that. However, the very fact that he brings the possibility of being better than that...a possibility that Palmer and Cassel simply do not bring...makes him, by nature, more valuable.

First, and most importanly, becuase I think you are dead wrong, doesn't mean I don't get what you are saying. Understand that. No need to pretend otherwise to imply that your theory is fact, and anyone that thinks differently simply must not be able to comprehend. It adds nothing to validate your opinion on the matter.Second, I have watched Hall play and no, he does not have a higher cieling. It is much lower.

Lastly, we will have to agree not to. Hall has no value to me, because he is not a starting caliber QB and won't be. Palmer has value because he will be a starting QB for years. I know he will be there for me when I have a bye week, or if my main guy gets hurt. I don't feel Hall will ever offer that.

This argument has gotten silly. SSOG has explaiuned his rankings philosophy, and whether you like the philosophy or not really doesn't matter...there is a logic there which is easy to follow.Second, the bolded part is highly subjective. You've been arguying the philosphy needlessly. The truth is that we ALL have young players we believe in more or less than almost everybody else. Obviously Hall is one of those guys SSOG is higher on. He's explained why, and even if you and I disagree, there's little reason to continue to argue, because the answers can't be proven now, or likely for a season of two.

Philosophically, I've come around in the last year or two to a position close to SSOG's. QB2's are not worthless on a roster, but they are virtually worthless in trade value. In desperation time (bye week/injury), it's usually not that hard to get a Palmer/Garrard, and often a Fitzpatrick or Gradkowski can be found on waivers. For that reason, it makes sense to roster a guy like Hall over the Palmers and Garrards until you have a significant QB injury or run out of roster space.

What nobody has mentioned is roster space. SSOG's philosophy won't work as well in leagues with very tight rosters. In leagues with very large rosters, you can roster both a Garrard AND a Max Hall behind your QB1, but Garrard obviously will hold more trade value.

FWIW, I think SSOG's somewhat under-rating the consistancy of a Manning, but that's OK, because in the end, QB11 to QB 22 really doesn't matter much. Just grab you own preferred backup.

ON Kolb...not sure how anyone wouldn't stick him in at least their top 15 by now. He has only five career starts, four if you throw out his 9 attempt abortion vs. Green Bay. In those four games, he topped 300 yards three times, and looked good to great in all four. Even with Vick on the roster, Kolb has shown that he will be a starter in the NFL very soon, and he's shown more then enough to label his upside as at least a top ten potential. With Philly's weapons, he could easily be a top five QB as soon as next year.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It's actually insanely easy logic to follow. Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel are essentially WORTHLESS FROM A VALUE STANDPOINT. If you ever have to rely on playing them, you are sunk at the QB position. This makes them the equivalant of waiver wire fodder. The worst part is that they are essentially a waste of a roster spot- they are players you NEVER want to play nor are they young players that may have the potential to improve and develop. In other words, players like Cassel and Palmer are exactly who they are going to be for the rest of their career and from a fantasy standpoint, what they are is not good. Max Hall, on the other hand, while not a good player from a fantasy football standpoint, is a young player with the potential to improve and develop. This alone makes him more valuable than slop like Cassell and Palmer. You don't ever want to be forced to start Hall, Cassell, or Palmer, but of the 3, Hall is the ONLY one with the potential to become a guy you wouldn't mind starting.

So if some one lost Aaron Rodgers for the season and has Mx Hall as their backup are they content or are they looking to pick up Carson Palmer or Matt Cassell. I don't see you logic as to why Cassell who is in only his third season as an NFL starter is who he is going to be for the rest of his career and has no ability to improve. I'll give you that this may be his put up or shut up year - but he has actually started to show improvement already.I think people are over-exagerating how easy it is to obtain a dependable backup QB. It doesn't seem to be so easy in the three dyansty leagues I play in.

 

[renesauz]

And despite the Giants "entrusting more and more of their offense to him", and despite Hakeem Nicks playing out of his mind, Eli Manning currently ranks... 9th. Go to PPG and he falls to 12th behind Tom Brady, Mike Vick, and Ryan Fitzpatrick, and in a virtual tie with Jay Cutler. Give Shaun Hill the courtesy of discounting his first game (where he wasn't the starter) and he surges past Manning, too. Carson Palmer, who's been absolutely panned this season for how terrible he looks, is sitting 1.2 points behind Manning if you pro-rate his numbers. In other words... Eli Manning is who I thought he was. And I'm not letting him off the hook.

This is why I bring up bias - look how hard you have to work to disparage what Eli has done. I could turn it around and say right now and say since his first start in the NFL (and he was brutal at first) he's 5th in TD passes, behind only his brother, Brees, Favre and Brady and ahead of Palmer, Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger and McNabb. I know you like to look at ppg so you'll bring up that he played in every game since then while some of the others have missed a handful of games - but I'd counter that there's value in that. Having a starter that you know will play every week instead of scrambling to find a backup is value.Right now he's on pace to have a season like last year - which is more than adequate as a fantasy starter. I'm not sure why you think his price tage is so high either - he's actually quite cheap as most don't believe in him. Prior to this season I obtained him AND the 1.3 pick in the rookie draft (right before our rookie draft so that pick was Jahvid Best) for Tony Romo.

This post very well illustrates what I'm talking about with roster size. Your league's roster size has a very noticeable impact on QB values. IN tight leagues, where only 25 or so QBs are rostered, Eli is, and should be, around QB10-12.While I agree he's too low on Manning, his argument that QB10-12 as an upside doesn't justify a ranking of QB10-12 is sound...........at least in leagues with average sized rosters.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

And despite the Giants "entrusting more and more of their offense to him", and despite Hakeem Nicks playing out of his mind, Eli Manning currently ranks... 9th. Go to PPG and he falls to 12th behind Tom Brady, Mike Vick, and Ryan Fitzpatrick, and in a virtual tie with Jay Cutler. Give Shaun Hill the courtesy of discounting his first game (where he wasn't the starter) and he surges past Manning, too. Carson Palmer, who's been absolutely panned this season for how terrible he looks, is sitting 1.2 points behind Manning if you pro-rate his numbers. In other words... Eli Manning is who I thought he was. And I'm not letting him off the hook.

This is why I bring up bias - look how hard you have to work to disparage what Eli has done. I could turn it around and say right now and say since his first start in the NFL (and he was brutal at first) he's 5th in TD passes, behind only his brother, Brees, Favre and Brady and ahead of Palmer, Rivers, Romo, Roethlisberger and McNabb. I know you like to look at ppg so you'll bring up that he played in every game since then while some of the others have missed a handful of games - but I'd counter that there's value in that. Having a starter that you know will play every week instead of scrambling to find a backup is value.Right now he's on pace to have a season like last year - which is more than adequate as a fantasy starter. I'm not sure why you think his price tage is so high either - he's actually quite cheap as most don't believe in him. Prior to this season I obtained him AND the 1.3 pick in the rookie draft (right before our rookie draft so that pick was Jahvid Best) for Tony Romo.

This post very well illustrates what I'm talking about with roster size. Your league's roster size has a very noticeable impact on QB values. IN tight leagues, where only 25 or so QBs are rostered, Eli is, and should be, around QB10-12.While I agree he's too low on Manning, his argument that QB10-12 as an upside doesn't justify a ranking of QB10-12 is sound...........at least in leagues with average sized rosters.

I agree with the theory, I just don't agree that Manning's ceiling is so limited or that no value should be placed on consistency.

 

[Concept Coop]

This argument has gotten silly. SSOG has explaiuned his rankings philosophy, and whether you like the philosophy or not really doesn't matter...there is a logic there which is easy to follow.

Second, the bolded part is highly subjective. You've been arguying the philosphy needlessly. The truth is that we ALL have young players we believe in more or less than almost everybody else. Obviously Hall is one of those guys SSOG is higher on. He's explained why, and even if you and I disagree, there's little reason to continue to argue, because the answers can't be proven now, or likely for a season of two.

Philosophically, I've come around in the last year or two to a position close to SSOG's. QB2's are not worthless on a roster, but they are virtually worthless in trade value. In desperation time (bye week/injury), it's usually not that hard to get a Palmer/Garrard, and often a Fitzpatrick or Gradkowski can be found on waivers. For that reason, it makes sense to roster a guy like Hall over the Palmers and Garrards until you have a significant QB injury or run out of roster space.

What nobody has mentioned is roster space. SSOG's philosophy won't work as well in leagues with very tight rosters. In leagues with very large rosters, you can roster both a Garrard AND a Max Hall behind your QB1, but Garrard obviously will hold more trade value.

FWIW, I think SSOG's somewhat under-rating the consistancy of a Manning, but that's OK, because in the end, QB11 to QB 22 really doesn't matter much. Just grab you own preferred backup.

ON Kolb...not sure how anyone wouldn't stick him in at least their top 15 by now. He has only five career starts, four if you throw out his 9 attempt abortion vs. Green Bay. In those four games, he topped 300 yards three times, and looked good to great in all four. Even with Vick on the roster, Kolb has shown that he will be a starter in the NFL very soon, and he's shown more then enough to label his upside as at least a top ten potential. With Philly's weapons, he could easily be a top five QB as soon as next year.

How can you call my argument silly? My argument is that I don't agree with the philosophy. Like you said, we don't agree, but that doesn't mean that my argument is silly. SSOG's are the only rankings I have seen that value QB2s so low (Behind other QB2s with less talent). Those are his rankings and that is fine. Because I don't agree with them, and I share why I don't, is not silly.

For the record, the ONLY QB to put up points from the waiver wire last week in my two main leagues, was Trent Edwards, due to injury. Fitzpatrick, Gradkowski, Hill...all on rosters. So in the leagues I play in (14 team), you can't just grab QB points from the waiver wire.

 

[Concept Coop]

Do you think hall looked good? Do you think he looked like a starting NFL QB? I sure as hell didn't. Granted, he is a rookie and should improve. But nothing about him tells me that he is even close to being a starting QB next season. He doesn't have all the physical tools and went undrafted for a reason.

Is it just me that finds it ironic that one of the players Coop is arguing over Hall is Cassel, who, for all intensive purposes could have his name replaced with Hall's in the above sentence as well as others after his first full start?Did he ascend to the starting QB thanks to luck? Brady's injury = YesWas he a high draftee? I don't know if I really consider a 7th rounder, 230th overall to have much more hold value than an UDFA who was signed and outplayed all of the other QBs on the roster during the preseason.Did he look like average in his first full start? He didn't look the worst but he sure as hell didn't look like a QB with a tonne of a future, and they actually had a running game that day vs what was an average Jets opponent and he had a much better supporting cast (IMO).The Week after vs Miami he had an average gain per pass play of only 3.4 yards, tossed an INT and threw his lone TD when the Pats were down 28-6 late in the third.Granted I'm not saying history will repeat itself, and whilst I don't think Hall is the next big thing I think he is a great hold in dynasty because 1) he was cheap, 2) he has upside, however minimal the chance of making that upside is. It is never hard to obtain a Cassel type production, but I don't see how it would hurt to have Hall who can offer that in the future if not go above that.

Call me when Hall puts up QB1 numbers like Cassel has. When that happens, they will be similar situations. Just because Cassel was able to make it work, and earn a starting job in the league, doesn't mean it is logical to expect that to be the norm.And, as I have said, I didn't like Hall out of college either.Irony: Replacing Cassel with Hall, and valuing Cassel more the second he went in for an injured Brady, than after his QB1 numbers, after he is traded for a 2nd round pick, after he gets a starting gig, and after his teams starts 4-2.

 

[thriftyrocker]

So if some one lost Aaron Rodgers for the season and has Mx Hall as their backup are they content or are they looking to pick up Carson Palmer or Matt Cassell. I don't see you logic as to why Cassell who is in only his third season as an NFL starter is who he is going to be for the rest of his career and has no ability to improve. I'll give you that this may be his put up or shut up year - but he has actually started to show improvement already.I think people are over-exagerating how easy it is to obtain a dependable backup QB. It doesn't seem to be so easy in the three dyansty leagues I play in.

You don't necessarily need Matt Cassel. You don't need a "dependable backup" - you need someone who will help you win this year. Might be better to get Shaun Hill, Ryan Fitzpatrick, or (going back in time) Volek or Thigpen. Short term low QB1s are free. Would you rather be starting Palmer or (when healthy) Shaun Hill? Probably a toss up.Also, in such a doomsday scenario, someone like Favre becomes an option. Favre for Hall is an easy trade if the other guy is out of it.

 

[Lash]

sorta an AC question BUT i've already made my decision on what to do so not looking for advice so i hope it is acceptable discussion because i thought it'd be interesting to compare these two

was offered Best for Felix in dynasty (plus a DEF downgrade but that didnt factor in to my decision)

VERY interesting to try and figure out the better longterm projections 'twixt these two and was wondering the thoughts of those from my favorite thread