Dynasty Rankings (5 Viewers)

[DansRams]

I posted this in the Nicks thread as well. Since several of you, whose opinions I have a lot of respect for seem to usually only post about dynasty in this thread, I thought I'd post it here too, so I could get your views.

Someone earlier made a point about how long your dynasty league might last and I think that question can make a huge difference in how you value youth. On the other hand I am in a league with friends and have several friends as backups that would quickly replace anyone that decides to leave. Due to that I feel safe assuming that my league will be around for a very long time.

With that as context I am interested in hearing other views, but here is mine. BTW I am in a 12 team ppr 2rb3wr league (more context). When valuing a WR like Nicks (I own him), I see 10+ years of top production. Some of those years top 5, some maybe even top 3, and then maybe top 10-15 when he reaches 31 or 32. That said MANY of the top wr's (wayne/moss just to name 2) continued top 5 production in their early 30's so who knows. At 32/33 he will even represent very good trade value.

Now when comparing the value of those 10+ years to a top rb (cj or ap), where I would only assume top 5 production for 5 years and then maybe a year or 2 top ten. Then they fall off a cliff(usually).

Due to all of this, I think the total value over time may be higher for a 22yr old wr that is already putting up top 5 numbers. Additionally rb's tend to get injured more often than wr's so the risk part of the valuation favors the young wr as well.

Would love to hear other opinions.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

I can't shake the idea that Britt is the next Braylon Edwards. Works his way up to having a great year or two and then kind of falls off the map. I don't really have anything to base this on, outside of the questions of his work ethic, but I have just have that feeling that he will be a flash in the pan.

Braylon Edwards is actually having a rather decent year so far. I think the horrid QB carousel didn't do him any favors - of course his lack of concentration had it's place in his failings as well.

In NFL terms yes he is. As a Michigan fan, I hope he has continued success. But how many owners have felt comfortable starting him this season? I look around my leagues and he has spent a lot of time of the bench.

 

[thriftyrocker]

I can't shake the idea that Britt is the next Braylon Edwards. Works his way up to having a great year or two and then kind of falls off the map. I don't really have anything to base this on, outside of the questions of his work ethic, but I have just have that feeling that he will be a flash in the pan.

Braylon Edwards is actually having a rather decent year so far. I think the horrid QB carousel didn't do him any favors - of course his lack of concentration had it's place in his failings as well.

I wonder how many people think Edwards is/was/will continue to be a good buy low. I don't think anyone believes in him. No one's bumping him. But he's getting more targets, not less. He is still a great deep threat. 99% of the world is assuming Holmes is the guy to own just because his career year was last year instead of 4 years ago ( ). But Edwards has talent and fills a role with the Jets. Considering 26 targets the last 3 weeks, he could maintain his current high WR2 pace.

 

[Concept Coop]

I posted this in the Nicks thread as well. Since several of you, whose opinions I have a lot of respect for seem to usually only post about dynasty in this thread, I thought I'd post it here too, so I could get your views.Someone earlier made a point about how long your dynasty league might last and I think that question can make a huge difference in how you value youth. On the other hand I am in a league with friends and have several friends as backups that would quickly replace anyone that decides to leave. Due to that I feel safe assuming that my league will be around for a very long time.With that as context I am interested in hearing other views, but here is mine. BTW I am in a 12 team ppr 2rb3wr league (more context). When valuing a WR like Nicks (I own him), I see 10+ years of top production. Some of those years top 5, some maybe even top 3, and then maybe top 10-15 when he reaches 31 or 32. That said MANY of the top wr's (wayne/moss just to name 2) continued top 5 production in their early 30's so who knows. At 32/33 he will even represent very good trade value.Now when comparing the value of those 10+ years to a top rb (cj or ap), where I would only assume top 5 production for 5 years and then maybe a year or 2 top ten. Then they fall off a cliff(usually).Due to all of this, I think the total value over time may be higher for a 22yr old wr that is already putting up top 5 numbers. Additionally rb's tend to get injured more often than wr's so the risk part of the valuation favors the young wr as well.Would love to hear other opinions.

The #1 WR on the top 250 moving forward is ranked as the 13th best player overall. So you need a top RB or two to win the league, most years. That said, you're right. You can project a 22 year old Nicks to give you 10 years; while Bradshaw, who is only 2 years older, you might only feel comfortable projecting 3 years of production. But again, Bradshaw is more valuable every year that you have him.Not only that, but you don't have to hold onto Bradshaw for any longer than you want to. Bradshaw has more value now, and still might in 2 years. If you were to trade him in 2 years for a WR projected to have 10 years, you would have gotten more value for Bradshaw than you would if you had Nicks and kept him for 10 years. I know that barely makes sense, but I hope you know what I mean. As an example, I just traded Fitz for Bradshaw. Bradshaw is worth much more this year, but I project 2 more years of top value in his future. I project 6 in Larry's. The trade could very well win me the league this year, which would make the trade worth it, and I could still turn around and trade bradshaw for 10 dynasty WR after a strong playoff push this year. All in all, I agree with your concept, and think it is very valid. But I also think you can lose out on a lot of aspects if you value players too far into the future, or value the length of production over the current production. Two years of top 3 RB production from Frank Gore could be worth more than 8 years of top 10 WR production from Brandon Marshall. ESPECIALLY if you can trade Gore on time.

 

[thriftyrocker]

There's a lot of discussion on the OPs question back about 50 to 100 pages (good luck?). Basically yes, that's the theory. WRs are forever.

That said, you're right. You can project a 22 year old Nicks to give you 10 years; while Bradshaw, who is only 2 years older, you might only feel comfortable projecting 3 years of production. But again, Bradshaw is more valuable every year that you have him.Not only that, but you don't have to hold onto Bradshaw for any longer than you want to. Bradshaw has more value now, and still might in 2 years.

Nicks has a lot more value than Bradshaw in all formats. PPR, nonPPR, dynasty, redraft, yardage heavy, TD heavy. All formats.

As an example, I just traded Fitz for Bradshaw. Bradshaw is worth much more this year, but I project 2 more years of top value in his future. I project 6 in Larry's.

This is exactly the type of trade I'm offering on the other end. Even on teams where I'm 6-1 I'm offering guys like Forte or Bradshaw PLUS a top 40 WR for Fitz. Fitz is a must buy. And the window could close at any time.

 

[Concept Coop]

There's a lot of discussion on the OPs question back about 50 to 100 pages (good luck?). Basically yes, that's the theory. WRs are forever.

That said, you're right. You can project a 22 year old Nicks to give you 10 years; while Bradshaw, who is only 2 years older, you might only feel comfortable projecting 3 years of production. But again, Bradshaw is more valuable every year that you have him.Not only that, but you don't have to hold onto Bradshaw for any longer than you want to. Bradshaw has more value now, and still might in 2 years.

Nicks has a lot more value than Bradshaw in all formats. PPR, nonPPR, dynasty, redraft, yardage heavy, TD heavy. All formats.

As an example, I just traded Fitz for Bradshaw. Bradshaw is worth much more this year, but I project 2 more years of top value in his future. I project 6 in Larry's.

This is exactly the type of trade I'm offering on the other end. Even on teams where I'm 6-1 I'm offering guys like Forte or Bradshaw PLUS a top 40 WR for Fitz. Fitz is a must buy. And the window could close at any time.

In a MOX format, he's not more valuable. Not at all. Unless you project him to keep this pace. MOX line up is R/R/W/W/F/F, WR = TE. Unlike R/R/W/W/W/TE lineups, there is no more value in a WR point than in a RB point, because you can play 4 RBs and 2 WRs. Unless you project Nicks to score more than Bradshaw, Bradshaw is the more productive player. I don't know anyone that projects Nicks to score more over the remainder of the season, including our own FBG's who predict 20 more points for Bradshaw over the remainder of the season. Not only that, but when a TE = WR, the pool is diluted, as I am sure you know.As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

 

[PranksterJD]

That said, you're right. You can project a 22 year old Nicks to give you 10 years; while Bradshaw, who is only 2 years older, you might only feel comfortable projecting 3 years of production. But again, Bradshaw is more valuable every year that you have him.

Another point to consider for the original question is that the above isn't exactly accurate, at least for most dynasty owners. Typically we see guys use windows of 2, 3, maybe 5 years. Anything beyond that is too difficult to project because of the variables.For example, if I use a 3 year window, and project Roddy White to perform at the same level as Nicks for those 3 years, then I will value Nicks more highly because his age is the kicker. However, if I project Roddy to perform at even 5% more over that 3 year span, then Nicks' 6 additional years aren't going to even it out, and Roddy will be higher in my ranks. Pretty much the same reason why we see Andre consistently higher than Calvin. Its a virtual lock that Calvin will score more points in his career from this point forward, but not over the same (relatively) stable amount of time.

This matters because the shorter lifespan of the RB is mitigated by this window. Sure, Gore might only have 3 years, while Jennings has 6, but if my window is "3" then Bradshaw wins as he's more likely to have better points over that time.

 

[Go deep]

There's a lot of discussion on the OPs question back about 50 to 100 pages (good luck?). Basically yes, that's the theory. WRs are forever.

That said, you're right. You can project a 22 year old Nicks to give you 10 years; while Bradshaw, who is only 2 years older, you might only feel comfortable projecting 3 years of production. But again, Bradshaw is more valuable every year that you have him.

Not only that, but you don't have to hold onto Bradshaw for any longer than you want to. Bradshaw has more value now, and still might in 2 years.

Nicks has a lot more value than Bradshaw in all formats. PPR, nonPPR, dynasty, redraft, yardage heavy, TD heavy. All formats.

As an example, I just traded Fitz for Bradshaw. Bradshaw is worth much more this year, but I project 2 more years of top value in his future. I project 6 in Larry's.

This is exactly the type of trade I'm offering on the other end. Even on teams where I'm 6-1 I'm offering guys like Forte or Bradshaw PLUS a top 40 WR for Fitz. Fitz is a must buy. And the window could close at any time.

Fitz has been practically unstartable this year, and while im sure things will get better in the future, i dont think i would be giving up a young top 10 RB to get him. I also dont think you can say Nicks is more valuable than Bradshaw in every league. In leagues where you can start as many RB's as WR's i wouldnt trade Bradhsaw for Nicks. There actually isnt many formats i would trade Bradshaw for Nicks, unless i was deep at RB and weak at WR.

Obviously its close enough where i wouldnt call someone wrong for trading Bradshaw for Nicks, its just a matter of personal prefrence.

 

[thriftyrocker]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Fitz has been practically unstartable this year, and while im sure things will get better in the future, i dont think i would be giving up a young top 10 RB to get him.

Dynasty league. I know you are low on Fitz. If "you're sure things will get better" in the future you have to buy. I know you are high on Bradshaw. I am too. Maybe not as high. But I would gladly give up 2 to 3 years of low RB1 numbers with moderate to high injury risk for Fitz's remaining upside. Would you have sold Rice for Calvin last year? Would you now?

There actually isnt many formats i would trade Bradshaw for Nicks, unless i was deep at RB and weak at WR.Obviously its close enough where i wouldnt call someone wrong for trading Bradshaw for Nicks, its just a matter of personal prefrence.

Elite talent at WR is harder to replace. Miles Austin and Muhsin Muhammad aside, no one comes out of the woodwork to put up top 3 WR numbers. Low RB1s are popping up all the time. Look there's another one.I agree trading Nicks for Bradshaw is possible for team need. But Nicks has more value.

 

[Go deep]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

Most teams that are trying to make playoff runs this season can probably not afford to trade Bradhshaw for Fitzgerald. I understand Fitz is a "core" player, but he currently ranks 41 amongst WR's and is on pace for 850 yards and 5 TD's. Bradshaw currently leads the league in rushing and a top 10 RB, and probably one of the reasons his owners are winning right now. I understand that dynasty leagues are not just about this season, but what assurances do we have that Fitz will be back to a top 5 Wr next year, or that Bradshaw wont be a top 10 Rb for the next 5? m not suggesting Fitz owners run out and trade him for Bradshaw, but there is alot more to consider than simply saying one guy is a core player and the other might not be.

 

[PranksterJD]

Elite talent at WR is harder to replace. Miles Austin and Muhsin Muhammad aside, no one comes out of the woodwork to put up top 3 WR numbers. Low RB1s are popping up all the time. Look there's another one.I agree trading Nicks for Bradshaw is possible for team need. But Nicks has more value.

Tough call. Elite talent at either is pretty hard to replace. Honestly, I think I could replace Andre easier than I could replace Adrian, simply because of supply. On a weekly basis, there are tons of WRs getting touches, but relatively few RBs. You can't fairly compare a "top 3" WR to a "low RB1".I agree that Nicks has more value than Bradshaw, but because he's a better football player, not because he can be replaced more easily.

 

[mdlane]

Unfortunately F&L has long been a hater of Bradshaw. I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure after his 88 yard YD against Buffalo, he said Ahmad's value would never be higher after that. I guess he was right in the respect that it took him almost 4 years to finally wrest the job from Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Ward. Tough to be right on these guys with almost no pedigree like Bradshaw.

I like Bradshaw. I think he's a very good back. I just don't think he has a lot of staying power.

What is your concern based on? Has Bradshaw missed any games due to injury? (I don't think he has, but maybe my recollection is flawed). Is it just that this is Bradshaw's first shot at starter's carries and you are skeptical of new "starting" RBs until they do it for 16 games? Is it the offseason surgery even though he's never missed a game due to injury?Basically, you come back to Bradshaw's injury risk alot. It's basically your only knock against Bradshaw. But I'm not sure what objective data your concern is based on (and I'm curious from a detached perspective since I don't play dynasty).

 

[DansRams]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

Most teams that are trying to make playoff runs this season can probably not afford to trade Bradhshaw for Fitzgerald. I understand Fitz is a "core" player, but he currently ranks 41 amongst WR's and is on pace for 850 yards and 5 TD's. Bradshaw currently leads the league in rushing and a top 10 RB, and probably one of the reasons his owners are winning right now. I understand that dynasty leagues are not just about this season, but what assurances do we have that Fitz will be back to a top 5 Wr next year, or that Bradshaw wont be a top 10 Rb for the next 5? m not suggesting Fitz owners run out and trade him for Bradshaw, but there is alot more to consider than simply saying one guy is a core player and the other might not be.

IMO if you wouldn't take Fitz for Bradshaw in Dynasty you are just fooling yourself on the value of the two players

 

[Concept Coop]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

It really has nothing to do with that. At the end of the day, it comes down to numbers. Bradshaw is projected to put up more numbers. If he keeps this up, he is on pace for 1,860 total yards. WRs just can't match that. That is why RBs score more than WRs, year in and year out.I know Larry is a better player, and I know he has a bigger name. But even if he were to rebound next season, unless he puts up more points than Bradshaw, he simply isn't more valuable. You don't get points for being the best player in the NFL. I don't view Bradshaw as a core player. But, but a 250 RB points are worth more than 200 WR points, even if the WR points are tops in the NFL.In many formats I like Fitz more. But in a league where you can start as many RBs as WR, he just isn't as valuable as Bradshaw. It has nothing to do with Fitz being a top 5 WR, compared to Bradshaw only being a top 15 RB, it comes down to pure, simple points.

 

[Concept Coop]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

Most teams that are trying to make playoff runs this season can probably not afford to trade Bradhshaw for Fitzgerald. I understand Fitz is a "core" player, but he currently ranks 41 amongst WR's and is on pace for 850 yards and 5 TD's. Bradshaw currently leads the league in rushing and a top 10 RB, and probably one of the reasons his owners are winning right now. I understand that dynasty leagues are not just about this season, but what assurances do we have that Fitz will be back to a top 5 Wr next year, or that Bradshaw wont be a top 10 Rb for the next 5? m not suggesting Fitz owners run out and trade him for Bradshaw, but there is alot more to consider than simply saying one guy is a core player and the other might not be.

IMO if you wouldn't take Fitz for Bradshaw in Dynasty you are just fooling yourself on the value of the two players

How? Bradshaw scores more points, and in many formats that is all that matters. So don't use your opinion of them as players, use simple numbers and projections and tell me how Fitz is worht more. Because in a format where you can play as many RBs as WRs, you can't. The numbers simply don't add up for Fitz. So unless you have something else to add, you are fooling yourself. I understand if you aren't familiar with this type of format, but don't pretent to be.

 

[DansRams]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

It really has nothing to do with that. At the end of the day, it comes down to numbers. Bradshaw is projected to put up more numbers. If he keeps this up, he is on pace for 1,860 total yards. WRs just can't match that. That is why RBs score more than WRs, year in and year out.I know Larry is a better player, and I know he has a bigger name. But even if he were to rebound next season, unless he puts up more points than Bradshaw, he simply isn't more valuable. You don't get points for being the best player in the NFL. I don't view Bradshaw as a core player. But, but a 250 RB points are worth more than 200 WR points, even if the WR points are tops in the NFL.In many formats I like Fitz more. But in a league where you can start as many RBs as WR, he just isn't as valuable as Bradshaw. It has nothing to do with Fitz being a top 5 WR, compared to Bradshaw only being a top 15 RB, it comes down to pure, simple points.

I think a lot of the comes downto format....I play ppr start 2rb3wr....Fitz has WAY more value in that format

 

[thriftyrocker]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

Most teams that are trying to make playoff runs this season can probably not afford to trade Bradhshaw for Fitzgerald. I understand Fitz is a "core" player, but he currently ranks 41 amongst WR's and is on pace for 850 yards and 5 TD's. Bradshaw currently leads the league in rushing and a top 10 RB, and probably one of the reasons his owners are winning right now.

I understand that thinking (and generally disagree with it). But removing yourself from the vacuum of rankings, a trade like Bradshaw/top 40 WR for Fitz/Torain or Fitz/handcuff are equally valid and have a chance of helping your chances for this year if Torain stays upright and Fitz starts turning his high target rate into TDs.

I understand that dynasty leagues are not just about this season, but what assurances do we have that Fitz will be back to a top 5 Wr next year,

Obscenely high talent level and target rate.

or that Bradshaw wont be a top 10 Rb for the next 5?

Massive amounts of recent history on RBs.

 

[DansRams]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

Most teams that are trying to make playoff runs this season can probably not afford to trade Bradhshaw for Fitzgerald. I understand Fitz is a "core" player, but he currently ranks 41 amongst WR's and is on pace for 850 yards and 5 TD's. Bradshaw currently leads the league in rushing and a top 10 RB, and probably one of the reasons his owners are winning right now. I understand that dynasty leagues are not just about this season, but what assurances do we have that Fitz will be back to a top 5 Wr next year, or that Bradshaw wont be a top 10 Rb for the next 5? m not suggesting Fitz owners run out and trade him for Bradshaw, but there is alot more to consider than simply saying one guy is a core player and the other might not be.

IMO if you wouldn't take Fitz for Bradshaw in Dynasty you are just fooling yourself on the value of the two players

How? Bradshaw scores more points, and in many formats that is all that matters. So don't use your opinion of them as players, use simple numbers and projections and tell me how Fitz is worht more. Because in a format where you can play as many RBs as WRs, you can't. The numbers simply don't add up for Fitz. So unless you have something else to add, you are fooling yourself. I understand if you aren't familiar with this type of format, but don't pretent to be.

My original post on Nicks said I play ppr start 2rb3wr...you and are coming from different pov's. I think that is the difference. I think I may start a Dynasty PPR thread as this seems to often be the case

 

[Concept Coop]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

It really has nothing to do with that. At the end of the day, it comes down to numbers. Bradshaw is projected to put up more numbers. If he keeps this up, he is on pace for 1,860 total yards. WRs just can't match that. That is why RBs score more than WRs, year in and year out.I know Larry is a better player, and I know he has a bigger name. But even if he were to rebound next season, unless he puts up more points than Bradshaw, he simply isn't more valuable. You don't get points for being the best player in the NFL. I don't view Bradshaw as a core player. But, but a 250 RB points are worth more than 200 WR points, even if the WR points are tops in the NFL.In many formats I like Fitz more. But in a league where you can start as many RBs as WR, he just isn't as valuable as Bradshaw. It has nothing to do with Fitz being a top 5 WR, compared to Bradshaw only being a top 15 RB, it comes down to pure, simple points.

I think a lot of the comes downto format....I play ppr start 2rb3wr....Fitz has WAY more value in that format

You are 100% right, IMO. But in a R/R/W/W/F/F where TE = WR, points are all that matter and RBs score more points than WRs.

 

[DansRams]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

It really has nothing to do with that. At the end of the day, it comes down to numbers. Bradshaw is projected to put up more numbers. If he keeps this up, he is on pace for 1,860 total yards. WRs just can't match that. That is why RBs score more than WRs, year in and year out.I know Larry is a better player, and I know he has a bigger name. But even if he were to rebound next season, unless he puts up more points than Bradshaw, he simply isn't more valuable. You don't get points for being the best player in the NFL. I don't view Bradshaw as a core player. But, but a 250 RB points are worth more than 200 WR points, even if the WR points are tops in the NFL.In many formats I like Fitz more. But in a league where you can start as many RBs as WR, he just isn't as valuable as Bradshaw. It has nothing to do with Fitz being a top 5 WR, compared to Bradshaw only being a top 15 RB, it comes down to pure, simple points.

I think a lot of the comes downto format....I play ppr start 2rb3wr....Fitz has WAY more value in that format

You are 100% right, IMO. But in a R/R/W/W/F/F where TE = WR, points are all that matter and RBs score more points than WRs.

agree

 

[Herm23]

As for the Fitz/Bradshaw trade, again, in a MOX format, Bradshaw is simply more valuable. In another format, it could be the other way around. I am 6 and 1 and am adding Bradshaw to AP, MJD, and T.Jones, and am now projected to win teh league, based on FBG's top 250. That was not the case before.

Fitzgerald is a core player. He should only be moved for another core player. If you view Bradshaw as a core player, not just a RB1 but say a top 6 or 7 RB with long term viability as such, then more power to you.

It really has nothing to do with that. At the end of the day, it comes down to numbers. Bradshaw is projected to put up more numbers. If he keeps this up, he is on pace for 1,860 total yards. WRs just can't match that. That is why RBs score more than WRs, year in and year out.I know Larry is a better player, and I know he has a bigger name. But even if he were to rebound next season, unless he puts up more points than Bradshaw, he simply isn't more valuable. You don't get points for being the best player in the NFL. I don't view Bradshaw as a core player. But, but a 250 RB points are worth more than 200 WR points, even if the WR points are tops in the NFL.In many formats I like Fitz more. But in a league where you can start as many RBs as WR, he just isn't as valuable as Bradshaw. It has nothing to do with Fitz being a top 5 WR, compared to Bradshaw only being a top 15 RB, it comes down to pure, simple points.

I think a lot of the comes downto format....I play ppr start 2rb3wr....Fitz has WAY more value in that format

You are 100% right, IMO. But in a R/R/W/W/F/F where TE = WR, points are all that matter and RBs score more points than WRs.

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Go deep]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

 

[Concept Coop]

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

That is not correct. Not in a format where you can play as many RBs and WRs. I know that not many play in these formats. But WRs are actually the easiest the points to replace. Because you can play as many RBs as WRs, you no longer only compare WR points to other WRs, you compare them to RB, TEs, and other WRs. WRs are then the easiest, because the pool is so much bigger, especially with TEs. You can pick up 7 points from a WR on the WW. There are rarely any points on the wire from the RB spot. So 300 points from Bradshaw is a lot harder to replace than 240 points from Fitz. Because of the format, you can view things as points only, on some level. Health and longevity come into play, but other than that, it is simple points, points, points. What Thrifty is saying applies more accurately to other fomats. Not this one.

 

[Go deep]

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

The problem with this is Fitz is not performing as a top 3 WR and Bradshaw is performing as a RB1. I would rather be starting Bradshaw and Collie right now rather than Jacobs and Fitzgerald. I have Fitzgerald in a dynasty league, and he hasnt seen my starting lineup since week 3, and we can start up to 4 WR's in that league. Im sure things will get better for him sometime in the future, but i dont think it will be any time soon.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

Only RBs I would take over the top 6 WRs right now are Johnson and Peterson.ETA: AJ, CJ, Fitz, White, Nicks, Austin

 

[Concept Coop]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

Only RBs I would take over the top 6 WRs right now are Johnson and Peterson.ETA: AJ, CJ, Fitz, White, Nicks, Austin

In the NFL or FF?

 

[Herm23]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it really depends on the composition of the rest of your roster. As I said, finding a replacement for Bradshaw is actually quite easy. Just this season, you could have gotten Foster, Hillis, Torrain, Brandon Jackson (I believe he will be fine moving forward), Marshawn Lynch, and others I am sure that I am forgetting for insanely cheap and/or free. The same can be said every year- there are ALWAYS breakout RB's that are readily available on the cheap. If you were able to acquire any of these players this season and they are sitting on their bench, you are really not even taking a drop in production to ship Bradshaw.This is obviously a much more difficult argument to make with Fitzgerald's numbers looking so gross this season, but I still feel comfortable with it. I simply can't see Fitz ending with less than 1,000 yards and a decent TD total (6-8), which obviously means I expect him to finish the season strong. I still believe Fitz + any of the running backs I mentioned (or whatever other cheap RB you want to replace with) is going to outscore Bradshaw + 2nd/3rd tier WR that you replace Fitz with in this scenario.If you are someone who doesn't believe Fitz will finish strong, then I can understand your line of thinking this season. I still think it would be a HUGE negative every year moving forward starting next season, but I can at least understand the line of thinking.

 

[Go deep]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

Only RBs I would take over the top 6 WRs right now are Johnson and Peterson.ETA: AJ, CJ, Fitz, White, Nicks, Austin

I might not disagree with you depending on your league specifics.

 

[Concept Coop]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it really depends on the composition of the rest of your roster. As I said, finding a replacement for Bradshaw is actually quite easy. Just this season, you could have gotten Foster, Hillis, Torrain, Brandon Jackson (I believe he will be fine moving forward), Marshawn Lynch, and others I am sure that I am forgetting for insanely cheap and/or free. The same can be said every year- there are ALWAYS breakout RB's that are readily available on the cheap. If you were able to acquire any of these players this season and they are sitting on their bench, you are really not even taking a drop in production to ship Bradshaw.This is obviously a much more difficult argument to make with Fitzgerald's numbers looking so gross this season, but I still feel comfortable with it. I simply can't see Fitz ending with less than 1,000 yards and a decent TD total (6-8), which obviously means I expect him to finish the season strong. I still believe Fitz + any of the running backs I mentioned (or whatever other cheap RB you want to replace with) is going to outscore Bradshaw + 2nd/3rd tier WR that you replace Fitz with in this scenario.If you are someone who doesn't believe Fitz will finish strong, then I can understand your line of thinking this season. I still think it would be a HUGE negative every year moving forward starting next season, but I can at least understand the line of thinking.

This theory only works if you feel that you can predict the next Hills, Torain, and Foster. Otherwise, it doesn't matter that there are 7 surprise RBs, if it is based on luck. There are also just as many surprise Wrs.

 

[thriftyrocker]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

Only RBs I would take over the top 6 WRs right now are Johnson and Peterson.ETA: AJ, CJ, Fitz, White, Nicks, Austin

In the NFL or FF?

FF non-MOX

 

[Herm23]

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

That is not correct. Not in a format where you can play as many RBs and WRs. I know that not many play in these formats. But WRs are actually the easiest the points to replace. Because you can play as many RBs as WRs, you no longer only compare WR points to other WRs, you compare them to RB, TEs, and other WRs. WRs are then the easiest, because the pool is so much bigger, especially with TEs. You can pick up 7 points from a WR on the WW. There are rarely any points on the wire from the RB spot. So 300 points from Bradshaw is a lot harder to replace than 240 points from Fitz. Because of the format, you can view things as points only, on some level. Health and longevity come into play, but other than that, it is simple points, points, points. What Thrifty is saying applies more accurately to other fomats. Not this one.

I'm confused- does this format require you to play at least 1 WR? If yes, everything I said remains 100% accurate. The difference between Fitzgerald filling that 1 WR spot and whatever WR you replace Fitzgerald with is going to be larger than the difference between Bradshaw and whatever player you replace Bradshaw with (assuming you don't have a roster consisting of 2 of the top 5 or 6 WR's). My point is that elite, top line receivers are more scarce and by nature more difficult and/or expensive to acquire than lower RB1's. Provided that you are forced to play at least 1 WR, this means that replacing that elite WR production, even if it is for only 1 spot, is going to prove more difficult than the lower RB1 production, as the RB1's are more readily available to acquire on an every year basis. Long story longer- you don't find elite WR's on the waiver wire or for bargain basement prices in trades (except in the most extreme cases, ala Miles Austin), but you do find RB1's like that every single season.If you are not required to play any WR's at all, then my argument has no merit whatsoever.

 

[Go deep]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it really depends on the composition of the rest of your roster. As I said, finding a replacement for Bradshaw is actually quite easy. Just this season, you could have gotten Foster, Hillis, Torrain, Brandon Jackson (I believe he will be fine moving forward), Marshawn Lynch, and others I am sure that I am forgetting for insanely cheap and/or free. The same can be said every year- there are ALWAYS breakout RB's that are readily available on the cheap. If you were able to acquire any of these players this season and they are sitting on their bench, you are really not even taking a drop in production to ship Bradshaw.This is obviously a much more difficult argument to make with Fitzgerald's numbers looking so gross this season, but I still feel comfortable with it. I simply can't see Fitz ending with less than 1,000 yards and a decent TD total (6-8), which obviously means I expect him to finish the season strong. I still believe Fitz + any of the running backs I mentioned (or whatever other cheap RB you want to replace with) is going to outscore Bradshaw + 2nd/3rd tier WR that you replace Fitz with in this scenario.If you are someone who doesn't believe Fitz will finish strong, then I can understand your line of thinking this season. I still think it would be a HUGE negative every year moving forward starting next season, but I can at least understand the line of thinking.

I think our opinion differs because i dont think thiings are going to get much better for Fitz any time soon. He might finish close to 1000 yards, and even end up with 6-7 TD's, but i can get that sort of production out of Eddie Royal, Jeremy Maclin or Marques Colston.(these are actully WR's i have been starting over him this season in one of my dynasty leagues). With that said, i havnt rushed out to trade Fitz either, i plan on holding him because im sure he will bounce back soonr or later. I am lucky enough to have the depth to hold however. Some Fitz owners who are competing for a championship this season might only be a good Rb like Bradhsaw away from winning it all. I couldnt blame them at all for trading Fitz for Bradshaw under those circimstances.

 

[Herm23]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it really depends on the composition of the rest of your roster. As I said, finding a replacement for Bradshaw is actually quite easy. Just this season, you could have gotten Foster, Hillis, Torrain, Brandon Jackson (I believe he will be fine moving forward), Marshawn Lynch, and others I am sure that I am forgetting for insanely cheap and/or free. The same can be said every year- there are ALWAYS breakout RB's that are readily available on the cheap. If you were able to acquire any of these players this season and they are sitting on their bench, you are really not even taking a drop in production to ship Bradshaw.This is obviously a much more difficult argument to make with Fitzgerald's numbers looking so gross this season, but I still feel comfortable with it. I simply can't see Fitz ending with less than 1,000 yards and a decent TD total (6-8), which obviously means I expect him to finish the season strong. I still believe Fitz + any of the running backs I mentioned (or whatever other cheap RB you want to replace with) is going to outscore Bradshaw + 2nd/3rd tier WR that you replace Fitz with in this scenario.If you are someone who doesn't believe Fitz will finish strong, then I can understand your line of thinking this season. I still think it would be a HUGE negative every year moving forward starting next season, but I can at least understand the line of thinking.

This theory only works if you feel that you can predict the next Hills, Torain, and Foster. Otherwise, it doesn't matter that there are 7 surprise RBs, if it is based on luck. There are also just as many surprise Wrs.

There's some luck to it, but also an awful lot of due dilligence providing benefit. Of the players mentioned, I believe that Foster, Torrain, Hillis, and Lynch were all VERY smart buys and/or pickups and anyone looking to acquire them would have been doing so by being smart and playing odds rather than relying on luck. In all cases, they either had a clear path to a starting job or else a situation that warrented an above average expectation at a starting job. I would argue that there are players like this that pop up every single season that can be found by being dilligent. Last season was Ray Rice, Fred Jackson, Jamaal Charles, Bradshaw, Benson, etc... It's not always an out of nowhere player like Hillis, but there are ALWAYS cheap options that have above average expectency to produce and challenge low end RB1 production. Sure, you can "guess" wrong and not find a hidden gem. However, I think you can put yourself in a position to find that hidden gem a higher percentage of the time, negating much of the luck factor.My point is the same simply can not be said for elite, top end WR's. Except for freak outliers like Miles Austin, you just don't find these type of players unless you are willing to pay an arm and a leg for them. The very reason WR's typically hold more value than non elite RB's is that they are far more stable and hold their stable production longer. If you have a top 6 WR, you can typically expect them to perform at a low end WR1 level or better, barring injury (Fitz is doing his best to prove me wrong, but there is still a lot of season left to go).

 

[Go deep]

If i am starting an NFL franchise, and had to pick between Bradshaw and Fitz, i would pick Fitz 100 out of 100 times. However, in FF i feel alot better plugging Bradshaw in my starting lineup every week over Larry Fitzgerald.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it really depends on the composition of the rest of your roster. As I said, finding a replacement for Bradshaw is actually quite easy. Just this season, you could have gotten Foster, Hillis, Torrain, Brandon Jackson (I believe he will be fine moving forward), Marshawn Lynch, and others I am sure that I am forgetting for insanely cheap and/or free. The same can be said every year- there are ALWAYS breakout RB's that are readily available on the cheap. If you were able to acquire any of these players this season and they are sitting on their bench, you are really not even taking a drop in production to ship Bradshaw.This is obviously a much more difficult argument to make with Fitzgerald's numbers looking so gross this season, but I still feel comfortable with it. I simply can't see Fitz ending with less than 1,000 yards and a decent TD total (6-8), which obviously means I expect him to finish the season strong. I still believe Fitz + any of the running backs I mentioned (or whatever other cheap RB you want to replace with) is going to outscore Bradshaw + 2nd/3rd tier WR that you replace Fitz with in this scenario.If you are someone who doesn't believe Fitz will finish strong, then I can understand your line of thinking this season. I still think it would be a HUGE negative every year moving forward starting next season, but I can at least understand the line of thinking.

This theory only works if you feel that you can predict the next Hills, Torain, and Foster. Otherwise, it doesn't matter that there are 7 surprise RBs, if it is based on luck. There are also just as many surprise Wrs.

This is a good point, people are acting like you can just go pick up a Peyton Hillis at any time. Unless you were willing to waste a roster spot on him last summer when he had next to no value, you were not going to get him. It would probably be easier to add an Austin Collie, Brandon Lloyd, Kenny Britt, Dwayne Bowe, MAlcolm Floyd, Eddie Royal, Santana Moss, Lee Evans, Steve Johnson, Mark Clayton, etc. for next to nothing before the season started. It would be alot easier right to add a WR who is going to put up Fitz numbers from here on out than find a RB that is going to put up Bradshaw numbers.

 

[Tau837]

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

That is not correct. Not in a format where you can play as many RBs and WRs. I know that not many play in these formats. But WRs are actually the easiest the points to replace. Because you can play as many RBs as WRs, you no longer only compare WR points to other WRs, you compare them to RB, TEs, and other WRs. WRs are then the easiest, because the pool is so much bigger, especially with TEs. You can pick up 7 points from a WR on the WW. There are rarely any points on the wire from the RB spot. So 300 points from Bradshaw is a lot harder to replace than 240 points from Fitz. Because of the format, you can view things as points only, on some level. Health and longevity come into play, but other than that, it is simple points, points, points. What Thrifty is saying applies more accurately to other fomats. Not this one.

I'm confused- does this format require you to play at least 1 WR? If yes, everything I said remains 100% accurate. The difference between Fitzgerald filling that 1 WR spot and whatever WR you replace Fitzgerald with is going to be larger than the difference between Bradshaw and whatever player you replace Bradshaw with (assuming you don't have a roster consisting of 2 of the top 5 or 6 WR's). My point is that elite, top line receivers are more scarce and by nature more difficult and/or expensive to acquire than lower RB1's. Provided that you are forced to play at least 1 WR, this means that replacing that elite WR production, even if it is for only 1 spot, is going to prove more difficult than the lower RB1 production, as the RB1's are more readily available to acquire on an every year basis. Long story longer- you don't find elite WR's on the waiver wire or for bargain basement prices in trades (except in the most extreme cases, ala Miles Austin), but you do find RB1's like that every single season.If you are not required to play any WR's at all, then my argument has no merit whatsoever.

Since there has been mention of MOXFFL leagues, consider that they are 14 team leagues. Given the starting lineup requirements (2 RBs, 2 WR/TEs, 2 Flex), up to 56 RBs can be started every week. It's also true that up to 56 WR/TEs can be started each week. However, it's a non-PPR league, so RB scoring tends to be higher, and there is obviously a lesser supply of startable RBs than startable WR/TEs.These factors combine to make RBs more valuable than they might be in some leagues, and WRs less valuable than they might be in some leagues. (And it crushes TE value.) So it is not true that it is more difficult and/or expensive to acquire elite WRs than elite RBs... it is actually often the opposite.Furthermore, while the top RBs in each rookie draft are usually drafted early, WR value can often be had later. Harvin and Desean Jackson are recent examples of this. So a team that isn't among the few worst in the league and thus does not get a shot at drafting one of the top rookie RBs each season, has a better chance of drafting a startable WR. It's also more likely that a decent WR can be acquired in trade or from the waiver wire, since RBs are considered more valuable and thus are harder to obtain. For these reasons, it is better in the short term to be in search of a WR upgrade than a RB upgrade in leagues like this... and thus arguably better in the short term to have Bradshaw and need to come up with a startable WR than to have Fitz and need to come up with a startable RB.

 

[Concept Coop]

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

That is not correct. Not in a format where you can play as many RBs and WRs. I know that not many play in these formats. But WRs are actually the easiest the points to replace. Because you can play as many RBs as WRs, you no longer only compare WR points to other WRs, you compare them to RB, TEs, and other WRs. WRs are then the easiest, because the pool is so much bigger, especially with TEs. You can pick up 7 points from a WR on the WW. There are rarely any points on the wire from the RB spot. So 300 points from Bradshaw is a lot harder to replace than 240 points from Fitz. Because of the format, you can view things as points only, on some level. Health and longevity come into play, but other than that, it is simple points, points, points. What Thrifty is saying applies more accurately to other fomats. Not this one.

I'm confused- does this format require you to play at least 1 WR? If yes, everything I said remains 100% accurate. The difference between Fitzgerald filling that 1 WR spot and whatever WR you replace Fitzgerald with is going to be larger than the difference between Bradshaw and whatever player you replace Bradshaw with (assuming you don't have a roster consisting of 2 of the top 5 or 6 WR's). My point is that elite, top line receivers are more scarce and by nature more difficult and/or expensive to acquire than lower RB1's. Provided that you are forced to play at least 1 WR, this means that replacing that elite WR production, even if it is for only 1 spot, is going to prove more difficult than the lower RB1 production, as the RB1's are more readily available to acquire on an every year basis. Long story longer- you don't find elite WR's on the waiver wire or for bargain basement prices in trades (except in the most extreme cases, ala Miles Austin), but you do find RB1's like that every single season.If you are not required to play any WR's at all, then my argument has no merit whatsoever.

That is not true.Every flex option you have weights the value towards the position that scores the most points. Simple FF.

 

[Concept Coop]

Looking at points in a vaccum like this is not the correct way to go about things, in my opinion. When considering trading Bradshaw for Fitzgerald, you also need to consider what you would be replacing their points with. Overall, it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH easier to replace the production level that Bradshaw brings to your team than it is the production level Fitzgerald brings. This is what Thrifty meant when he said Fitz is a core player and Bradshaw is not. Fitz + Torrain/Jacobs/Hillis/running back de'jour is probably a better bet than Bradshaw + any receiver you pick up/try to find to replace Fitz. In my opinion you wouldn't even be losing much this year (when you factor in the drop in production at the spot you are trading away- Fitz to whatever receiver you replace with -vs- Bradshaw to whatever running back you replace with) and would gain big in future years. I say this because low end RB1's are available all the time, far easier to find on the waiver wire or late in drafts, and much cheaper to acquire via trade then elite top 3/5 WR's. Since I view Bradshaw as a low end RB1 and Fitz as a top 3 WR, what Thrifty is saying makes perfect sense to me.

That is not correct. Not in a format where you can play as many RBs and WRs. I know that not many play in these formats. But WRs are actually the easiest the points to replace. Because you can play as many RBs as WRs, you no longer only compare WR points to other WRs, you compare them to RB, TEs, and other WRs. WRs are then the easiest, because the pool is so much bigger, especially with TEs. You can pick up 7 points from a WR on the WW. There are rarely any points on the wire from the RB spot. So 300 points from Bradshaw is a lot harder to replace than 240 points from Fitz. Because of the format, you can view things as points only, on some level. Health and longevity come into play, but other than that, it is simple points, points, points. What Thrifty is saying applies more accurately to other fomats. Not this one.

I'm confused- does this format require you to play at least 1 WR? If yes, everything I said remains 100% accurate. The difference between Fitzgerald filling that 1 WR spot and whatever WR you replace Fitzgerald with is going to be larger than the difference between Bradshaw and whatever player you replace Bradshaw with (assuming you don't have a roster consisting of 2 of the top 5 or 6 WR's). My point is that elite, top line receivers are more scarce and by nature more difficult and/or expensive to acquire than lower RB1's. Provided that you are forced to play at least 1 WR, this means that replacing that elite WR production, even if it is for only 1 spot, is going to prove more difficult than the lower RB1 production, as the RB1's are more readily available to acquire on an every year basis. Long story longer- you don't find elite WR's on the waiver wire or for bargain basement prices in trades (except in the most extreme cases, ala Miles Austin), but you do find RB1's like that every single season.If you are not required to play any WR's at all, then my argument has no merit whatsoever.

Since there has been mention of MOXFFL leagues, consider that they are 14 team leagues. Given the starting lineup requirements (2 RBs, 2 WR/TEs, 2 Flex), up to 56 RBs can be started every week. It's also true that up to 56 WR/TEs can be started each week. However, it's a non-PPR league, so RB scoring tends to be higher, and there is obviously a lesser supply of startable RBs than startable WR/TEs.These factors combine to make RBs more valuable than they might be in some leagues, and WRs less valuable than they might be in some leagues. (And it crushes TE value.) So it is not true that it is more difficult and/or expensive to acquire elite WRs than elite RBs... it is actually often the opposite.Furthermore, while the top RBs in each rookie draft are usually drafted early, WR value can often be had later. Harvin and Desean Jackson are recent examples of this. So a team that isn't among the few worst in the league and thus does not get a shot at drafting one of the top rookie RBs each season, has a better chance of drafting a startable WR. It's also more likely that a decent WR can be acquired in trade or from the waiver wire, since RBs are considered more valuable and thus are harder to obtain. For these reasons, it is better in the short term to be in search of a WR upgrade than a RB upgrade in leagues like this... and thus arguably better in the short term to have Bradshaw and need to come up with a startable WR than to have Fitz and need to come up with a startable RB.

Everything I wanted to say, but couldn't as clearly.

 

[FUBAR]

Every flex option you have weights the value towards the position that scores the most points. Simple FF.

which is why QBs are generally worth a lot more in superflex leagues than normal.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I see the yards per game being thrown out as defining the quality of the receiver, but there are two issues with this in my mind. One, we know that the surrounding cast/situation plays a very large role in the amount of consistent yards a receiver gets and 2) while TD's can most definitely be variable year to year, some players are better TD targets based on their physical nature and size...

These 2 situations must be taken into account. I am someone who normally looks at talent and this will eventually rise to the top if they get traded or something, but how far in the future are you looking? 3 years, 4 years? You still have to keep a balance between future and present.

Jonathan Stewart has more value in dynasty this year then last year only because I think he is one year away from getting his own starting gig. But, Carolina is an absolute mess right now and this year he is worthless with DWill healthy and probably not that strong even if not as the two of them averaged under 3 yards a carry last week...just awful.

Last year when everyone was gushing over Steve Smith (NYG), I was steadfast in my belief that Nicks was the best receiver on the Giants and he was the guy to get long term; of course some people rate the present year at a much higher percentage than others and i was ridiculed. Nicks is a great end zone threat because he is very solid, strong and has huge hands. I said that he reminded me of Boldin, but with more upside; I still agree with this. In fact, my quote was "I think he has a very good chance of being the greatest WR in Giant history."

I was not hear for the SSOG discussions and I respect his statistical analysis, but you can't just yards per game as the be all end all, in fact, the 2 factors I mention are very important as well IF they are an issue (many times they are within an acceptable range of "normal")

 

[Sabertooth]

How far has Jonathan Stewart slipped in dynasty rankings. If a team can afford the roster spot, what kind of compensation would you think is fair in terms of draft picks? I see many still have him over Bradshaw. That seems kind of Looney Toons to me even in the long term.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Here's another thing to consider;BrittNicksHarvinMaclinCrabtreeWallaceKnoxCollieAll of these guys came into the league in the same year... to think that, long term, dynasty wise, even half of these guys makes it as top tier receivers consistently isn't realistic..Odds are 2 or maybe even 3 of these receivers will have long productive careers in the NFL.. injury, work ethic, QB play, outside influences etc.. haven't even had a chance to begin to influence their futures..

I am not a big fan of this argument. some times certain draft classes pump out alot of good players at one position. Look at the 96 class of WR's. Keyshawn, Harrison, Moulds, Horn, Owens, Glenn, and more im sure im forgetting. How about the 2008 RB class, Felix Jones, Darren Mcfadden, Rashard Mendenhall, Johnny Stewart, Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte.I just dont see how Britts future success can be affected by the other WR's who came out in the same draft.

agreed, one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[gianmarco]

How far has Jonathan Stewart slipped in dynasty rankings. If a team can afford the roster spot, what kind of compensation would you think is fair in terms of draft picks? I see many still have him over Bradshaw. That seems kind of Looney Toons to me even in the long term.

He hasn't slipped. Those ranking him high over the last couple years are aware that his value will come once he starts. That hasn't changed. He's still only 23.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I wanted to chime in on the Bradshaw discussions after I read most of the thoughts...

Bradshaw has incredible balance and quick cutting ability. he also has surprising forward leaning power for a lighter guy.

I do not think his vision is very good though. Anyone who REALLY watches the Giants plays and does so over and over to check themselves can see that he goes the wrong way a lot. Because he has suck excellent quickness and balance/strength he is able to go the wrong way and still be productive making one guy or even more miss form time to time. He is a guy who sees what is right in front of him and is able to get out of that situation, but sometimes puts himself right back into another situation that is not as favorable as it could be. This compared to a back like LT2 who has his moves and setups down field almost as soon as he touches the ball. The point is Bradshaw sometimes gets out of tough spots and then you say, man he could have had more if he just cut left...He also sometimes just goes the wrong way and it costs him as he can't escape everything.

Bradshaw also does not have good top speed, in fact, Jacobs has a better top speed than Bradshaw.

Bradshaw does run a lot like Barber though but he is just lighter and a little quicker, but both backs run in the same ferocious style as ADP without the speed ADP has. Bradshaw has a little more middle range speed than Barber and a little less power as well. Barber would look better if the Cowboy OL was better.

One last point about Thomas Jones and Jacobs. I know TJ has had some great fantasy seasons, but I think it is pretty clear he is a below average RB. The Jet OL is not as good a run blocking unit as they have been the previous 2 seasons (losing faneca), yet even with that LT2 who looked awful in SD is not getting touched until 3 yards down field compared to avoiding tackles in the backfield in SD last year. They can talk health all they want, but the OL makes backs look MUCH better. TJ can take what is given and give you nothing more than someone else could. His only strength IMO is that he is durable and doesn't fumble and he can run down some time. Jacobs is similar, but he actually has more speed and more power creating more than TJ does. Jacobs though is not as durable as he is easier to hit and is better suited for 10-15 carries a game rather than 20-25.

Hope that was useful?

 

[Liquid Tension]

How far has Jonathan Stewart slipped in dynasty rankings. If a team can afford the roster spot, what kind of compensation would you think is fair in terms of draft picks? I see many still have him over Bradshaw. That seems kind of Looney Toons to me even in the long term.

Actually it is looney short term but makes sense long term IMO

 

[Concept Coop]

Steward is a guy that I don't own in any of my leagues, but really like. I am a "win now" minded guy and am not willing to spend a 1st or 2nd rounder on a guy that won't be top 10 at his position that season.

That said, in all of the leagues I am in and have enough ammo to get him, I am competing. He is my question:

Knowing that there is a chance that Stewart's value goes sky-high, would you trade for him now, hurting your team short term? Or would you wait until the offseason, knowing it might cost you double then?

 

[benm3218]

I recently traded Stewart for Fitzgerald. Why?

Although Stewart looks great, I haven't seen proof he can be top 10 or 5 when getting all the carries. (I think he can be, but I am not sure)

I have seen what Fitz can do and know his shelf life is probably as long or longer than Stewart's is.

I think Fitzgerald can help me more this year than Stewart can.

Two guys who are great talents with tough short term situations. But, Fitzgerald's situation seems less affected than Stewart's.

Thoughts?

 

[ty247]

I recently traded Stewart for Fitzgerald. Why?Although Stewart looks great, I haven't seen proof he can be top 10 or 5 when getting all the carries. (I think he can be, but I am not sure)I have seen what Fitz can do and know his shelf life is probably as long or longer than Stewart's is. I think Fitzgerald can help me more this year than Stewart can.Two guys who are great talents with tough short term situations. But, Fitzgerald's situation seems less affected than Stewart's.Thoughts?

The only thing I would refute, is that Stewart has shown he can be a top 5-10 back when given starting duties and/or the greater share of the carries..Just last year, in a part time role and only starting 3 games he managed to place between 10th and 12th if I'm not mistaken in most non-ppr leagues

 

[Concept Coop]

I recently traded Stewart for Fitzgerald. Why?Although Stewart looks great, I haven't seen proof he can be top 10 or 5 when getting all the carries. (I think he can be, but I am not sure)I have seen what Fitz can do and know his shelf life is probably as long or longer than Stewart's is. I think Fitzgerald can help me more this year than Stewart can.Two guys who are great talents with tough short term situations. But, Fitzgerald's situation seems less affected than Stewart's.Thoughts?

A lot would depend on the format, starting requirements, number of teams. But in a vacuum, I like the move for you if Williams is still on the CAR roster next year. If not, I think you would have traded Stewart too soon and missed out on top 5RB value. So it is a tough call with no clear answer.

 

[SSOG]

Steward is a guy that I don't own in any of my leagues, but really like. I am a "win now" minded guy and am not willing to spend a 1st or 2nd rounder on a guy that won't be top 10 at his position that season. That said, in all of the leagues I am in and have enough ammo to get him, I am competing. He is my question:Knowing that there is a chance that Stewart's value goes sky-high, would you trade for him now, hurting your team short term? Or would you wait until the offseason, knowing it might cost you double then?

I'd absolutely weaken my team this year if I felt it strengthened my team in future years. I wouldn't absolutely cripple my team (for instance, if my only starter-caliber RBs were Bradshaw and Hillis, I wouldn't trade them both for Stewart), but if I could get someone who would give me Stewart for Hillis, for instance, I'd do that even if my #3 RB was Danny Woodhead. That's just too huge of a long-term gain to pass up, regardless of the short-term hit.

I recently traded Stewart for Fitzgerald. Why?Although Stewart looks great, I haven't seen proof he can be top 10 or 5 when getting all the carries. (I think he can be, but I am not sure)I have seen what Fitz can do and know his shelf life is probably as long or longer than Stewart's is. I think Fitzgerald can help me more this year than Stewart can.Two guys who are great talents with tough short term situations. But, Fitzgerald's situation seems less affected than Stewart's.Thoughts?

I like it a lot. I think Fitz is a future HoFer and no-brainer 1st round pick in a dynasty startup.