Dynasty Rankings (12 Viewers)

[Concept Coop]

I was very high on Crabtree when he came in last year, but watching all of his games this year - he rarely gets separation on his routes. He isn't very fast, but does have good hands and after-the-catch ability. He is in a run-first offense (maybe not now with Gore out) and hasn't been able to get a connection with a decent QB yet (sorry Troy and Alex). So in that aspect it's hard to completely judge Crabtree yet, but I don't like what I am seeing currently.

He is a 2nd year WR. Struggles are to be expected. He is not blazing fast, but speed won't stop him from being a good WR, if he is in fact one at this level. Buy low!

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Just curious about thoughts on James Starks in GB. The kid seems to have good measurables, and GB didn't go out to get more RBs when Grant went down. Was tha vote of confidence in BJax or Starks or Kuhn - or was TT just to cheap to go and get somebody to add to the mix?

Grant is only 28 (just turned it today in fact). But the thing that has me curious is that Starks went from possibly being put on IR to being force-fed the starting job in like 2 weeks. Any thoughts on his value in 2011?

I was wondering the same thing earlier so I looked up Grant's contract status which seems to determine a lot of this stuff nowadays. If I read correctly (and I always question this with contracts), Grant has a $5mil base with $1.75 mil in roster bonuses with 1.5 due in March. He's got two more years left, but I couldn't find the signing bonus to determine a cap hit if he were outright cut. I expect that at least he will need to restructure his contract, especially if Starks does well down the stretch. If Starks does well in the last four games (and playoffs should GB get there), he could get a Greene like bump in value in the off season. But if he gets hurt again, all bets are off. From a dynasty RB perspective, he is one of the more intriguing guys to watch down the stretch.

I watched the entire GB game last week. Obviously it was Starks' first effort, so they jury is still out. However, I don't think there is an Arian Foster in the making here. In fact, I'm not sure Dmitri Nance wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity. As I've said in other threads, Starks looked good not great. He didn't break anybody's ankles, nor did he steam roll people ala Peyton Hillis. He fell forward well, gaining an extra yard on most carries, and followed his blocking. Then again, Ryan Grant showed much the same kind of thing along with some breakaway speed in his breakout year. Pretty confident Ryan Grant will play a pretty big role in the Packers backfield in 2011. Starks could be a part of that as well. He's got a great opportunity to audition for that role right now.

Basically its way too early to talk in absolutes about Starks yet.

Didnt you just describe Arian Foster?

Don't want to get into an Arian Foster debate again. However, he's more Priest Holmes while Starks is more Ryan Grant if that makes any sense.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

What are peoples thoughts on Michael Crabtree? I know some of the hype got out of control during the offseason, i think some people were arguing he was as good as Calvin Johnson, and one of the popular posters here actually traded Calvin for Crabtree(SSOG or EBF maybe, i dont remember).Does anyone still view him as a potential top 5 dynasty WR still? What is the problem, QB, sophmore slump, or he is just not as good as people most thought?

It's a combination of all of those factors. He's not as good as Calvin, but the gap probably isn't as huge as most people think. Calvin is averaging 7.9 yards per target this season while Crabtree is averaging 7.3. The big difference is that Calvin is scoring a lot more touchdowns and getting a lot more opportunities. Top 5 is probably a stretch, but I still see him as a top 15 dynasty WR. I would say he's closer to guys like Hines Ward and Marques Colston than Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson. He doesn't really have the elite speed to be a home run threat, but he's great as a possession WR. I think he'll have multiple 1000 yard seasons in his career. Right now his production is being suppressed by poor QB play and conservative play calling. You're not going to catch the ball when it isn't thrown your way. Crabtree ranks 33rd among NFL WRs in targets, which goes a long way towards explaining his mediocre stats.

I haven't really seen much of Crabtree this year, although who has with the number of targets he gets? I guess I'd be curious to see how he'd be doing if he were to switch teams with Hakeem Nicks. Is Nicks really a superior talent to Crabtree, or is he just enjoying more success because he is on the NYGs not the 49ers.

 

[Go deep]

Just curious about thoughts on James Starks in GB. The kid seems to have good measurables, and GB didn't go out to get more RBs when Grant went down. Was tha vote of confidence in BJax or Starks or Kuhn - or was TT just to cheap to go and get somebody to add to the mix?

Grant is only 28 (just turned it today in fact). But the thing that has me curious is that Starks went from possibly being put on IR to being force-fed the starting job in like 2 weeks. Any thoughts on his value in 2011?

I was wondering the same thing earlier so I looked up Grant's contract status which seems to determine a lot of this stuff nowadays. If I read correctly (and I always question this with contracts), Grant has a $5mil base with $1.75 mil in roster bonuses with 1.5 due in March. He's got two more years left, but I couldn't find the signing bonus to determine a cap hit if he were outright cut. I expect that at least he will need to restructure his contract, especially if Starks does well down the stretch. If Starks does well in the last four games (and playoffs should GB get there), he could get a Greene like bump in value in the off season. But if he gets hurt again, all bets are off. From a dynasty RB perspective, he is one of the more intriguing guys to watch down the stretch.

I watched the entire GB game last week. Obviously it was Starks' first effort, so they jury is still out. However, I don't think there is an Arian Foster in the making here. In fact, I'm not sure Dmitri Nance wouldn't have done the same given the opportunity. As I've said in other threads, Starks looked good not great. He didn't break anybody's ankles, nor did he steam roll people ala Peyton Hillis. He fell forward well, gaining an extra yard on most carries, and followed his blocking. Then again, Ryan Grant showed much the same kind of thing along with some breakaway speed in his breakout year. Pretty confident Ryan Grant will play a pretty big role in the Packers backfield in 2011. Starks could be a part of that as well. He's got a great opportunity to audition for that role right now.

Basically its way too early to talk in absolutes about Starks yet.

Didnt you just describe Arian Foster?

Don't want to get into an Arian Foster debate again. However, he's more Priest Holmes while Starks is more Ryan Grant if that makes any sense.

I am not interested in debating Foster anymore either, my point is its way too early to compare Starks to anyone yet. I agree with comparing Foster to Holmes and Starks to Grant, but on situation more than anything. If Foster/Starks swapped teams, we would likely be comparing them to the opposite two.

 

[I was in the pool]

I haven't really seen much of Crabtree this year, although who has with the number of targets he gets? I guess I'd be curious to see how he'd be doing if he were to switch teams with Hakeem Nicks. Is Nicks really a superior talent to Crabtree, or is he just enjoying more success because he is on the NYGs not the 49ers.

I think Crabtree's stats would be about 80% of Nicks' if they switched situations. I have seen all of the NFL plays of each guy and Nicks' is a far better playmaker and YAC producer in my eyes.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

People are too low on Crabtree. He has had absolute crap at QB. He is not a Calvin superfreak who can just outjump or outmuscle defenders for the ball. He will be an elite possesion receiver when they get a good QB there. I would say a little below what Marshall was doing in Denver.

 

[Concept Coop]

People are too low on Crabtree. He has had absolute crap at QB. He is not a Calvin superfreak who can just outjump or outmuscle defenders for the ball. He will be an elite possesion receiver when they get a good QB there. I would say a little below what Marshall was doing in Denver.

I woudn't use the term elite, until I see it in the NFL, but you are right about people being low on him. It takes time to learn how to run NFL routes, often 2 years.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

People are too low on Crabtree. He has had absolute crap at QB. He is not a Calvin superfreak who can just outjump or outmuscle defenders for the ball. He will be an elite possesion receiver when they get a good QB there. I would say a little below what Marshall was doing in Denver.

I woudn't use the term elite, until I see it in the NFL, but you are right about people being low on him. It takes time to learn how to run NFL routes, often 2 years.

Well I don't mean an elite WR overall. I mean elite as a possesion WR. I haven't put dynasty rankings down on paper in a while, but I am guessing he would be in the 8-12 range for me. That said, SSOG or whoever it was this offseason that traded Calvin for Crabtree and a late 1st or whatever that deal was, they got robbed blind.

 

[EBF]

That said, SSOG or whoever it was this offseason that traded Calvin for Crabtree and a late 1st or whatever that deal was, they got robbed blind.

That was me. I actually offered the deal. Gave up Calvin for Crabtree, 1.07 rookie pick, and 2011 developmental pick (which became the 1.07). It was definitely a mistake, but I'm not convinced that it will be catastrophic in the long run. The 1.07 rookie pick more or less became Jermaine Gresham. We get 1.5 PPR for TEs, which makes them similar in value to WRs. Gresham has looked pretty good as a rookie. With any kind of progress next year, he'll be an every week starter for me in a flex spot. And you never know with the dev picks. They are definitely longshots, especially once you get outside the top 3-4, but I got Andrew Luck with the 1.09 this past year and previous years have seen gems like Demaryius Thomas and Sam Bradford had in the mid-late first round. I don't think I was wrong for moving Calvin because he was a player whose trade value had nowhere to go but down, but I obviously didn't target the right player(s) in return. Having said that, getting a couple picks thrown into a trade totally changes the equation. I know that conventional wisdom says mediocre rookie picks are disposable commodities, but they have considerable value. A few years back I made another terrible trade, giving up Anquan Boldin for Travis Henry and a 2nd round rookie pick. Well...that pick became Sidney Rice. So even though I was WAY off the mark valuing Henry near Boldin, I still came out fairly even. Picks are valuable. This is especially true when you lump 3-4 of them together. In one of my other dynasty leagues I had three 2nd round picks in 2010. One of them was my own, one of them was had in a straight up trade for Kurt Warner, and the other was had as a throw-in with Greg Jennings for Adrian Peterson. I ended up with three consecutive picks, 2.07-2.09. The Warner pick netted me Andre Roberts. The Peterson pick netted me Mardy Gilyard. Pretty terrible, right? Not really because the 2.08 netted me Mike Williams, who has started almost every game for me and helped me to a playoff spot. One mediocre rookie pick doesn't necessarily have much value, but if you take 3-4 swings for the fence then there's a very real chance that you'll hit a home run. If you can get some picks thrown into a trade as a sweetener, it really improves your odds of coming out ahead.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

That said, SSOG or whoever it was this offseason that traded Calvin for Crabtree and a late 1st or whatever that deal was, they got robbed blind.

That was me. I actually offered the deal. Gave up Calvin for Crabtree, 1.07 rookie pick, and 2011 developmental pick (which became the 1.07). It was definitely a mistake, but I'm not convinced that it will be catastrophic in the long run. The 1.07 rookie pick more or less became Jermaine Gresham. We get 1.5 PPR for TEs, which makes them similar in value to WRs. Gresham has looked pretty good as a rookie. With any kind of progress next year, he'll be an every week starter for me in a flex spot. And you never know with the dev picks. They are definitely longshots, especially once you get outside the top 3-4, but I got Andrew Luck with the 1.09 this past year and previous years have seen gems like Demaryius Thomas and Sam Bradford had in the mid-late first round. I don't think I was wrong for moving Calvin because he was a player whose trade value had nowhere to go but down, but I obviously didn't target the right player(s) in return. Having said that, getting a couple picks thrown into a trade totally changes the equation. I know that conventional wisdom says mediocre rookie picks are disposable commodities, but they have considerable value. A few years back I made another terrible trade, giving up Anquan Boldin for Travis Henry and a 2nd round rookie pick. Well...that pick became Sidney Rice. So even though I was WAY off the mark valuing Henry near Boldin, I still came out fairly even. Picks are valuable. This is especially true when you lump 3-4 of them together. In one of my other dynasty leagues I had three 2nd round picks in 2010. One of them was my own, one of them was had in a straight up trade for Kurt Warner, and the other was had as a throw-in with Greg Jennings for Adrian Peterson. I ended up with three consecutive picks, 2.07-2.09. The Warner pick netted me Andre Roberts. The Peterson pick netted me Mardy Gilyard. Pretty terrible, right? Not really because the 2.08 netted me Mike Williams, who has started almost every game for me and helped me to a playoff spot. One mediocre rookie pick doesn't necessarily have much value, but if you take 3-4 swings for the fence then there's a very real chance that you'll hit a home run. If you can get some picks thrown into a trade as a sweetener, it really improves your odds of coming out ahead.

I agree about the rookie picks. In one league I have 6 1st rounders in the 2011 draft, the 1.01 and 1.02 and 4 late 1sts. I find for the most part they are undervalued, assuming you get them well in advance of the draft. That said while in most cases the kind of trade you made is good, I just think Calvin is so good that you lose out. I was laughed at by some people on here when I took him as the #1 WR off the board in a couple of startups. While you think his value was due to trend down, I think it has and still can go farther up. He has put up monster numbers with garbage QB's, the potential upside is there if he gets a full season with a healthy Stafford. I am talking 1500+ yards, 15+ TD's potential. So while I like what you got as an overall package (especially Gresham in a 1.5 TE PPR), I just view Calvin as pretty much an untradeable dynasty asset unless you are just getting a monster deal. You obviously know your stuff though and whether this particular deal works out for you or not I am sure your team overall is going to be a good one.

 

[EBF]

I have no doubt that Calvin is capable of monster stats. Most people have been really high on him since his breakout year in 2008. He had a sub par season in 2009 and still held elite trade value. That's why I said his trade value had nowhere to go but down. He was either going to have another bad year and his value was finally going to sink or he was going to have another great year and his value was going to hold steady. The whole point is that in the best case scenario (him having a great year), his value wouldn't rise.

I think you always have to consider selling a player when he's at a point where his trade value can't go up. I don't regret trading Calvin Johnson. He was a guy whose trade value vastly exceeded his functional value during the 2009 season. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of trading him for another player of whom the same was also true (Crabtree). It goes back to what I've said in the past a few times about valuing players at their upside. When you value a player at his upside, he cannot exceed your expectations, he can only meet or disappoint them.

It's just something to think about when you pay a premium for an unproven player. If you think Sam Bradford is a future top 5 QB and you pay a top 5 QB price to get him, you'd damn well better be right because that's the only way you won't come out looking like a fool. I've done this sort of thing many times in the past. I've gotten away with it a few times and I've gotten burned by it a few times. I don't really recommend it unless you're 100% certain about a guy.

A more ideal scenario is if you think Sam Bradford is a future top 5 QB and you get him for a top 15 QB price. In this case he can disappoint you and still turn out to be worth more than what you paid for him. You always want that margin for error whenever possible. People who bought Calvin this offseason most likely didn't have that margin for error because they probably paid a top 4-5 WR price. It turns out that they were probably justified in doing so, but anything less than greatness from Calvin would've resulted in lost value for the people who bought him.

 

[OddibeMcD]

Where the heck has SSOG been? He hasnt been here and his site hasn't seen any updates since Week 11.

 

[Herm23]

I have no doubt that Calvin is capable of monster stats. Most people have been really high on him since his breakout year in 2008. He had a sub par season in 2009 and still held elite trade value. That's why I said his trade value had nowhere to go but down. He was either going to have another bad year and his value was finally going to sink or he was going to have another great year and his value was going to hold steady. The whole point is that in the best case scenario (him having a great year), his value wouldn't rise. I think you always have to consider selling a player when he's at a point where his trade value can't go up. I don't regret trading Calvin Johnson. He was a guy whose trade value vastly exceeded his functional value during the 2009 season. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of trading him for another player of whom the same was also true (Crabtree). It goes back to what I've said in the past a few times about valuing players at their upside. When you value a player at his upside, he cannot exceed your expectations, he can only meet or disappoint them. It's just something to think about when you pay a premium for an unproven player. If you think Sam Bradford is a future top 5 QB and you pay a top 5 QB price to get him, you'd damn well better be right because that's the only way you won't come out looking like a fool. I've done this sort of thing many times in the past. I've gotten away with it a few times and I've gotten burned by it a few times. I don't really recommend it unless you're 100% certain about a guy. A more ideal scenario is if you think Sam Bradford is a future top 5 QB and you get him for a top 15 QB price. In this case he can disappoint you and still turn out to be worth more than what you paid for him. You always want that margin for error whenever possible. People who bought Calvin this offseason most likely didn't have that margin for error because they probably paid a top 4-5 WR price. It turns out that they were probably justified in doing so, but anything less than greatness from Calvin would've resulted in lost value for the people who bought him.

I agree with the concept of trading when he is at the high point of his value except in the cases of those rare, ultra elite talents that only come around once every few years. In those cases, it is a near certainty you are going to lose value in any trade you make. Calvin Johnson is one of those players- there are very few trade packages you could ever be offered to equal what you will lose by trading him. We have seen Calvin play with essentially the worst possible situation and set of circumstances imaginable for a receiver over the last 4 years and yet in 2 of those seasons, he has been truly dominant and performed right up to his elite value (and in the 2 he wasn't, 1 was his rookie season and the other was a somewhat lost season due to injury). Where is the value in trading him? Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better. There are very few players I put in this catagory, as I think Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Chris Johnson may be the only 3 that truly belong there. However, these 3 players truly should be classified untouchable unless you are getting something like 4 1st round picks (with at least 1 guaranteed to be a top 2 pick), or a current superstar + multiple add ins.

 

[Redmen62]

I know that conventional wisdom says mediocre rookie picks are disposable commodities, but they have considerable value. A few years back I made another terrible trade, giving up Anquan Boldin for Travis Henry and a 2nd round rookie pick. Well...that pick became Sidney Rice. So even though I was WAY off the mark valuing Henry near Boldin, I still came out fairly even. Picks are valuable. This is especially true when you lump 3-4 of them together. In one of my other dynasty leagues I had three 2nd round picks in 2010. One of them was my own, one of them was had in a straight up trade for Kurt Warner, and the other was had as a throw-in with Greg Jennings for Adrian Peterson. I ended up with three consecutive picks, 2.07-2.09. The Warner pick netted me Andre Roberts. The Peterson pick netted me Mardy Gilyard. Pretty terrible, right? Not really because the 2.08 netted me Mike Williams, who has started almost every game for me and helped me to a playoff spot. One mediocre rookie pick doesn't necessarily have much value, but if you take 3-4 swings for the fence then there's a very real chance that you'll hit a home run. If you can get some picks thrown into a trade as a sweetener, it really improves your odds of coming out ahead.

The problem with bunches of mediocre draft picks is that roster spots are, presumably, limited. If you're a good dynasty owner, the guys at the the end of your bench are presumably pretty good. And when you add a mediocre pick, all you're really getting (if anything) is the increased value of the player you pick over top of the value of the player you have to cut. Often, that value is not much. In a ####ty draft class like this past year's, plenty of players who were drafted in my league in the late second and third rounds have already been cut. Basically, the quality of player you can draft in those rounds is not noticeably better than guys you can pick up from the undrafted ranks (LeGarrette Blount, Peyton Hillis, Danario Alexander, Brandon Lloyd, Mark Clayton all came out of free agency in my league this year.) If a pick can only get you a player who has no additional value over players you can get for free, that pick has almost no value.This of course changes if you have huge rosters or if you play in a salary cap league where rookies get good cap treatment, but in that case your original advice would be more limited to those leagues anyway.ETA: I do think that lower draft picks have significant value during the season if you're a rebuilding team; being able to "hold" value in a form that doesn't take a roster spot is very valuable. For example, if I trade Mike Hart for a second-round rookie pick, presumably the value of the pick = Mike Hart. However, I also gained a roster spot; I can use that spot to pick up a flyer. Because roster spots are a valuable resource, a trade that gets you the same "value" back (in the form of a resource- a draft pick- that doesn't take up a roster spot) is very beneficial.

 

[squistion]

I agree with the concept of trading when he is at the high point of his value except in the cases of those rare, ultra elite talents that only come around once every few years. In those cases, it is a near certainty you are going to lose value in any trade you make. Calvin Johnson is one of those players- there are very few trade packages you could ever be offered to equal what you will lose by trading him. We have seen Calvin play with essentially the worst possible situation and set of circumstances imaginable for a receiver over the last 4 years and yet in 2 of those seasons, he has been truly dominant and performed right up to his elite value (and in the 2 he wasn't, 1 was his rookie season and the other was a somewhat lost season due to injury). Where is the value in trading him? Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better. There are very few players I put in this catagory, as I think Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Chris Johnson may be the only 3 that truly belong there. However, these 3 players truly should be classified untouchable unless you are getting something like 4 1st round picks (with at least 1 guaranteed to be a top 2 pick), or a current superstar + multiple add ins.

Exactly, and I am having trouble with some of the philosopy of this entire discussion. To me, the idea is to win as many FF championships as you can, not to keep moving players because their trade value can't get any higher. I own Calvin Johnson in one league and the idea of trading him before the season started because his trade value had maxed out would have made little sense to me then, and it still doesn't. We are not talking Reggie Wayne here, the guy is 25 years old (and was 24 when EBF traded him). He probably has 5 good years in him that he will perform as a #1 WR. His value as a player who can help me be competative now and for years to come exceeds any theoretical loss on paper from some trade I may make at some future time.

In the league I own Calvin, I finished 11-2 and am the #1 seed with Calvin being a big part of this (having Hillis didn't hurt either). Yes, I could have traded him for perceived maximum value before the season started, but I wouldn't be where I am now in this league. I might have the smug satisfaction that I got the top trade value he will ever be worth, but that wouldn't help in my playoffs for this year, which is far more important to me. And by keeping him I am in pretty good shape probably until 2015 (barring injury).

We don't all have the same approach to FF. My head is in a different place than EBF and SSOG (whose philosophy I have strongly disagreed with in this thread). I play in money leagues and generally look to a 3 year time frame. I want to accumulate the best players I can for the long term, but I also want to win now. Unlike some here, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know it has been a successful formula for me. I could be wrong, but while moving elite players just to maximize trade value works in theory, it doesn't always work in practice. From my own experience I don't see people who have done this actually winning much of anything (although they always have a wonderful team on paper).

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better.

This phrase is wrong. It's either an cliche that you don't really mean (so why would you include it?), or you just don't have much experience watching football. ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

 

[Tau837]

I know that conventional wisdom says mediocre rookie picks are disposable commodities, but they have considerable value. A few years back I made another terrible trade, giving up Anquan Boldin for Travis Henry and a 2nd round rookie pick. Well...that pick became Sidney Rice. So even though I was WAY off the mark valuing Henry near Boldin, I still came out fairly even. Picks are valuable. This is especially true when you lump 3-4 of them together. In one of my other dynasty leagues I had three 2nd round picks in 2010. One of them was my own, one of them was had in a straight up trade for Kurt Warner, and the other was had as a throw-in with Greg Jennings for Adrian Peterson. I ended up with three consecutive picks, 2.07-2.09. The Warner pick netted me Andre Roberts. The Peterson pick netted me Mardy Gilyard. Pretty terrible, right? Not really because the 2.08 netted me Mike Williams, who has started almost every game for me and helped me to a playoff spot. One mediocre rookie pick doesn't necessarily have much value, but if you take 3-4 swings for the fence then there's a very real chance that you'll hit a home run. If you can get some picks thrown into a trade as a sweetener, it really improves your odds of coming out ahead.

The problem with bunches of mediocre draft picks is that roster spots are, presumably, limited. If you're a good dynasty owner, the guys at the the end of your bench are presumably pretty good. And when you add a mediocre pick, all you're really getting (if anything) is the increased value of the player you pick over top of the value of the player you have to cut. Often, that value is not much. In a ####ty draft class like this past year's, plenty of players who were drafted in my league in the late second and third rounds have already been cut. Basically, the quality of player you can draft in those rounds is not noticeably better than guys you can pick up from the undrafted ranks (LeGarrette Blount, Peyton Hillis, Danario Alexander, Brandon Lloyd, Mark Clayton all came out of free agency in my league this year.) If a pick can only get you a player who has no additional value over players you can get for free, that pick has almost no value.This of course changes if you have huge rosters or if you play in a salary cap league where rookies get good cap treatment, but in that case your original advice would be more limited to those leagues anyway.ETA: I do think that lower draft picks have significant value during the season if you're a rebuilding team; being able to "hold" value in a form that doesn't take a roster spot is very valuable. For example, if I trade Mike Hart for a second-round rookie pick, presumably the value of the pick = Mike Hart. However, I also gained a roster spot; I can use that spot to pick up a flyer. Because roster spots are a valuable resource, a trade that gets you the same "value" back (in the form of a resource- a draft pick- that doesn't take up a roster spot) is very beneficial.

I don't know if you guys tend to play in much larger roster leagues or what, but I very rarely have a roster where I would feel comfortable cutting three (or four if there was also a first round pick) players to draft guys like Roberts, Williams, and Gilyard. If I had those picks in last year's draft, I would have passed on at least two of them.That said, I think it's great to accumulate second round picks to package in trades. Usually someone else (like EBF) values them higher than I do.And I have hit on some late second rounders before, so I realize there is value to be had. In my first ever dynasty rookie draft I got Boldin at 2.11 (25th overall). But I have realized since then that that kind of success is hard to duplicate and doesn't often happen.

 

[Steed]

Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better.

This phrase is wrong. It's either an cliche that you don't really mean (so why would you include it?), or you just don't have much experience watching football. ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

You think Calvin can do worse than having guys like Dan Orlovsky, Drew Stanton, and Daunte Culpepper throwing to him? Really?

 

[Tau837]

I agree with the concept of trading when he is at the high point of his value except in the cases of those rare, ultra elite talents that only come around once every few years. In those cases, it is a near certainty you are going to lose value in any trade you make. Calvin Johnson is one of those players- there are very few trade packages you could ever be offered to equal what you will lose by trading him. We have seen Calvin play with essentially the worst possible situation and set of circumstances imaginable for a receiver over the last 4 years and yet in 2 of those seasons, he has been truly dominant and performed right up to his elite value (and in the 2 he wasn't, 1 was his rookie season and the other was a somewhat lost season due to injury). Where is the value in trading him? Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better. There are very few players I put in this catagory, as I think Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Chris Johnson may be the only 3 that truly belong there. However, these 3 players truly should be classified untouchable unless you are getting something like 4 1st round picks (with at least 1 guaranteed to be a top 2 pick), or a current superstar + multiple add ins.

Exactly, and I am having trouble with some of the philosopy of this entire discussion. To me, the idea is to win as many FF championships as you can, not to keep moving players because their trade value can't get any higher. I own Calvin Johnson in one league and the idea of trading him before the season started because his trade value had maxed out would have made little sense to me then, and it still doesn't. We are not talking Reggie Wayne here, the guy is 25 years old (and was 24 when EBF traded him). He probably has 5 good years in him that he will perform as a #1 WR. His value as a player who can help me be competative now and for years to come exceeds any theoretical loss on paper from some trade I may make at some future time.

In the league I own Calvin, I finished 11-2 and am the #1 seed with Calvin being a big part of this (having Hillis didn't hurt either). Yes, I could have traded him for perceived maximum value before the season started, but I wouldn't be where I am now in this league. I might have the smug satisfaction that I got the top trade value he will ever be worth, but that wouldn't help in my playoffs for this year, which is far more important to me. And by keeping him I am in pretty good shape probably until 2015 (barring injury).

We don't all have the same approach to FF. My head is in a different place than EBF and SSOG (whose philosophy I have strongly disagreed with in this thread). I play in money leagues and generally look to a 3 year time frame. I want to accumulate the best players I can for the long term, but I also want to win now. Unlike some here, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know it has been a successful formula for me. I could be wrong, but while moving elite players just to maximize trade value works in theory, it doesn't always work in practice. From my own experience I don't see people who have done this actually winning much of anything (although they always have a wonderful team on paper).

Agree this entire approach being used to justify trading Calvin makes little sense. I think sometimes you have to sit back and enjoy the results for a while and avoid the temptation to keep continually tinkering with every roster spot. Calvin's is one to leave alone for a few years.

 

[Tau837]

Care to make a wager on which of Rivers or Roethlisberger scores more fantasy points over the next year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, or 5 years? I'll take Rivers in any of those bets. You?

Week 6 updatehilip Rivers- 24.25 ppgBen Roeth- 24.4 ppg

Week 9 update:Rivers - 24.2 ppgRoethlisberger - 17.2 ppg

Week 11 update:Rivers - 24.5 ppgRoethlisberger - 22.9 ppg

Week 14 update:Rivers - 22.7 ppgRoethlisberger 20.9 ppg

 

[ROBOPUNTER]

Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better.

This phrase is wrong. It's either an cliche that you don't really mean (so why would you include it?), or you just don't have much experience watching football. ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

You think Calvin can do worse than having guys like Dan Orlovsky, Drew Stanton, and Daunte Culpepper throwing to him? Really?

ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

 

[Steed]

Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better.

This phrase is wrong. It's either an cliche that you don't really mean (so why would you include it?), or you just don't have much experience watching football. ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

You think Calvin can do worse than having guys like Dan Orlovsky, Drew Stanton, and Daunte Culpepper throwing to him? Really?

ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

Thanks for unpacking that.

 

[I was in the pool]

Now, some personalized PPR WR rankings going forward. Enjoy - I look forward to the criticism/questioning my manhood

1 Calvin

2 AJ

3 R.White

4 Fitz

5 Nicks

6 D.Bryant

7 D.Jackson

8 Jennings

9 Austin

10 S.Rice

11 Wallace

12 Maclin

13 Wayne

14 V.Jax

15 Marshall

16 Bowe

17 M.Williams(TB)

18 Harvin

19 Boldin

20 Britt

21 Crabtree

22 Colston

23 S.Johnson

24 D.Thomas

25 S.Holmes

26 Collie

27 S.Smith (NY)

28 Welker

29 Knox

30 Lloyd

31 Benn

32 Garcon

33 M.Wiliams (SEA)

34 McCluster

35 M.Sims-Walker

36 S.Smith (CAR)

37 T.O.

38 OchoCinco

39 Jam.Jones

40 G.Tate

41 B.Tate

42 S.Moss

43 L.Evans

44 B.Edwards

45 Avery

46 Floyd

47 Lafell

48 L.Murphy

 

[squistion]

I don't know if you guys tend to play in much larger roster leagues or what, but I very rarely have a roster where I would feel comfortable cutting three (or four if there was also a first round pick) players to draft guys like Roberts, Williams, and Gilyard. If I had those picks in last year's draft, I would have passed on at least two of them.

That said, I think it's great to accumulate second round picks to package in trades. Usually someone else (like EBF) values them higher than I do.

And I have hit on some late second rounders before, so I realize there is value to be had. In my first ever dynasty rookie draft I got Boldin at 2.11 (25th overall). But I have realized since then that that kind of success is hard to duplicate and doesn't often happen.

And that is the downside with accumulating draft picks. It is wonderful to get them, but it is very hard to cut a developmental player on your roster to clear space for them. In 2007 I took over a reclamation project team that had 6 picks in the first two rounds of the 2008 draft (3 in the first and 3 in the second). It was wonderful until I realized I was going to have to cut some players I picked up in 2007 and then the reality set in that it wasn't as great a situation as I had initially thought. I ended up solving the problem by using some the 2nd round picks to move up in the draft.

In one league I am currently in I already traded away my 2011 first and I am glad I did. I used it in part to get TB Mike Williams, and now I have one less player to worry about cutting. If I still had all my picks I might have to make the decision to cut Danario Alexander or Seyi Ajirotutu for a late 2nd or late 3rd rookie who probably won't have close to their upside.

 

[renesauz]

I'll add my voice to the dissenters. Rookie picks are badly over-rated UNLESS you have huge rosters. While numerous exceptions exist, most rookies (especially taken after the first round) take a year or two before you even know if they have a CHANCE to be a good long-term contributor. Loading up on late round picks makes no sense because you end up dropping most of those players before you know about them, hoping for a late round home -run (which, ironically, you're quite likely to drop before you even know he's a double, let alone a home run).

One can (and some have) argue that more chances to swing equates to more chances to connect...but generally you're giving something up to get those chances. THEY ARE NOT FREE.

I maintain that in standard sized leagues, rookie picks after the mid 2nd are almost worthless, and late 1st/early 2nd rounders are generally over-valued. I routinely trade away 2nd's for 2nd/3rd year prospects who have a better chance at relevance than the rookies taken at that spot.

 

[Herm23]

I'll add my voice to the dissenters. Rookie picks are badly over-rated UNLESS you have huge rosters. While numerous exceptions exist, most rookies (especially taken after the first round) take a year or two before you even know if they have a CHANCE to be a good long-term contributor. Loading up on late round picks makes no sense because you end up dropping most of those players before you know about them, hoping for a late round home -run (which, ironically, you're quite likely to drop before you even know he's a double, let alone a home run).One can (and some have) argue that more chances to swing equates to more chances to connect...but generally you're giving something up to get those chances. THEY ARE NOT FREE.I maintain that in standard sized leagues, rookie picks after the mid 2nd are almost worthless, and late 1st/early 2nd rounders are generally over-valued. I routinely trade away 2nd's for 2nd/3rd year prospects who have a better chance at relevance than the rookies taken at that spot.

A lot of the value of rookie picks, especially later ones, is tied to your ability to somewhat evaluate college talent. If you find that you are clueless when it comes to identifying who will be a breakout star at the pro level, then it's a safe bet that late 1st or 2nd round draft picks are generally worthless to you. However, if you find that you have some kind of knack for it, then those rookie picks escalate in value. I think for someone like EBF, who definitely seems to have a better grasp on the college game and potential breakout stars than some others, later rookie picks hold a lot more value than for someone like SSOG, who is as good as it gets with statistical analysis, but never has seemed too interested in identifying incoming talent (that could be wrong, I just never have seen him comment on it really).

 

[Herm23]

Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better.

This phrase is wrong. It's either an cliche that you don't really mean (so why would you include it?), or you just don't have much experience watching football. ALL situations can get worse. Every single one of them.

Most of this is incorrect.

 

[Redmen62]

A lot of the value of rookie picks, especially later ones, is tied to your ability to somewhat evaluate college talent. If you find that you are clueless when it comes to identifying who will be a breakout star at the pro level, then it's a safe bet that late 1st or 2nd round draft picks are generally worthless to you. However, if you find that you have some kind of knack for it, then those rookie picks escalate in value. I think for someone like EBF, who definitely seems to have a better grasp on the college game and potential breakout stars than some others, later rookie picks hold a lot more value than for someone like SSOG, who is as good as it gets with statistical analysis, but never has seemed too interested in identifying incoming talent (that could be wrong, I just never have seen him comment on it really).

You can get a little bit of an edge by being a really good talent evaluator, but I think most people overestimate their edge compared to a consensus of the masses. Evaluating college players is like sex; everyone thinks they're better at it than they really are.

 

[Tau837]

A lot of the value of rookie picks, especially later ones, is tied to your ability to somewhat evaluate college talent. If you find that you are clueless when it comes to identifying who will be a breakout star at the pro level, then it's a safe bet that late 1st or 2nd round draft picks are generally worthless to you. However, if you find that you have some kind of knack for it, then those rookie picks escalate in value. I think for someone like EBF, who definitely seems to have a better grasp on the college game and potential breakout stars than some others, later rookie picks hold a lot more value than for someone like SSOG, who is as good as it gets with statistical analysis, but never has seemed too interested in identifying incoming talent (that could be wrong, I just never have seen him comment on it really).

The obvious question here is if someone is so good at evaluating college talent that late round picks are truly more valuable to them than they are to others, how come that owner's roster can afford to cut a number of players every year? Sooner or later, shouldn't it be loaded with the talented players being acquired with those draft picks every year?It's a rhetorical question. I realize that things happen (e.g., injuries, trades). But I assume you get the point.

 

[Dawg Pound 69]

Since PPR, Wallace too high at 11 and Welker too low at 28.

Now, some personalized PPR WR rankings going forward. Enjoy - I look forward to the criticism/questioning my manhood 1 Calvin2 AJ3 R.White4 Fitz5 Nicks6 D.Bryant7 D.Jackson8 Jennings9 Austin10 S.Rice11 Wallace12 Maclin13 Wayne14 V.Jax15 Marshall16 Bowe17 M.Williams(TB)18 Harvin19 Boldin20 Britt21 Crabtree22 Colston23 S.Johnson24 D.Thomas25 S.Holmes26 Collie27 S.Smith (NY)28 Welker29 Knox30 Lloyd31 Benn32 Garcon33 M.Wiliams (SEA)34 McCluster35 M.Sims-Walker36 S.Smith (CAR)37 T.O.38 OchoCinco39 Jam.Jones40 G.Tate41 B.Tate42 S.Moss43 L.Evans44 B.Edwards45 Avery46 Floyd47 Lafell48 L.Murphy

 

[shader]

I agree with the concept of trading when he is at the high point of his value except in the cases of those rare, ultra elite talents that only come around once every few years. In those cases, it is a near certainty you are going to lose value in any trade you make. Calvin Johnson is one of those players- there are very few trade packages you could ever be offered to equal what you will lose by trading him. We have seen Calvin play with essentially the worst possible situation and set of circumstances imaginable for a receiver over the last 4 years and yet in 2 of those seasons, he has been truly dominant and performed right up to his elite value (and in the 2 he wasn't, 1 was his rookie season and the other was a somewhat lost season due to injury). Where is the value in trading him? Sure his value only can go down, but he is the safest bet of any player in the entire league to remain at the very top of his position for the next decade- he's already done it (twice) in an incredibly terrible situation that can only get better. There are very few players I put in this catagory, as I think Adrian Peterson, Calvin Johnson, and Chris Johnson may be the only 3 that truly belong there. However, these 3 players truly should be classified untouchable unless you are getting something like 4 1st round picks (with at least 1 guaranteed to be a top 2 pick), or a current superstar + multiple add ins.

Exactly, and I am having trouble with some of the philosopy of this entire discussion. To me, the idea is to win as many FF championships as you can, not to keep moving players because their trade value can't get any higher. I own Calvin Johnson in one league and the idea of trading him before the season started because his trade value had maxed out would have made little sense to me then, and it still doesn't. We are not talking Reggie Wayne here, the guy is 25 years old (and was 24 when EBF traded him). He probably has 5 good years in him that he will perform as a #1 WR. His value as a player who can help me be competative now and for years to come exceeds any theoretical loss on paper from some trade I may make at some future time.

In the league I own Calvin, I finished 11-2 and am the #1 seed with Calvin being a big part of this (having Hillis didn't hurt either). Yes, I could have traded him for perceived maximum value before the season started, but I wouldn't be where I am now in this league. I might have the smug satisfaction that I got the top trade value he will ever be worth, but that wouldn't help in my playoffs for this year, which is far more important to me. And by keeping him I am in pretty good shape probably until 2015 (barring injury).

We don't all have the same approach to FF. My head is in a different place than EBF and SSOG (whose philosophy I have strongly disagreed with in this thread). I play in money leagues and generally look to a 3 year time frame. I want to accumulate the best players I can for the long term, but I also want to win now. Unlike some here, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just know it has been a successful formula for me. I could be wrong, but while moving elite players just to maximize trade value works in theory, it doesn't always work in practice. From my own experience I don't see people who have done this actually winning much of anything (although they always have a wonderful team on paper).

Agree this entire approach being used to justify trading Calvin makes little sense. I think sometimes you have to sit back and enjoy the results for a while and avoid the temptation to keep continually tinkering with every roster spot. Calvin's is one to leave alone for a few years.

It's all situational. If you have a stud team AND have Calvin, then yes, sit back and enjoy the show. If you have a very young team, lots of draft picks and Calvin, I'd still sit back and enjoy things.But if you are "stuck" in the middle and don't see a way out, I think trading a stud might just be smart.

 

[EBF]

A lot of the value of rookie picks, especially later ones, is tied to your ability to somewhat evaluate college talent. If you find that you are clueless when it comes to identifying who will be a breakout star at the pro level, then it's a safe bet that late 1st or 2nd round draft picks are generally worthless to you. However, if you find that you have some kind of knack for it, then those rookie picks escalate in value. I think for someone like EBF, who definitely seems to have a better grasp on the college game and potential breakout stars than some others, later rookie picks hold a lot more value than for someone like SSOG, who is as good as it gets with statistical analysis, but never has seemed too interested in identifying incoming talent (that could be wrong, I just never have seen him comment on it really).

The obvious question here is if someone is so good at evaluating college talent that late round picks are truly more valuable to them than they are to others, how come that owner's roster can afford to cut a number of players every year? Sooner or later, shouldn't it be loaded with the talented players being acquired with those draft picks every year?It's a rhetorical question. I realize that things happen (e.g., injuries, trades). But I assume you get the point.

It's not like rosters are locked in stone. If someone has an abundance of good players then he can package them together for an upgrade, which is what people often do. A few guys in some of my leagues have built "dream team" squads by using this method. Also, even someone who does better than average with his rookie picks is going to miss quite often. Those failed players will eventually be cut. So will old players who lose their effectiveness. Those two factors will create a lot of roster space for new faces. I can't really speak for anyone else because I don't know the kind of leagues they play in, but most of my leagues have sufficiently large rosters to where you have 2-3 disposable roster spots at any given time. I'm one of the guys who likes to hoard picks and I rarely find myself forced to cut people I want to keep. Having said that, I do play in one league with smaller rosters. I have found that it's difficult to hang onto 2nd tier prospects because there's simply not enough roster space to be patient. This has caused me to gradually change my draft/waiver strategy in that league. In general, I don't like small roster dynasty leagues though. I think they cheapen the experience, so I avoid them. If you can scoop a promising prospect off waivers at any given moment, you're in what I would consider a Fisher-Price dynasty league. I like leagues where the waiver wire is a barren wasteland of Nate Washingtons and Bo Scaifes. It's a matter of preference. Some people really like playing the waiver game. I'm not one of those people, even in redraft leagues. I play in a redraft league where we only have 15 roster spots for a 10 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE, 1 DEF, and 1 PK. The result is that I inevitably have to cut people I want to keep every season. Teams who have crappy drafts can fairly easily find some gems on waivers to elevate them into contention. I don't really like that. It greatly diminishes the importance of the draft, which for me is the most enjoyable part of building a team. Anyhow, I can see how mediocre rookie picks would be of diminished value in some leagues, but I play mostly in leagues where you have enough roster space to accommodate numerous prospects and be patient with their development. That's the perspective I'm operating from when I tout the value of picks. In smaller leagues I would be more inclined to swing for the fences and/or pick prospects who have shorter development time frames (i.e. take the rookie RB who will get a chance this season over the backup rookie QB who won't start until 2 years later).

 

[gianmarco]

Please get this back on topic and not on the back and forth arguing. TIA.J

Joe, In the interest of consistency, shouldn't you remove the links from your signature? Thanks in advance,F&L

This certainly didn't get as much love as it should have. This is gold.

 

[The Man With No Name]

Since PPR, Wallace too high at 11 and Welker too low at 28.

Now, some personalized PPR WR rankings going forward. Enjoy - I look forward to the criticism/questioning my manhood 1 Calvin2 AJ3 R.White4 Fitz5 Nicks6 D.Bryant7 D.Jackson8 Jennings9 Austin10 S.Rice11 Wallace12 Maclin13 Wayne14 V.Jax15 Marshall16 Bowe17 M.Williams(TB)18 Harvin19 Boldin20 Britt21 Crabtree22 Colston23 S.Johnson24 D.Thomas25 S.Holmes26 Collie27 S.Smith (NY)28 Welker29 Knox30 Lloyd31 Benn32 Garcon33 M.Wiliams (SEA)34 McCluster35 M.Sims-Walker36 S.Smith (CAR)37 T.O.38 OchoCinco39 Jam.Jones40 G.Tate41 B.Tate42 S.Moss43 L.Evans44 B.Edwards45 Avery46 Floyd47 Lafell48 L.Murphy

Davone Bess should be somewhere, like him or not. He can and has caught a lot of passes in his 2+ seasons.And I'm sure will continue to do so.

 

[renesauz]

A lot of the value of rookie picks, especially later ones, is tied to your ability to somewhat evaluate college talent. If you find that you are clueless when it comes to identifying who will be a breakout star at the pro level, then it's a safe bet that late 1st or 2nd round draft picks are generally worthless to you. However, if you find that you have some kind of knack for it, then those rookie picks escalate in value. I think for someone like EBF, who definitely seems to have a better grasp on the college game and potential breakout stars than some others, later rookie picks hold a lot more value than for someone like SSOG, who is as good as it gets with statistical analysis, but never has seemed too interested in identifying incoming talent (that could be wrong, I just never have seen him comment on it really).

The obvious question here is if someone is so good at evaluating college talent that late round picks are truly more valuable to them than they are to others, how come that owner's roster can afford to cut a number of players every year? Sooner or later, shouldn't it be loaded with the talented players being acquired with those draft picks every year?It's a rhetorical question. I realize that things happen (e.g., injuries, trades). But I assume you get the point.

It's not like rosters are locked in stone. If someone has an abundance of good players then he can package them together for an upgrade, which is what people often do. A few guys in some of my leagues have built "dream team" squads by using this method. Also, even someone who does better than average with his rookie picks is going to miss quite often. Those failed players will eventually be cut. So will old players who lose their effectiveness. Those two factors will create a lot of roster space for new faces. I can't really speak for anyone else because I don't know the kind of leagues they play in, but most of my leagues have sufficiently large rosters to where you have 2-3 disposable roster spots at any given time. I'm one of the guys who likes to hoard picks and I rarely find myself forced to cut people I want to keep. Having said that, I do play in one league with smaller rosters. I have found that it's difficult to hang onto 2nd tier prospects because there's simply not enough roster space to be patient. This has caused me to gradually change my draft/waiver strategy in that league. In general, I don't like small roster dynasty leagues though. I think they cheapen the experience, so I avoid them. If you can scoop a promising prospect off waivers at any given moment, you're in what I would consider a Fisher-Price dynasty league. I like leagues where the waiver wire is a barren wasteland of Nate Washingtons and Bo Scaifes. It's a matter of preference. Some people really like playing the waiver game. I'm not one of those people, even in redraft leagues. I play in a redraft league where we only have 15 roster spots for a 10 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE, 1 DEF, and 1 PK. The result is that I inevitably have to cut people I want to keep every season. Teams who have crappy drafts can fairly easily find some gems on waivers to elevate them into contention. I don't really like that. It greatly diminishes the importance of the draft, which for me is the most enjoyable part of building a team. Anyhow, I can see how mediocre rookie picks would be of diminished value in some leagues, but I play mostly in leagues where you have enough roster space to accommodate numerous prospects and be patient with their development. That's the perspective I'm operating from when I tout the value of picks. In smaller leagues I would be more inclined to swing for the fences and/or pick prospects who have shorter development time frames (i.e. take the rookie RB who will get a chance this season over the backup rookie QB who won't start until 2 years later).

I understand what your saying here, but believe the premise to be grossly over-stated. There's enough turnover to accomadate 3 or 4 rookies on most rosters most years. That's understandable, and desireable. What you (and others) have advocated is aquiring EXTRA picks. Even in my biggest roster dynasty leagues, I rarely want to draft more then 3 or 4 guys. Any more, and I'll be dropping players who have upsides equivalent to or higher than the rookies I'd be replacing them with. At that point...WHAT'S THE POINT???!!! These are in leagues with shallow waiver wires and reasonable rosters (12 team, 24-25 man rosters). Talent evaluation matters...I get that. Some guys feel that they can find that rookie gem in the third and are OK with dropping Deon Butler. Problem is...a guy like Deon Butler is just as likely to explode next year as a rookie third.

 

[squistion]

It's not like rosters are locked in stone. If someone has an abundance of good players then he can package them together for an upgrade, which is what people often do. A few guys in some of my leagues have built "dream team" squads by using this method.

Also, even someone who does better than average with his rookie picks is going to miss quite often. Those failed players will eventually be cut. So will old players who lose their effectiveness. Those two factors will create a lot of roster space for new faces.

I can't really speak for anyone else because I don't know the kind of leagues they play in, but most of my leagues have sufficiently large rosters to where you have 2-3 disposable roster spots at any given time. I'm one of the guys who likes to hoard picks and I rarely find myself forced to cut people I want to keep.

Having said that, I do play in one league with smaller rosters. I have found that it's difficult to hang onto 2nd tier prospects because there's simply not enough roster space to be patient. This has caused me to gradually change my draft/waiver strategy in that league. In general, I don't like small roster dynasty leagues though. I think they cheapen the experience, so I avoid them. If you can scoop a promising prospect off waivers at any given moment, you're in what I would consider a Fisher-Price dynasty league. I like leagues where the waiver wire is a barren wasteland of Nate Washingtons and Bo Scaifes.

It's a matter of preference. Some people really like playing the waiver game. I'm not one of those people, even in redraft leagues. I play in a redraft league where we only have 15 roster spots for a 10 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE, 1 DEF, and 1 PK. The result is that I inevitably have to cut people I want to keep every season. Teams who have crappy drafts can fairly easily find some gems on waivers to elevate them into contention. I don't really like that. It greatly diminishes the importance of the draft, which for me is the most enjoyable part of building a team.

Anyhow, I can see how mediocre rookie picks would be of diminished value in some leagues, but I play mostly in leagues where you have enough roster space to accommodate numerous prospects and be patient with their development. That's the perspective I'm operating from when I tout the value of picks. In smaller leagues I would be more inclined to swing for the fences and/or pick prospects who have shorter development time frames (i.e. take the rookie RB who will get a chance this season over the backup rookie QB who won't start until 2 years later).

I understand what your saying here, but believe the premise to be grossly over-stated. There's enough turnover to accomadate 3 or 4 rookies on most rosters most years. That's understandable, and desireable. What you (and others) have advocated is aquiring EXTRA picks. Even in my biggest roster dynasty leagues, I rarely want to draft more then 3 or 4 guys. Any more, and I'll be dropping players who have upsides equivalent to or higher than the rookies I'd be replacing them with. At that point...WHAT'S THE POINT???!!! These are in leagues with shallow waiver wires and reasonable rosters (12 team, 24-25 man rosters). Talent evaluation matters...I get that. Some guys feel that they can find that rookie gem in the third and are OK with dropping Deon Butler. Problem is...a guy like Deon Butler is just as likely to explode next year as a rookie third.

I think a possible explanation of why he has the luxury of dealing with extra picks is in the above bolded section - he doesn't work the waiver wire (or at least he rarely did this season in the league I am in with him). If that was my approach, I might have room for extra picks too. Winning championships in Dynasty leagues goes beyond being a just a good draft scout and an effective trader IMO. To me working the waiver wire is one the essential components in fielding a competative team and if you don't do that you may be putting yourself at a distinct disadvantage.

Example: I am in six leagues and here are some players that I acquired among them off the waiver wire this season: BJGE, LeGarrette Blount, Jimmy Graham, Jacoby Ford, Anthony Armstrong, Danny Amendola, Danario Alexander and Seyi Ajirotutu. I am not saying these players that I acquired are going to win a championship for me, but several are among my starters in the various leagues this week.

Getting back to the original point, because I work the waiver wire I might be faced with some very difficult choices if I stockpiled extra mediocre draft picks for next season. My rosters are stuffed with some promising developmental players. Dropping Armstrong or Amendola might not be an issue for a late 2nd, but cutting Ford, Alexander or Ajirotutu could be. As you noted, a late 2nd or early 3rd round rookie probably will not have these players upside - so also in my case, I can't see the point in acquiring extra picks.

 

[BeTheMatch]

It's not like rosters are locked in stone. If someone has an abundance of good players then he can package them together for an upgrade, which is what people often do. A few guys in some of my leagues have built "dream team" squads by using this method.

Also, even someone who does better than average with his rookie picks is going to miss quite often. Those failed players will eventually be cut. So will old players who lose their effectiveness. Those two factors will create a lot of roster space for new faces.

I can't really speak for anyone else because I don't know the kind of leagues they play in, but most of my leagues have sufficiently large rosters to where you have 2-3 disposable roster spots at any given time. I'm one of the guys who likes to hoard picks and I rarely find myself forced to cut people I want to keep.

Having said that, I do play in one league with smaller rosters. I have found that it's difficult to hang onto 2nd tier prospects because there's simply not enough roster space to be patient. This has caused me to gradually change my draft/waiver strategy in that league. In general, I don't like small roster dynasty leagues though. I think they cheapen the experience, so I avoid them. If you can scoop a promising prospect off waivers at any given moment, you're in what I would consider a Fisher-Price dynasty league. I like leagues where the waiver wire is a barren wasteland of Nate Washingtons and Bo Scaifes.

It's a matter of preference. Some people really like playing the waiver game. I'm not one of those people, even in redraft leagues. I play in a redraft league where we only have 15 roster spots for a 10 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE, 1 DEF, and 1 PK. The result is that I inevitably have to cut people I want to keep every season. Teams who have crappy drafts can fairly easily find some gems on waivers to elevate them into contention. I don't really like that. It greatly diminishes the importance of the draft, which for me is the most enjoyable part of building a team.

Anyhow, I can see how mediocre rookie picks would be of diminished value in some leagues, but I play mostly in leagues where you have enough roster space to accommodate numerous prospects and be patient with their development. That's the perspective I'm operating from when I tout the value of picks. In smaller leagues I would be more inclined to swing for the fences and/or pick prospects who have shorter development time frames (i.e. take the rookie RB who will get a chance this season over the backup rookie QB who won't start until 2 years later).

I completely disagree with this sentiment. I actually think the large-roster dynasty leagues are the Fisher-Price type. My favorite, and most demanding, league - by far - is a 10-man league with 17-man active rosters (we have no kickers or defenses) and a two-man taxi squad that only rookies can be on. It's also a salary cap league and features contract years (and a cap), as well as franchise tags.The reason I like that model so much is because it forces people to be active and make decisions on players. It's one thing to scoop up some rookie flyer when you've got 25-man rosters and no contracts. It's quite another thing when there are some decent players on the wire each week and you have to sign a guy to a contract if you sign him (and potentially eat the dead years if you end up cutting him a few weeks later). This causes owners, in my opinion, to be much more informed.

Anyone can go out on a waiver wire and scoop up flyer after flyer if there's no real cost in terms of roster spots or contract years or someone better on the wire. THAT'S Fisher-Price, if you ask me.

The other nice thing about this model is that it forces some turnover in the league and allows bottom feeders the opportunity to try to turn their team around faster, which I think is critical in dynasty leagues.

My experience with the large-roster dynasty leagues is they become very stagnant. Everyone picks up their players and never, ever lets them go, because they don't have to. There's not nearly as much trading, because teams don't have to. And then the bad teams can never get better, and so they quit, putting the whole league at risk.

 

[I was in the pool]

I enjoy all this recent conversation about the different dynasty set-ups. I am looking to start a dynasty league in 2011 and have to think about all these different aspects that can drastically change how the league operates.

 

[mcintyre1]

If anyone saw that 36 McFadden TD-run and is still a doubter, they've got problems. Spin move out of initial contact just past the line, lateral cut to break free at the 10 yard mark, accelerate, stiffarm defender that had angle and rumble in for the TD. This guy is a top 5 dynasty back, talent wise.

 

[Go deep]

If anyone saw that 36 McFadden TD-run and is still a doubter, they've got problems. Spin move out of initial contact just past the line, lateral cut to break free at the 10 yard mark, accelerate, stiffarm defender that had angle and rumble in for the TD. This guy is a top 5 dynasty back, talent wise.

Although i dont think there are many doubters left.

 

[EBF]

It's not like rosters are locked in stone. If someone has an abundance of good players then he can package them together for an upgrade, which is what people often do. A few guys in some of my leagues have built "dream team" squads by using this method.

Also, even someone who does better than average with his rookie picks is going to miss quite often. Those failed players will eventually be cut. So will old players who lose their effectiveness. Those two factors will create a lot of roster space for new faces.

I can't really speak for anyone else because I don't know the kind of leagues they play in, but most of my leagues have sufficiently large rosters to where you have 2-3 disposable roster spots at any given time. I'm one of the guys who likes to hoard picks and I rarely find myself forced to cut people I want to keep.

Having said that, I do play in one league with smaller rosters. I have found that it's difficult to hang onto 2nd tier prospects because there's simply not enough roster space to be patient. This has caused me to gradually change my draft/waiver strategy in that league. In general, I don't like small roster dynasty leagues though. I think they cheapen the experience, so I avoid them. If you can scoop a promising prospect off waivers at any given moment, you're in what I would consider a Fisher-Price dynasty league. I like leagues where the waiver wire is a barren wasteland of Nate Washingtons and Bo Scaifes.

It's a matter of preference. Some people really like playing the waiver game. I'm not one of those people, even in redraft leagues. I play in a redraft league where we only have 15 roster spots for a 10 team league that starts 1 QB, 2 RB, 2 WR, 2 FLEX, 1 TE, 1 DEF, and 1 PK. The result is that I inevitably have to cut people I want to keep every season. Teams who have crappy drafts can fairly easily find some gems on waivers to elevate them into contention. I don't really like that. It greatly diminishes the importance of the draft, which for me is the most enjoyable part of building a team.

Anyhow, I can see how mediocre rookie picks would be of diminished value in some leagues, but I play mostly in leagues where you have enough roster space to accommodate numerous prospects and be patient with their development. That's the perspective I'm operating from when I tout the value of picks. In smaller leagues I would be more inclined to swing for the fences and/or pick prospects who have shorter development time frames (i.e. take the rookie RB who will get a chance this season over the backup rookie QB who won't start until 2 years later).

I completely disagree with this sentiment. I actually think the large-roster dynasty leagues are the Fisher-Price type. My favorite, and most demanding, league - by far - is a 10-man league with 17-man active rosters (we have no kickers or defenses) and a two-man taxi squad that only rookies can be on. It's also a salary cap league and features contract years (and a cap), as well as franchise tags.The reason I like that model so much is because it forces people to be active and make decisions on players. It's one thing to scoop up some rookie flyer when you've got 25-man rosters and no contracts. It's quite another thing when there are some decent players on the wire each week and you have to sign a guy to a contract if you sign him (and potentially eat the dead years if you end up cutting him a few weeks later). This causes owners, in my opinion, to be much more informed.

Anyone can go out on a waiver wire and scoop up flyer after flyer if there's no real cost in terms of roster spots or contract years or someone better on the wire. THAT'S Fisher-Price, if you ask me.

The other nice thing about this model is that it forces some turnover in the league and allows bottom feeders the opportunity to try to turn their team around faster, which I think is critical in dynasty leagues.

My experience with the large-roster dynasty leagues is they become very stagnant. Everyone picks up their players and never, ever lets them go, because they don't have to. There's not nearly as much trading, because teams don't have to. And then the bad teams can never get better, and so they quit, putting the whole league at risk.

Like I said, it's a matter of preference. I can see the appeal of the contract system for the reasons you mentioned. However, in small roster leagues that don't use contracts, what ends up happening is that people keep recycling waiver picks until they find something that sticks. There's very little skill in grabbing the flavor of the week off waivers and cutting him for the next flavor of the week until you hit the jackpot. In a league with bigger rosters, that's less likely to happen because there's a higher chance that someone has already rostered him before his breakout. You can't just rely on waivers to patch up the holes in your roster, which makes things more challenging.

I think the appeal of different league formats is largely a matter of personal preference though. Hawking waivers all week waiting for a crumb to fall off the table isn't my idea of a fun FF experience. I prefer to sit back, draft my players, make a trade or two, and watch things unfold. That's just my personal preference. I have too many teams and too little time, which limits my ability and desire to constantly tinker. For other people seeking a more involved and constant experience, I can understand how the small roster system would keep things interesting.

 

[BeTheMatch]

I think the appeal of different league formats is largely a matter of personal preference though.

I agree. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Concept Coop]

Davone Bess should be somewhere, like him or not. He can and has caught a lot of passes in his 2+ seasons.And I'm sure will continue to do so.

Good posting. Bess is set in stone on my off-season buy low list. In PPR, he should be top 35, in my opinion.People are going to treat Brandon Marshall as though he is better than his 2010 numbers have indicated because of the terrible QB play, and really, just the offense in general. This is because we have seen what Marshall can do in an offense that will open it up and with a QB that can get him the ball. We have only been given flashes of what Bess can do, because he has always been in this situation. Even with poor QB play, a conservative offense (which will hurt Marshall more than Bess), and (this year, at least) no running game for teams to respect, Bess puts up solid catch totals. When the situations improves, so will Bess' numbers - vastly. This is Bess' first season starting. If Bess ever ends up with a Sam Bradford, Peyton Manning, or Tom Brady, he is very capable of scoring points on a level of Clayton, Collie, and possibly even Welker.

 

[mlball77]

Here is a dynasty strategy question for any takers:

Assume you are a championship level team from the past 2-3 years, but your team is now starting to get noticeably older.

What is the preferred approach in the offseason for such a team?

1) Ride this team as long as you can. If you can get a couple more nice playoff runs out of the core group, you should go for it. Don’t worry so much about 2 or 3 years down the road when you have a very good team now, even if it’s getting older.

2) You’ve identified a problem, now work hard at fixing it… via trades etc. that get you younger. The wheels could fall off the bus at anytime, so it makes more sense to move some of your core group that is aging for young, upside players while you still can. This might hurt you in the short run, but could be a lifesaver in the long-term.

3) Some sort of a blend between #1 and #2.

4) Other

Thoughts???

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Where do you guys see Mike Goodson's value for next year?

 

[squistion]

Here is a dynasty strategy question for any takers:Assume you are a championship level team from the past 2-3 years, but your team is now starting to get noticeably older. What is the preferred approach in the offseason for such a team? 1) Ride this team as long as you can. If you can get a couple more nice playoff runs out of the core group, you should go for it. Don’t worry so much about 2 or 3 years down the road when you have a very good team now, even if it’s getting older. 2) You’ve identified a problem, now work hard at fixing it… via trades etc. that get you younger. The wheels could fall off the bus at anytime, so it makes more sense to move some of your core group that is aging for young, upside players while you still can. This might hurt you in the short run, but could be a lifesaver in the long-term. 3) Some sort of a blend between #1 and #2.4) OtherThoughts???

Hmmm. Well, you are going to get 10 different answers on this and many of them will be valid depending on what you are trying to accomplish.And that is the question - what are your goals for the next 2-3 years? (I used that time frame not only because you mentioned it but that is also the window that I operate in). If it is more important for you to win in the short term, then ride the current team until the wheels fall off, then start the rebuilding process (which will consequently take a lot longer). On the other hand, if it is worth sacrificing the next two seasons for having a better team beyond that, then probably best to start the overhaul next year (although you will have to be a good judge of future talent and have a bit of luck in the process). I do tend to take the middle ground myself as I want to have a shot each year at the playoffs but I also want to build for the future. I am in leagues that started in 2003, 2004 and 2006 and my teams there have been competitive every single season since their inception. With them I do a piecemeal approach - I find the greatest position of need (QB, RB, WR or TE) and invdividually address that each season (the fix doesn't always work immediately either, so sometimes it is takes several years to correct the weak link in the chain). I am constantly tinkering and my teams have never yet to be close to full rebuilding mode, but perhaps I have been lucky.

 

[Concept Coop]

Here is a dynasty strategy question for any takers:Assume you are a championship level team from the past 2-3 years, but your team is now starting to get noticeably older. What is the preferred approach in the offseason for such a team? 1) Ride this team as long as you can. If you can get a couple more nice playoff runs out of the core group, you should go for it. Don’t worry so much about 2 or 3 years down the road when you have a very good team now, even if it’s getting older. 2) You’ve identified a problem, now work hard at fixing it… via trades etc. that get you younger. The wheels could fall off the bus at anytime, so it makes more sense to move some of your core group that is aging for young, upside players while you still can. This might hurt you in the short run, but could be a lifesaver in the long-term. 3) Some sort of a blend between #1 and #2.4) OtherThoughts???

Very good question, as there will be plenty of opinions on the matter, with none of them being right or wrong.Me, I think it is easier to "ride it into the ground" so to speak. With a few trades, that ride will be a lot longer and a lot more successful than most think. I would rather win a championship, then hit rock bottom, then completely rebuild before you have to. For example, say our "core" group of players areeyton ManningMichael TurnerSteven JacksonTerrell OwensTony GonzalesWhat can you really get for these guys? They only have value to the top teams in the league, and those top teams only have late 1st round draft picks. I think you need to evaluate your window of opportunity, come up with a number in terms of years, then use your draft picks to either extend that, or maximize your chances in that time. Example, if I was trying to extend my window, I would look to trade Manning + for Romo; Gonzales + for Witten; Turner for D. Williams; Owens + for Welker or Ochocinco. Essentially, trading your old players for slightly younger players is going to be easier and cheaper than trying to go from old to young. If you can extend your window for 2 years, by using 2 years worth of draft picks, I think it is worth it as they are late picks anyway. If you wanted to maximize, instead of extend, I would be looking to move the picks for guys like Welker, 85, Ronnie Brown, LT2, Hines Ward, Donald Driver, and so on.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

If anyone saw that 36 McFadden TD-run and is still a doubter, they've got problems. Spin move out of initial contact just past the line, lateral cut to break free at the 10 yard mark, accelerate, stiffarm defender that had angle and rumble in for the TD. This guy is a top 5 dynasty back, talent wise.

What about his skinny legs?

 

[Richard_the_Vampire]

If anyone saw that 36 McFadden TD-run and is still a doubter, they've got problems. Spin move out of initial contact just past the line, lateral cut to break free at the 10 yard mark, accelerate, stiffarm defender that had angle and rumble in for the TD. This guy is a top 5 dynasty back, talent wise.

What about his skinny legs?

He'll tear up his knee one of these days.

 

[Concept Coop]

If anyone saw that 36 McFadden TD-run and is still a doubter, they've got problems. Spin move out of initial contact just past the line, lateral cut to break free at the 10 yard mark, accelerate, stiffarm defender that had angle and rumble in for the TD. This guy is a top 5 dynasty back, talent wise.

Talent is such a subjective, overused term. Usually people mean big, strong, and fast. Scoring fantasy points is the only talent really pertinent to our conversation, and currently, McFadden is doing that. But he has missed time due to injury, again, as he always has, and is having his first big season in 3 years. He has had two dud games. If being a doubter means not being ready to value him as top 5, put me in that camp. There is no way I am putting him over the following, who have all done it more than once, with the exception of Foster, who is also enjoying his first big season, which is bigger and more consistant than McFadden's:ADPCJMJDA. FosterJ. CharlesI think he is in the next group. But it is not even a given to place him clearly ahead of the McCoy's, Moreno's, Stewart's, Bradshaw's or the rest of the group just outside of the top 5.