Dynasty Rankings (3 Viewers)

[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) 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.

Some good stuff posted by squistion and Concept Coop… I appreciate it. And I definitely agree that there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer here… probably 100 ways to do the same thing. I was looking forward to any discussion about the different approaches that could be employed. Sometimes I think I get set in a certain view on what my approach should be and I wanted to open my eyes to other options.I don’t think my team fits the description I gave to start with, it was more of a hypothetical, but my team could well be in this place in the not-too-distant future. I suppose that is what worries me… as I’ve seen teams that looked like obvious contenders fall flat when they got too old faster than they realized could happen. And then they were stuck with few options, as most teams had no interest in trading for their older players and/or they didn’t have a roster strong enough to bolster it with short-term solutions. –I don’t want to ever be in that position.The question asked about what a team owner can get for an aging player with little left is a good one… and sort of makes me think that if you don’t have a blend of young talent waiting in the wings, you might be sort of forced to ride it out with your current older players (assuming you don’t want to trade them away for pennies on the dollar). Having the potential for 1-2 more deep playoff runs is probably a better route than scrapping your team in the hopes it could bounce back a touch quicker after hitting its bottom, right?I found the suggestion of trying to get a tiny bit younger via trades (and not a full youth movement) to be particularly interesting, and one I hadn’t even considered. Maybe with that approach you can increase your window of being a playoff-caliber team from 2 to 4 years. At the very least, this approach would buy you more time before going into some sort of rebuild mode.

 

[DoubleG]

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???

We don't rebuild...we reload.Okay, seriously, the trade value of some of thos older guys isn't that great anyway. Build for the now, but draft for the future. I'm not sure how deep your benches are, but in a "dynasty league" I'm (actually it's a huge keeper - we roster 21, cut down to 16 right before the draft then the draft is rookies + cut players (plus anyone who is not already on a team). The nice thing about the format is that the draft is always facinating - someguys take the rookies, others go after the occasional old vet who hasn't done much in a while and who got cut from a team that s deep at that position. The other thing you can do is if you have one of those "off" years (i.e. had more injuries, so will finish out of the playoff race) - THEN move some of those older guys who are producing for draft pciks from contenders. But for the most part, it doesn't pay to try to trade your decent older guys, because most of the time, the value isn't there for the production they still give. I mean, sure it'd be great to say "trade TO and Tony Gonzo for Arian Foster" - but who is going to do that? Another option is trying to trade for injured guys who will come back and have high upside. Jermichael Finley, Tate, Hardesty - those types. But typically you have to make that deal about halfway through the season (a guy that's held him this long probably aint going to give him away at this point in the season). Also, scour the WW for those types - injured but who should be decent next year.

 

[mlball77]

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.

I'll admit that I wasn't high on McFadden due in part to his 'skinny legs.' His inj issues are a small issue for me as well. That said, when he is healthy and getting touches, he's been great this year (I thought he had some real flashes his rookie year too, but not so much last year). I've seen a few Raiders games this year and have come away thoroughly impressed. And the run you described, I saw it during that game and immediately had a thought like, "Wow, McFadden is totally legit." I wouldn't put him top 5, but he's somewhere in that next tier, imo.

 

[Dez]

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???

I am now in my 14th year in my original dynasty league and to be honest I have never had any of these thoughts. I have played to win every single year and have never been in rebuild mode.I have won 6 titles in 13 years, made the playoffs 12 times and never had a losing record and I have drafted in the 7th or later pick in the 1st round 12 times except for the 2 years I traded up to land a player.All I do is just continue to improve my team as best I can each year and still compete for a title. I usually don't try and trade off older until I have a younger player who is more productive to replace them.Drafting well is the key and that has kept me a contender without having to ever rebuild.

 

[squistion]

The question asked about what a team owner can get for an aging player with little left is a good one… and sort of makes me think that if you don’t have a blend of young talent waiting in the wings, you might be sort of forced to ride it out with your current older players (assuming you don’t want to trade them away for pennies on the dollar). Having the potential for 1-2 more deep playoff runs is probably a better route than scrapping your team in the hopes it could bounce back a touch quicker after hitting its bottom, right?

I think so but I been have accused here of being short sighted in my approach.However, when players get a certain age, sometimes you are forced to keep them because the loss of actual value is more perception than reality. Example: If you checked this forum last summer, the conventional wisdom was that this was the year to move Frank Gore, since he will turn 28 in 2011 and you would probably be stuck with him until he retires. Well, that all sounded nice but I couldn't get much of anything for Gore in the one league I own him, so I had no choice but to hold (worked out well until the hip injury). Same thing with Tiki Barber, the year before he announced his retirement I tried to move him but there were no takers.

And I don't believe in the fire sale mentality because a player reaches a certain calendar year or will do so shortly. If you are going to get peanuts, you might as well keep them. Took over a team in 2007 where one of the few assets was Tony Gonzalez. He was 31 then, but the only offers I got were insulting. Glad I kept him as he helped me win the championship there is 2008 and he helped me this last week in the playoffs - if he retires next year, so what.

Ideally you should move the older players to maximize value of your team portfolio, but realistically that isn't always possible in every league situation. And a lot of people moved Reggie Wayne this year because he is 32 - maybe they were right but in retrospect some probably wish they had kept him, especially now that we have gotten into the fantasy playoffs.

 

[Concept Coop]

I am now in my 14th year in my original dynasty league and to be honest I have never had any of these thoughts. I have played to win every single year and have never been in rebuild mode.I have won 6 titles in 13 years, made the playoffs 12 times and never had a losing record and I have drafted in the 7th or later pick in the 1st round 12 times except for the 2 years I traded up to land a player.All I do is just continue to improve my team as best I can each year and still compete for a title. I usually don't try and trade off older until I have a younger player who is more productive to replace them.Drafting well is the key and that has kept me a contender without having to ever rebuild.

My league is a 14 team league and I respect about 90% of the owners, most of whom post on this board. The commish has run the same series of leagues for 10 years. A lot of the players have been in them for quite some time. While I am currently number 2 in points and set up nicely for the future, I know that there will come a day when I am at the bottom looking up - there are just too many good owners. I think drafting and trading well can keep you going strong. But, for most of us, I think it is only a matter of when, or how long the rebuilding process is, but there will be some. I think that is where Mlb's question comes from.

 

[The Real Hipster Doofus]

My first impression is if someone is continually successful year after year after year in a dynasty league with no down periods, then the other league owners must not be all that great. It is simply too hard to keep that kind of sustained success if you have 9 or 11 or 13 other good owners. In a good league some rebuilding is usually required from time to time.

 

[EBF]

The question asked about what a team owner can get for an aging player with little left is a good one… and sort of makes me think that if you don’t have a blend of young talent waiting in the wings, you might be sort of forced to ride it out with your current older players (assuming you don’t want to trade them away for pennies on the dollar). Having the potential for 1-2 more deep playoff runs is probably a better route than scrapping your team in the hopes it could bounce back a touch quicker after hitting its bottom, right?

I think so but I been have accused here of being short sighted in my approach.However, when players get a certain age, sometimes you are forced to keep them because the loss of actual value is more perception than reality. Example: If you checked this forum last summer, the conventional wisdom was that this was the year to move Frank Gore, since he will turn 28 in 2011 and you would probably be stuck with him until he retires. Well, that all sounded nice but I couldn't get much of anything for Gore in the one league I own, so I had no choice but to hold (worked out well until the hip injury). Same thing with Tiki Barber, the year before he announced his retirement I tried to move him but there were no takers.

And I don't believe in the fire sale mentality because a player reaches a certain calendar year or will do so shortly. If you are going to get peanuts, you might as well keep them. Took over a team in 2007 where one of the few assets was Tony Gonzalez. He was 31 then, but the only offers I got were insulting. Glad I kept him as he helped me win the championship there is 2008 and he helped me this last week in the playoffs - if he retires next year, so what.

Ideally you should move the older players to maximize value of your team portfolio, but realistically that isn't always possible in every league situation. And a lot of people moved Reggie Wayne this year because he is 32 - maybe they were right but in retrospect some probably wish they had kept him, especially now that we have gotten into the fantasy playoffs.

I think there comes a point with some older players where you just have to keep them until they drop dead because no one will pay you fair value. For example, I have DeAngelo Williams and Cedric Benson on one of my awful teams. I didn't even bother trying to move those guys when my team fell out of contention because I knew that no one would give up anything of value. I have had the same problem with Santana Moss in a different league. Players reach an age where they're no longer appealing to youth hoarders. Once this happens, it's very hard to get significant value for them. People typically aren't going to give you a premium prospect or a premium young player for a premium old player, so you're going to have to sacrifice in some department.

That can get you into trouble. It might be tempting to move DeAngelo Williams for a guy like Knowshon Moreno, LeGarrette Blount, or Peyton Hillis because of the age difference, but are any of those guys really on the same plane from a talent perspective? I don't think so.

There seems to be an age (maybe 27-28 for RBs) and (29-30 for WRs) where you need to be ready to "hold until he retires" with a player when you acquire him. My philosophy with guys like DWill, Benson, and SMoss in the few leagues where I own them is that I'm going to start them until they're done and never look back. Sometimes you're going to get lucky and get a Thomas Jones/Ricky Williams/Tony Gonzalez/Derrick Mason/Terrell Owens career trajectory where a guy continues to produce useful stats long after the point when his age becomes scary.

 

[mlball77]

The question asked about what a team owner can get for an aging player with little left is a good one… and sort of makes me think that if you don’t have a blend of young talent waiting in the wings, you might be sort of forced to ride it out with your current older players (assuming you don’t want to trade them away for pennies on the dollar). Having the potential for 1-2 more deep playoff runs is probably a better route than scrapping your team in the hopes it could bounce back a touch quicker after hitting its bottom, right?

I think so but I been have accused here of being short sighted in my approach.However, when players get a certain age, sometimes you are forced to keep them because the loss of actual value is more perception than reality. Example: If you checked this forum last summer, the conventional wisdom was that this was the year to move Frank Gore, since he will turn 28 in 2011 and you would probably be stuck with him until he retires. Well, that all sounded nice but I couldn't get much of anything for Gore in the one league I own, so I had no choice but to hold (worked out well until the hip injury). Same thing with Tiki Barber, the year before he announced his retirement I tried to move him but there were no takers.

And I don't believe in the fire sale mentality because a player reaches a certain calendar year or will do so shortly. If you are going to get peanuts, you might as well keep them. Took over a team in 2007 where one of the few assets was Tony Gonzalez. He was 31 then, but the only offers I got were insulting. Glad I kept him as he helped me win the championship there is 2008 and he helped me this last week in the playoffs - if he retires next year, so what.

Ideally you should move the older players to maximize value of your team portfolio, but realistically that isn't always possible in every league situation. And a lot of people moved Reggie Wayne this year because he is 32 - maybe they were right but in retrospect some probably wish they had kept him, especially now that we have gotten into the fantasy playoffs.

I think there comes a point with some older players where you just have to keep them until they drop dead because no one will pay you fair value. For example, I have DeAngelo Williams and Cedric Benson on one of my awful teams. I didn't even bother trying to move those guys when my team fell out of contention because I knew that no one would give up anything of value. I have had the same problem with Santana Moss in a different league. Players reach an age where they're no longer appealing to youth hoarders. Once this happens, it's very hard to get significant value for them. People typically aren't going to give you a premium prospect or a premium young player for a premium old player, so you're going to have to sacrifice in some department.

That can get you into trouble. It might be tempting to move DeAngelo Williams for a guy like Knowshon Moreno, LeGarrette Blount, or Peyton Hillis because of the age difference, but are any of those guys really on the same plane from a talent perspective? I don't think so.

There seems to be an age (maybe 27-28 for RBs) and (29-30 for WRs) where you need to be ready to "hold until he retires" with a player when you acquire him. My philosophy with guys like DWill, Benson, and SMoss in the few leagues where I own them is that I'm going to start them until they're done and never look back. Sometimes you're going to get lucky and get a Thomas Jones/Ricky Williams/Tony Gonzalez/Derrick Mason/Terrell Owens career trajectory where a guy continues to produce useful stats long after the point when his age becomes scary.

I'm starting to learn this lesson with a few of my still productive vets (like S. Moss). The trading value of guys really falls off of a cliff at a certain age, almost regardless of their production... and that is largely understandable. So it seems it often makes more sense to hold onto them and squeeze every drop of produciton out of them you can.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

The question asked about what a team owner can get for an aging player with little left is a good one… and sort of makes me think that if you don’t have a blend of young talent waiting in the wings, you might be sort of forced to ride it out with your current older players (assuming you don’t want to trade them away for pennies on the dollar). Having the potential for 1-2 more deep playoff runs is probably a better route than scrapping your team in the hopes it could bounce back a touch quicker after hitting its bottom, right?

I think so but I been have accused here of being short sighted in my approach.However, when players get a certain age, sometimes you are forced to keep them because the loss of actual value is more perception than reality. Example: If you checked this forum last summer, the conventional wisdom was that this was the year to move Frank Gore, since he will turn 28 in 2011 and you would probably be stuck with him until he retires. Well, that all sounded nice but I couldn't get much of anything for Gore in the one league I own, so I had no choice but to hold (worked out well until the hip injury). Same thing with Tiki Barber, the year before he announced his retirement I tried to move him but there were no takers.

And I don't believe in the fire sale mentality because a player reaches a certain calendar year or will do so shortly. If you are going to get peanuts, you might as well keep them. Took over a team in 2007 where one of the few assets was Tony Gonzalez. He was 31 then, but the only offers I got were insulting. Glad I kept him as he helped me win the championship there is 2008 and he helped me this last week in the playoffs - if he retires next year, so what.

Ideally you should move the older players to maximize value of your team portfolio, but realistically that isn't always possible in every league situation. And a lot of people moved Reggie Wayne this year because he is 32 - maybe they were right but in retrospect some probably wish they had kept him, especially now that we have gotten into the fantasy playoffs.

I think there comes a point with some older players where you just have to keep them until they drop dead because no one will pay you fair value. For example, I have DeAngelo Williams and Cedric Benson on one of my awful teams. I didn't even bother trying to move those guys when my team fell out of contention because I knew that no one would give up anything of value. I have had the same problem with Santana Moss in a different league. Players reach an age where they're no longer appealing to youth hoarders. Once this happens, it's very hard to get significant value for them. People typically aren't going to give you a premium prospect or a premium young player for a premium old player, so you're going to have to sacrifice in some department.

That can get you into trouble. It might be tempting to move DeAngelo Williams for a guy like Knowshon Moreno, LeGarrette Blount, or Peyton Hillis because of the age difference, but are any of those guys really on the same plane from a talent perspective? I don't think so.

There seems to be an age (maybe 27-28 for RBs) and (29-30 for WRs) where you need to be ready to "hold until he retires" with a player when you acquire him. My philosophy with guys like DWill, Benson, and SMoss in the few leagues where I own them is that I'm going to start them until they're done and never look back. Sometimes you're going to get lucky and get a Thomas Jones/Ricky Williams/Tony Gonzalez/Derrick Mason/Terrell Owens career trajectory where a guy continues to produce useful stats long after the point when his age becomes scary.

I'm starting to learn this lesson with a few of my still productive vets (like S. Moss). The trading value of guys really falls off of a cliff at a certain age, almost regardless of their production... and that is largely understandable. So it seems it often makes more sense to hold onto them and squeeze every drop of produciton out of them you can.

but, on the flip side, these 30-32 year old WRs make cheap WR3/4/5 ....

 

[mlball77]

The question asked about what a team owner can get for an aging player with little left is a good one… and sort of makes me think that if you don’t have a blend of young talent waiting in the wings, you might be sort of forced to ride it out with your current older players (assuming you don’t want to trade them away for pennies on the dollar). Having the potential for 1-2 more deep playoff runs is probably a better route than scrapping your team in the hopes it could bounce back a touch quicker after hitting its bottom, right?

I think so but I been have accused here of being short sighted in my approach.However, when players get a certain age, sometimes you are forced to keep them because the loss of actual value is more perception than reality. Example: If you checked this forum last summer, the conventional wisdom was that this was the year to move Frank Gore, since he will turn 28 in 2011 and you would probably be stuck with him until he retires. Well, that all sounded nice but I couldn't get much of anything for Gore in the one league I own, so I had no choice but to hold (worked out well until the hip injury). Same thing with Tiki Barber, the year before he announced his retirement I tried to move him but there were no takers.

And I don't believe in the fire sale mentality because a player reaches a certain calendar year or will do so shortly. If you are going to get peanuts, you might as well keep them. Took over a team in 2007 where one of the few assets was Tony Gonzalez. He was 31 then, but the only offers I got were insulting. Glad I kept him as he helped me win the championship there is 2008 and he helped me this last week in the playoffs - if he retires next year, so what.

Ideally you should move the older players to maximize value of your team portfolio, but realistically that isn't always possible in every league situation. And a lot of people moved Reggie Wayne this year because he is 32 - maybe they were right but in retrospect some probably wish they had kept him, especially now that we have gotten into the fantasy playoffs.

I think there comes a point with some older players where you just have to keep them until they drop dead because no one will pay you fair value. For example, I have DeAngelo Williams and Cedric Benson on one of my awful teams. I didn't even bother trying to move those guys when my team fell out of contention because I knew that no one would give up anything of value. I have had the same problem with Santana Moss in a different league. Players reach an age where they're no longer appealing to youth hoarders. Once this happens, it's very hard to get significant value for them. People typically aren't going to give you a premium prospect or a premium young player for a premium old player, so you're going to have to sacrifice in some department.

That can get you into trouble. It might be tempting to move DeAngelo Williams for a guy like Knowshon Moreno, LeGarrette Blount, or Peyton Hillis because of the age difference, but are any of those guys really on the same plane from a talent perspective? I don't think so.

There seems to be an age (maybe 27-28 for RBs) and (29-30 for WRs) where you need to be ready to "hold until he retires" with a player when you acquire him. My philosophy with guys like DWill, Benson, and SMoss in the few leagues where I own them is that I'm going to start them until they're done and never look back. Sometimes you're going to get lucky and get a Thomas Jones/Ricky Williams/Tony Gonzalez/Derrick Mason/Terrell Owens career trajectory where a guy continues to produce useful stats long after the point when his age becomes scary.

I'm starting to learn this lesson with a few of my still productive vets (like S. Moss). The trading value of guys really falls off of a cliff at a certain age, almost regardless of their production... and that is largely understandable. So it seems it often makes more sense to hold onto them and squeeze every drop of produciton out of them you can.

but, on the flip side, these 30-32 year old WRs make cheap WR3/4/5 ....

Absolutely. Could be a nice (cheap to acquire) piece for a contender needing a little depth.

 

[Go deep]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

 

[Herm23]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

 

[Concept Coop]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

 

[Go deep]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

Agreed, i dont think Mcgahee is getting goalline carries because he is a great short yardage back. I just think the Ravens are trying to relieve Rice of the beating a RB takes in short yardage. I dont see that changing after Mcgahee is gone either.

 

[Herm23]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

I will continue to say this- the McGahee situation is incredibly unique. The Ravens are paying him a fairly large sum of money for a backup and he is probably too talented to play as just a pure backup, yet that is the role Rice reduces him to. Because of the salary they pay him and the fact that he has enough talent to justify getting carries, the Ravens use him almost exclusively in a goal line role to reduce the punishment to Rice and to find a way to get McGahee work. I am a firm believer that when McGahee is gone, Rice will get the majority of the work in all situations, because they won't have a player of McGahee's caliber able to justify not doing so.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

I will continue to say this- the McGahee situation is incredibly unique. The Ravens are paying him a fairly large sum of money for a backup and he is probably too talented to play as just a pure backup, yet that is the role Rice reduces him to. Because of the salary they pay him and the fact that he has enough talent to justify getting carries, the Ravens use him almost exclusively in a goal line role to reduce the punishment to Rice and to find a way to get McGahee work. I am a firm believer that when McGahee is gone, Rice will get the majority of the work in all situations, because they won't have a player of McGahee's caliber able to justify not doing so.

You can continue to say it all you want but that doesn't mean Ray Rice will ever get goal line carries. He might see 5 goal line carries all season if he's lucky. The Ravens have never said he would get goal line carries and his play doesn't warrant it either.

 

[Go deep]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

I will continue to say this- the McGahee situation is incredibly unique. The Ravens are paying him a fairly large sum of money for a backup and he is probably too talented to play as just a pure backup, yet that is the role Rice reduces him to. Because of the salary they pay him and the fact that he has enough talent to justify getting carries, the Ravens use him almost exclusively in a goal line role to reduce the punishment to Rice and to find a way to get McGahee work. I am a firm believer that when McGahee is gone, Rice will get the majority of the work in all situations, because they won't have a player of McGahee's caliber able to justify not doing so.

I cant imagine the Ravens giving a guy goaline carries because they are paying him alot of money. Either way, why would the Ravens give someone other than Rice goalline carries to reduce wear the last few season and then stop next year? I think Mcclain will take over as the GL back next year after Willis is gone.

 

[Herm23]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

I will continue to say this- the McGahee situation is incredibly unique. The Ravens are paying him a fairly large sum of money for a backup and he is probably too talented to play as just a pure backup, yet that is the role Rice reduces him to. Because of the salary they pay him and the fact that he has enough talent to justify getting carries, the Ravens use him almost exclusively in a goal line role to reduce the punishment to Rice and to find a way to get McGahee work. I am a firm believer that when McGahee is gone, Rice will get the majority of the work in all situations, because they won't have a player of McGahee's caliber able to justify not doing so.

I cant imagine the Ravens giving a guy goaline carries because they are paying him alot of money. Either way, why would the Ravens give someone other than Rice goalline carries to reduce wear the last few season and then stop next year? I think Mcclain will take over as the GL back next year after Willis is gone.

Because McClain is a pro bowl fullback and they aren't about to change his position and take him away from being a very effective lead blocker. I don't doubt that he McClain will see an increase in goal line touches if/when McGahee leaves, however he won't get more than Rice, as you just aren't going to give your fullback that many touches. The reason they would stop saving the wear and tear on Rice after doing it for 2 years is directly related to no longer having McGahee on the roster. McGahee is good enough to be on the field, yet not good enough to warrant taking Rice off the field in any situation except at the goal line. This is what prompts them to use McGahee in this role. There aren't a lot of players in the league that will be free agents that will sign as a backup and are good enough to warrant taking Rice out in any situation. McGahee just happens to be one of the handful of them. If the Ravens sign one of the other handful of players this off season, then it will be the same issues for Rice. However, the odds of that happening are not what I would call great.There are certainly exceptions to the rule, but generally teams with all pro caliber running backs don't put a priority on going out and acquiring another running back at any kind of cost in free agency (Thomas Jones to the Chiefs comes to mind, but as I said there are exceptions). I feel comfortable enough that the Ravens won't be putting any significant money into the backup running back situation next year that Ray Rice will see a drastic rise in goal line carries and as a result a drastic rise in fantasy production. This, coupled with what I believe to be a very high level of talent (bested by only 3 or 4 current running backs at most) keeps him in my top 6.As to eagles7 (I forgot to quote your post and I don't feel like taking the time to properly do so), I have never said Rice was going to get goal line touches for the rest of this season. He won't and that will cause him to fall down people's rankings. All I am saying is that I feel strongly it is a VERY short term problem and patient owners will reap the rewards starting next season. Of course, all of this is assuming McGahee is gone next year, which while likely, is not a guarantee.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

IIRC McGahee's salary escalates to $6m+ next year. Really hard to believe they'll keep him around in such a limited role at that price. So Rice should see more GL carries even if he's not the first choice there.

Related - I think McGahee's a great buy if you can get him at a price that makes sense for one or two years.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

My thoughts as well. Rice is a very good inside and short yardage runner as he's deceptively strong and has incredible balance. Its not like he can't handle goal-line duties, its just that they need to justify MaGahee's prcie tag and want to keep Rice fresh. MaGahee is certainly gone next year which doesn't automatically mean goal-line carries for Rice, but I wouldn't count them out either. I think he bounces back big time from a "down" year.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations.

Can you back that up? I haven't been able to find the stats but from watching him in college and the pros I've seen him convert in many short yardage situations. Perhaps I'm over-rating his abilities there, but I don't correlate not getting goal-line carries to not being able to convert goal-line carries necessarily.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I still view him as a top 5-7 player. The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true. As long as Willis McGahee is around, he won't receive many goal line carries, but at his price tag and with his desire to see an increased workload, I don't expect McGahee to be back next year. This will leave a much larger share of goal line work for Rice as soon as next season.Long story longer, he is absolutely still an elite talent and his ability is not the problem (he's still averaging over 100 total yards per game). His situation is very fleeting and could be much better as soon as next year.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations. It is just as myopic to say he definately will get them next season, or that there is no valid concern. I have been saying for some time, and still believe, that Ray Rice never needed to worry about McGahee, he needed to worry about the McGahee role: any number of RBBC backs that could come along and vulture goal line carries from him.

I will continue to say this- the McGahee situation is incredibly unique. The Ravens are paying him a fairly large sum of money for a backup and he is probably too talented to play as just a pure backup, yet that is the role Rice reduces him to. Because of the salary they pay him and the fact that he has enough talent to justify getting carries, the Ravens use him almost exclusively in a goal line role to reduce the punishment to Rice and to find a way to get McGahee work. I am a firm believer that when McGahee is gone, Rice will get the majority of the work in all situations, because they won't have a player of McGahee's caliber able to justify not doing so.

I cant imagine the Ravens giving a guy goaline carries because they are paying him alot of money. Either way, why would the Ravens give someone other than Rice goalline carries to reduce wear the last few season and then stop next year? I think Mcclain will take over as the GL back next year after Willis is gone.

That's certainly possible.

 

[renesauz]

Ray Rice is in for a fall in my rankings this week. I have been holding out hope that he was going to eventually get more GL looks. I dont think that is ever going to happen. He will never see 70 receptions again, and is barely averaging 4 YPC. No doubt he is talented, but he is not an elite talent. Does anyone still value him as a top 5-7 dynasty back, if so i would love to hear your reason.

I think it depends on the league. PPR, he's still a top five guy averaging over 100 yards a game with several receptions most games. The lack of goal line touches probably knocks him down into the low RB1 area in non-ppr.He's been dissapointing this year, but not a "bust" as far too many people have tried to label him.

 

[thriftyrocker]

The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations.

Can you back that up? I haven't been able to find the stats but from watching him in college and the pros I've seen him convert in many short yardage situations. Perhaps I'm over-rating his abilities there, but I don't correlate not getting goal-line carries to not being able to convert goal-line carries necessarily.

He has less TDs because he's broken fewer big plays. I think most Rice owners would be content with McClain getting 3 to 5 TDs next year if Rice had 3 to 5 30 to 40 yard TDs which just haven't happened this year. Just look at Charles - he is justifiably getting bumped by everyone because the (jaw dropping) YPC and big plays are there. But Thomas Jones still has one year left (little chance they cut him - makes less next year) and Charles' RZ utilization is far lower than Rice (30% vs. 15%).Rice has been money in the bank in PPR leagues. On pace for 70 receptions this year, even with Boldin, Heap, and Mason all having decent years.

 

[Concept Coop]

The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations.

Can you back that up? I haven't been able to find the stats but from watching him in college and the pros I've seen him convert in many short yardage situations. Perhaps I'm over-rating his abilities there, but I don't correlate not getting goal-line carries to not being able to convert goal-line carries necessarily.

He has less TDs because he's broken fewer big plays. I think most Rice owners would be content with McClain getting 3 to 5 TDs next year if Rice had 3 to 5 30 to 40 yard TDs which just haven't happened this year. Just look at Charles - he is justifiably getting bumped by everyone because the (jaw dropping) YPC and big plays are there. But Thomas Jones still has one year left (little chance they cut him - makes less next year) and Charles' RZ utilization is far lower than Rice (30% vs. 15%).Rice has been money in the bank in PPR leagues. On pace for 70 receptions this year, even with Boldin, Heap, and Mason all having decent years.

I am referring to non-PPR, as is Go Deep, based on his rankings. Jamaal Charles is on another level than Ray Rice right now. He is not dependant on TDs to be top 10 in non-PPR leages, Ray Rice is. The advanced stats show that Charles is the most dangerous RB in the NLF right now on a per play basis, and he is getting consistant touches. On the other hand, Ray Rice has a negative win ratio per play, even worse if we only count carries. Granted, a lot of that is the offense he is in, as McGahee's is a lot worse. But regardless of what it is, it is not equating to fantasy points. In PPR, it is really as simple as yards and touchdowns. Rice is averaging less than 4YPC and has 3 touchdowns on the year. That simply isn't top 5 production. And good luck expecting him to get 3-5x 30+ yard touchdown runs anytime soon. His longest run of the season: 30 yards.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

Seems like Rice's disappointing year has been a perfect storm of big plays called back, an injury that dragged down a couple games, a full slate of tough run defenses, inconsistent involvement in the passing game and simply not getting the holes he was last year. He had a lot of things go right last year and a lot of things go wrong this year. I'd say what he is is somewhere in between the two seasons' output. Obviously is McGahee is gone next year I'd feel better about his outlook--I still think he's a terrifc back in a solid offense who is capable of consistent 100 total yard games mixed in with some explosive games where he breaks long touchdown runs.

Still young in a good offense. Should be in the top 5-10 backs next year.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Ray Rice has never been a goal line back (limited opportunities I know) and never will be that back. Even if McGahee leaves next season for another team or retires the goal line work will go to another back like LaRon McClain or whoever else they bring in to the fold.

 

[thehornet]

The lack of goal line looks is very short term and to say he never will get them is what I would consider a very myopic view. Contrary to popular belief, he has been reasonably successful in short goal line situations. As a Ray Rice owner in a league, and someone who frequently watches every snap of every game, I can confirm that this is true.

He actually has not been very successful in goal line situations.

Can you back that up? I haven't been able to find the stats but from watching him in college and the pros I've seen him convert in many short yardage situations. Perhaps I'm over-rating his abilities there, but I don't correlate not getting goal-line carries to not being able to convert goal-line carries necessarily.

He has less TDs because he's broken fewer big plays. I think most Rice owners would be content with McClain getting 3 to 5 TDs next year if Rice had 3 to 5 30 to 40 yard TDs which just haven't happened this year. Just look at Charles - he is justifiably getting bumped by everyone because the (jaw dropping) YPC and big plays are there. But Thomas Jones still has one year left (little chance they cut him - makes less next year) and Charles' RZ utilization is far lower than Rice (30% vs. 15%).Rice has been money in the bank in PPR leagues. On pace for 70 receptions this year, even with Boldin, Heap, and Mason all having decent years.

I am referring to non-PPR, as is Go Deep, based on his rankings. Jamaal Charles is on another level than Ray Rice right now. He is not dependant on TDs to be top 10 in non-PPR leages, Ray Rice is. The advanced stats show that Charles is the most dangerous RB in the NLF right now on a per play basis, and he is getting consistant touches. On the other hand, Ray Rice has a negative win ratio per play, even worse if we only count carries. Granted, a lot of that is the offense he is in, as McGahee's is a lot worse. But regardless of what it is, it is not equating to fantasy points. In PPR, it is really as simple as yards and touchdowns. Rice is averaging less than 4YPC and has 3 touchdowns on the year. That simply isn't top 5 production. And good luck expecting him to get 3-5x 30+ yard touchdown runs anytime soon. His longest run of the season: 30 yards.

on another level?Charles 1565 yfs and 4 tdRice1376 yfs and 3 tdOne good game by rice and one dud by Charles and their numbers are identical. forget ypc because end of year stats are all that matters. Rice being at 3.9 ypc this year isn't a clear indication of his ability.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Jamaal Charles is on another level than Ray Rice right now. He is not dependant on TDs to be top 10 in non-PPR leages, Ray Rice is.

Both are no-brainer "top 10" if that's really the discussion. I agree Charles is better and playing on another level. Another level than any other RB. My comment was more to situation since the initial focus was on goalline utilization.

On the other hand, Ray Rice has a negative win ratio per play, even worse if we only count carries.

His success rate is the same as Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy. He's 13th in yards above replacement (YAR) and defense-adjusted YAR. The only place his stats fall apart is 2nd level yards and open field yards, which is also affected by OLine play.

And good luck expecting him to get 3-5x 30+ yard touchdown runs anytime soon. His longest run of the season: 30 yards.

Short sighted. He had a lot of big plays last year. McGahee and McClain's YPC is also down this year with no big plays. McCoy, McFadden and Charles are playing at a much higher level and have passed him. But he is still elite and I would buy him if anyone felt otherwise.

 

[Concept Coop]

on another level?Charles 1565 yfs and 4 tdRice1376 yfs and 3 tdOne good game by rice and one dud by Charles and their numbers are identical. forget ypc because end of year stats are all that matters. Rice being at 3.9 ypc this year isn't a clear indication of his ability.

Basic stats are flawed. Charles is more likely to score, more likely to get a first down, and gets 2 more yards, every time he touches the ball. And yes, using just fantasy points, Charles is on another level. He is an RB1, Rice is not.

 

[thriftyrocker]

And yes, using just fantasy points, Charles is on another level. He is an RB1, Rice is not.

Name 12 RBs you'd rather have in dynasty.Keep in mind Frank Gore only had 3 rushing TDs this year, DeAngelo only 1 (in 6 games), and Best hasn't scored since Kevin Kolb was the QB for your Philadelphia Eagles.

 

[Concept Coop]

His success rate is the same as Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy. He's 13th in yards above replacement (YAR) and defense-adjusted YAR. The only place his stats fall apart is 2nd level yards and open field yards, which is also affected by OLine play.

McCoy has the highest SR(%) in the NFL at 50! AP is 41 and Ray Rice is 38.McCoy also has the highest win probability in the NFL, while AP is clearly above average: Both players are positive, while Rice's is negative.As far as DVOA, Peterson is 17%, McCoy 12%, and Rice at 4%. DYAR: Peterson 251; McCoy 143; Rice 111I am not sure what stats you are looking at.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Basic stats are flawed.

Do you play in many leagues that use non-basic stats? Previously when discussing Foster you said that all that matters is production. Charles and Rice have similiar ultimate production.I love Charles as well so I'm not really debating Charles v. Rice.Don't take this request as being a wise guy, but did you find any stats that back up your claim above that Rice is a poor short yardage back like I asked above? I still haven't found anything to show that either way - but watching him play a lot in college and the pros tells me that he is effective when the opportunity is there.

 

[thriftyrocker]

His success rate is the same as Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy. He's 13th in yards above replacement (YAR) and defense-adjusted YAR. The only place his stats fall apart is 2nd level yards and open field yards, which is also affected by OLine play.

McCoy has the highest SR(%) in the NFL at 50! AP is 41 and Ray Rice is 38.McCoy also has the highest win prabability in the NFL, while AP is clearly above average: Both players are positive, while Rice's is negative.

As far as DVOA, Peterson is 17%, McCoy 12%, and Rice at 4%.

DYAR: Peterson 251; McCoy 143; Rice 111

I am not sure what stats you are looking at.

Through week 13 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

 

[Concept Coop]

And yes, using just fantasy points, Charles is on another level. He is an RB1, Rice is not.

Name 12 RBs you'd rather have in dynasty.Keep in mind Frank Gore only had 3 rushing TDs this year, DeAngelo only 1 (in 6 games), and Best hasn't scored since Kevin Kolb was the QB for your Philadelphia Eagles.

I said playing on another level. My statement was not to suggest that Rice is not a dynasty RB1, just that he has not been an RB1 this season. I couldn't name 12 I would rather have. I have Rice top 10, which is a lot lower than top 4, as perception has been. That is the difference between a top 4 overall pick and a 2nd round pick.

 

[thriftyrocker]

As far as DVOA, Peterson is 17%, McCoy 12%, and Rice at 4%.

BTW, clearly this is the biggest outlier/anomaly and it points directly to what I've been saying - no big plays. His DVOA in 2009 was 16.8%.

 

[Concept Coop]

Basic stats are flawed.

Do you play in many leagues that use non-basic stats? Previously when discussing Foster you said that all that matters is production. Charles and Rice have similiar ultimate production.I love Charles as well so I'm not really debating Charles v. Rice.Don't take this request as being a wise guy, but did you find any stats that back up your claim above that Rice is a poor short yardage back like I asked above? I still haven't found anything to show that either way - but watching him play a lot in college and the pros tells me that he is effective when the opportunity is there.

I actually haven't found the stats, but I did look for quite some time. It is amazing how advanced NBA and MLB stat keeping is compared to the NFL. I am basing my statement on a graphic (CBS, I think) that showed last year that stated McGahee was twice as effective on 3rd/4th and short than Rice was last season. Because I don't have the specifics, I won't use that. I will simply say that based on what I have seen, Rice is not great in short yardage situations. Simple Redzone stats (3 carries, 3 touchdowns = 100%) don't capture this as they do nothing to analyze the individual situations each carry takes place in. But, to answer your first question, no. None of my leagues reward advanced stats. But they are a great light to hold dynasty prospects up to, one that goes far beyond basic stats. All that matters is production and advanced stats are only a more specific, in depth evaluation of production. For the record, advance stats show that Foster is playing as well, or better, than his numbers suggest. As for your ultimate production (Rice = Charles) comment, that only applies in re-draft formats. Production measures show that Charles is the better player, and does more with each touch, meaning, Rice is far more dependant on his carry load. If that changes, so will is production. Charles, on the other hand, is in a situation that is more likely to change for the better, while Rice is currently has a full load.In other words, Rice needs the ball a lot more to match Charles' ultimate production. It is not safe to predict that trend (number of carries greatly favoring Rice) so it definitely matters.

 

[Concept Coop]

Through week 13 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That is exactly where I am looking, and nowhere (that I see) does it show that Rice is close to McCoy or Peterson on any advanced stat.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Basic stats are flawed.

Do you play in many leagues that use non-basic stats? Previously when discussing Foster you said that all that matters is production. Charles and Rice have similiar ultimate production.I love Charles as well so I'm not really debating Charles v. Rice.

Don't take this request as being a wise guy, but did you find any stats that back up your claim above that Rice is a poor short yardage back like I asked above? I still haven't found anything to show that either way - but watching him play a lot in college and the pros tells me that he is effective when the opportunity is there.

I actually haven't found the stats, but I did look for quite some time. It is amazing how advanced NBA and MLB stat keeping is compared to the NFL. I am basing my statement on a graphic (CBS, I think) that showed last year that stated McGahee was twice as effective on 3rd/4th and short than Rice was last season. Because I don't have the specifics, I won't use that. I will simply say that based on what I have seen, Rice is not great in short yardage situations. Simple Redzone stats (3 carries, 3 touchdowns = 100%) don't capture this as they do nothing to analyze the individual situations each carry takes place in. But, to answer your first question, no. None of my leagues reward advanced stats. But they are a great light to hold dynasty prospects up to, one that goes far beyond basic stats. All that matters is production and advanced stats are only a more specific, in depth evaluation of production. For the record, advance stats show that Foster is playing as well, or better, than his numbers suggest.

As for your ultimate production (Rice = Charles) comment, that only applies in re-draft formats. Production measures show that Charles is the better player, and does more with each touch, meaning, Rice is far more dependant on his carry load. If that changes, so will is production. Charles, on the other hand, is in a situation that is more likely to change for the better, while Rice is currently has a full load.

In other words, Rice needs the ball a lot more to match Charles' ultimate production. It is not safe to predict that trend (number of carries greatly favoring Rice) so it definitely matters.

Personally I don't believe many of the sabermetric type stats are as useful in football as they may be in baseball. To me football is more on an "eyeball test" sport than baseball. I will not say they hold no value, I just don't think they tell as much of a story as those that produce them and try to sell them would like us to beleive they do. As far as Rice v. Charles - there is some grey area there as well. Charles lofty ypc may not be as high if he was given the heavy workload that Rice has been given. Charles is actually smaller and runs with less power than Rice so he's in the same position as potentially never being a goal line back as well (although I also see him as being fully capable of handling the role). It also seems his coaching staff doesn't fully trust him to carry a full load so I'm not sure his situation does get better even after Jones leaves.

All that isn't meant to clam Charles as I actually rate both as top 5 dynast backs.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Through week 13 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That is exactly where I am looking, and nowhere (that I see) does it show that Rice is close to McCoy or Peterson on any advanced stat.

His success rate is the same as Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy. He's 13th in yards above replacement (YAR) and defense-adjusted YAR. The only place his stats fall apart is 2nd level yards and open field yards, which is also affected by OLine play.

Link

 

[thehornet]

on another level?Charles 1565 yfs and 4 tdRice1376 yfs and 3 tdOne good game by rice and one dud by Charles and their numbers are identical. forget ypc because end of year stats are all that matters. Rice being at 3.9 ypc this year isn't a clear indication of his ability.

Basic stats are flawed. Charles is more likely to score, more likely to get a first down, and gets 2 more yards, every time he touches the ball. And yes, using just fantasy points, Charles is on another level. He is an RB1, Rice is not.

I dont understand. How are basic stats flawed? These the year to date stats.keep in mind, this has been a down yar for rice and an up year for charles and still Charles stats are only marginally better.I personally disagree that Charles is more likely to get you 2 crucial yards over rice.

 

[Concept Coop]

Personally I don't believe many of the sabermetric type stats are as useful in football as they may be in baseball. To me football is more on an "eyeball test" sport than baseball. I will not say they hold no value, I just don't think they tell as much of a story as those that produce them and try to sell them would like us to beleive they do. As far as Rice v. Charles - there is some grey area there as well. Charles lofty ypc may not be as high if he was given the heavy workload that Rice has been given. Charles is actually smaller and runs with less power than Rice so he's in the same position as potentially never being a goal line back as well (although I also see him as being fully capable of handling the role). It also seems his coaching staff doesn't fully trust him to carry a full load so I'm not sure his situation does get better even after Jones leaves.All that isn't meant to clam Charles as I actually rate both as top 5 dynast backs.

I agree that football requires the eyeball test much for than baseball, and basketball, to a lesser extent. Advanced stats are flawed, in that there is only so much to measure in football. There is no way to put Charles in Rice's shoes and know how he would perform in the exact same situations. But they do go further than YPC and touchdowns.If I felt that Rice was an a top 5 player, I would be more willing to look for reasons why his stats are what they are. But I simply don't. In this thread, before the season started, I said that I didn't think Rice was an elite talent, and this season hasn't done anything to change that. In other words, if my eyes didn't mirror the advanced stats, I might not place as much stock in them. But both my eyes and the stats (standards and advanced) show that Rice is simply an above average runningback. Due to age and situation, top 10 (dynasty).

 

[Concept Coop]

Through week 13 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That is exactly where I am looking, and nowhere (that I see) does it show that Rice is close to McCoy or Peterson on any advanced stat.

His success rate is the same as Adrian Peterson and LeSean McCoy. He's 13th in yards above replacement (YAR) and defense-adjusted YAR. The only place his stats fall apart is 2nd level yards and open field yards, which is also affected by OLine play.

Link

That is not adjusted for anything. The site mentions that it is only a measure of consistancy. It cleary says that DVOA and DYAR are the measures of value - Rice falls short in both.This site has advanced, adjusted SR% and McCoy is tops in the NFL: http://www.advancednflstats.com/

 

[Concept Coop]

I dont understand. How are basic stats flawed? These the year to date stats.keep in mind, this has been a down yar for rice and an up year for charles and still Charles stats are only marginally better.I personally disagree that Charles is more likely to get you 2 crucial yards over rice.

All stats are flawed, but basic stats do nothing to attempt to correct it: 100 yards on 20 carries against the Cards are represented as equal to 100 yards on 20 carries against the Steelers; in some cases, 100 yards on 40 carries are equal to 100 yards on 10 carries. Essentially, advanced flaws do more to separate the Mike Andersons from the Clinton Portises. Honestly, my understanding of advanced stats is not such that I can explain them easily. I would suggest going to one of the sites and reading more about the stats. There is some really interesting information, especially when it goes into winning percentages: how much a players impact affects wins and losses. Charles stats are not marginally better. Charles helps his team win more and does much more each time he touches the ball.

 

[The Man With No Name]

According to the FBG Data Dominator this year from the opponents 5 yard line to the goal line, Rice has 6 carries for 6 yards, with 4 first downs and 3 touchdowns.

Charles has 3 carries for 10 yards, 2 first downs, 2 touchdowns.

 

[thriftyrocker]

That is not adjusted for anything. The site mentions that it is only a measure of consistancy. It cleary says that DVOA and DYAR are the measures of value - Rice falls short in both.

This site has advanced, adjusted SR% and McCoy is tops in the NFL: http://www.advancednflstats.com/

These stats interpret "success" as scoring TDs (emphasis on expected points). The FO stats interpret "success" as getting a 1st down. Obviously Rice is much more valuable if the emphasis is on 1st downs. Basically your argument has come full circle - he hasn't scored TDs this year therefore he isn't talented. But there's no hard evidence he's bad at scoring TDs.

4, 3, 2, 9, 4, 11, 3, 13, 11, 5

That is Tiki Barber's TDs scored by year. If you sold him after his 5th year, you'd probably have regretted it. If you sold him after his 7th year you'd probably have regretted it.

 

[Concept Coop]

That is not adjusted for anything. The site mentions that it is only a measure of consistancy. It cleary says that DVOA and DYAR are the measures of value - Rice falls short in both.

This site has advanced, adjusted SR% and McCoy is tops in the NFL: http://www.advancednflstats.com/

These stats interpret "success" as scoring TDs (emphasis on expected points). The FO stats interpret "success" as getting a 1st down. Obviously Rice is much more valuable if the emphasis is on 1st downs. Basically your argument has come full circle - he hasn't scored TDs this year therefore he isn't talented. But there's no hard evidence he's bad at scoring TDs.

4, 3, 2, 9, 4, 11, 3, 13, 11, 5

That is Tiki Barber's TDs scored by year. If you sold him after his 5th year, you'd probably have regretted it. If you sold him after his 7th year you'd probably have regretted it.

How is my argument coming full circle? The SR% you are using is not adjusted - it is a basic stat. The link you gave me, not only explains this, it clearly tells you that the two stats used to equate value are DYAS and DVOA. In both of those metrics, Rice is clearly behind both McCoy and Peterson. If your argument is that, in a vacuum, Rice has as many "successful" plays as McCoy and Peterson, then you are right. But Peterson and McCoy are doing more with their plays than Rice is. Sure, Rice is just as likely to get 4 yards on a first down carry. But that stat only measures up to those 4 yards, ignoring that Peterson and McCoy are breaking runs and scoring touchdowns. Essentially, that stat values a 4 yard run on first down the same as a 90 yard touchdown on first down. It is pointless and only a measure of consistency.

I clearly said that I couldn't find a stat to measure goal line production, aside from the simple "x carries for x yards and x TDs" which is not adjusted at all. A 3rd/4th and short stat would be much more helpful.

Why use Tiki Barber? His career is far from the standard in term of trajectory, he is simply an anomaly. If you want to invest stock in players having that kind of growth, later in their careers, be my guest. I find no logic in it, however.

 

[thriftyrocker]

How is my argument coming full circle? The SR% you are using is not adjusted - it is a basic stat.

It's not very basic if the two sites define it differently :dizzy:

If your argument is that, in a vacuum, Rice has as many "successful" plays as McCoy and Peterson, then you are right. But Peterson and McCoy are doing more with their plays than Rice is.

True. If our sample size is 2010.

Why use Tiki Barber? His career is far from the standard in term of trajectory, he is simply an anomaly. If you want to invest stock in players having that kind of growth, later in their careers, be my guest. I find no logic in it, however.

The argument talks to the value of yardage-heavy RBs who don't regularly get goalline. Why wouldn't Tiki be the first name that came to mind? He had < 5 TDs in years after he broke out. The fact that Rice is (probably) having one shouldn't be a shock to the system.Curtis Martin, Fred Taylor, I could point to a lot more near-HOF (or better) quality RBs who had assorted bad TD years in the middle of their careers.

 

[Concept Coop]

How is my argument coming full circle? The SR% you are using is not adjusted - it is a basic stat.

It's not very basic if the two sites define it differently :dizzy:

If your argument is that, in a vacuum, Rice has as many "successful" plays as McCoy and Peterson, then you are right. But Peterson and McCoy are doing more with their plays than Rice is.

True. If our sample size is 2010.

Why use Tiki Barber? His career is far from the standard in term of trajectory, he is simply an anomaly. If you want to invest stock in players having that kind of growth, later in their careers, be my guest. I find no logic in it, however.

The argument talks to the value of yardage-heavy RBs who don't regularly get goalline. Why wouldn't Tiki be the first name that came to mind? He had < 5 TDs in years after he broke out. The fact that Rice is (probably) having one shouldn't be a shock to the system.Curtis Martin, Fred Taylor, I could point to a lot more near-HOF (or better) quality RBs who had assorted bad TD years in the middle of their careers.

The problem being that we don't know (and I personally don't think) Rice is a near-HOF (or better) quality RB capable of being a top 10 RB on a regular basis, without more TDs. Because others have means nothing to Rice, unless he is also as capable. My eyes and stats suggest that he is not. He is a good NFL talent in a good situation. Because he is 23, I can see putting him top 10. But top 5 is reserved for players I feel are capable of finishing at or close to RB5 regularly. I think the top 5 are pretty set in stone and Rice is not a good enough player to crack that list, unless something drastic happens: ADP, CJ, MJD, AF, JC.