This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Priest Holmes and Terrell Davis were good "because of their lines" and I am sure they won a lot of people championships. I am not a scout, and am not going to pretend that I am. Foster is on pace for 2,000/20. That is top 5 (overall, actually) production. I am not going to write that off, becuase he doesn't look like my initial bias suggests that he should, while doing it.
Yes that is top 5 for this year. i thought we were dicussing dynasty.
I've had to watch a number of Buffalo games to do game recaps, and the only thing that you can gather on TV is that Lee Evans just doesn't get the ball. Unless you have coaches film or are at the game, it's pretty impossible to know WHY he doesn't get the ball.....but he just doesn't get the ball thrown his way and isn't a big part of who Fitzpatrick looks for, except for the occasional deep ball.
Given you 3 or 4 other examples. Here's another one. Frank Gore had 1 carry over 40 yards in 2007. He had 1 carry over 40 yards in 2008. He had no catches over 30 yards in either of those years. This year I think he only had 1 carry over 40 yards. I think it's wrong to look at Charles and Rice and say there's no difference in talent there based on 2010 stats. It's obvious Charles is tearing up the league right now, just on a smaller number of carries. But its equally wrong to say Rice isn't "elite" or a "playmaker" because he's not Charles. Unless you're shifting this argument to what a "playmaker" is, I don't think the original quote has any merit. Elite RBs have years with few or no big plays. Tiki did. Fred Taylor did. Curtis Martin did. Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders even did.
We are. Priest Holmes and TD were both were both fantasy dynasty options during their time.
I never once said Rice wasn't elite or not a playmaker because he is not Charles. And, again (even though I am trying not to use the term elite anymore) BEFORE this season I said Rice was not elite. Before he went a season without a run over 30 yards. I am not changing my story now that it is convenient. As for Gore, he didn't need long TD runs to perform at a top 10 level. According to you and others, Ray Rice does - based on your suggestion that the reason Rice isn't scoring at an RB1 pace, is because of the lack of big plays. And Forte, Rashad Jennings, Brandon Jacobs, and plenty of others who most of us would agree are not top 10, have had 70+ yards plays this season. My statement was not to suggest that the number of long runs makes you a play maker, or lack of, means you are not. You are taking one statement and trying to pin it on me as an end all, be all statement. Long plays are not all that make you a play-maker, and I never suggested that it was. And why are we using Curtis Martin, Emmitt Smith, and Barry Sanders in a conversation about Ray Rice? As of right now, based on efficiency, Rice has had one good season, and one poor season. We don't know which is the anomaly yet.
I think the Bradshaw/Jacobs comparison that was brought above above will be spot on. Tolbert may be the "goal-line" back, but Mattehews may not get pulled from the game just because the Chargers are at the GL. Matthews is a pretty big back in his own right - I agree he's a guy to target as I think next season he;ll be what everyone thought he'd be this season.
Sidney Rice, Michael Bush, Felix Jones, Ronnie Brown, Matt Schaub, to name a few.I will aslo be looking to pick up the "old" running backs that people are going to start selling: Gore, Williams, Turner et cetera.
Wish you were in my league. I couldn't give Ronnie Brown for over a year now.
If you are willing to give him away, so do I.
And why is Forte breaking 70 yard plays while Rice isn't? Do you think Forte is a better 2nd level and open field runner than Rice? Or is it the OLine, opposing DC's strategies, etc. It is reasonable with modest changes in situation (no knee sprains, Gaither being healthy) or even just luck, Rice will put up top 5 numbers several more times.
I guess we'll suspend this until 2015 or 2020 when Rice has played out his career to determine if he is under or overvalued right now. As I said earlier, if you think this year is the norm for Rice you need to stop hedging and saying he's still a RB1 and bump Best, Felix or whoever you believe in more in front of him.
This is pretty much the best strategy.
First of all, no need to accuse me of hedging. We are talking about dynasty leagues here, and Rice is 23 years old. Even if he finished as an high end RB2 for the next 8 years, he would warrant a top 10 ranking. Understand how that works?Funny you use the Forte argument. Forte had an RB1 season, followed by an injury riddled 2nd season. Yet, he was tossed aside while Rice is having excuses made for him. What is the difference between Forte and Rice? They are pretty close, actually, with Forte having the better season, with a lesser offensive line, even after an injury. And, again, lets make it clear that neither of us are hedging. Tell me what makes Rice better than the following - It is easy for you to claim he is top 5, without defending that opinion, other than to question mine and search for inconsistencies:APCJMJDAFJCThat is my op 5, which I clearly said he is not, to spark this conversation. Next, here are a few pretty close to Rice (first two better, in my opinion), tell me what makes him better than:McCoyMcFaddenMorenoStewartBradshawHillisLasty, I don't think anyone said he is not good. I said top 10, which is good. If you think paying top 10 ransom for Rice is buying low, good luck to you both.
Need to check your sabermetrics on that one. He is having a terrible year from an NFL perspective outside of the big plays.
I like this game. Instead of searching for small inconsistencies, irrelevant to the conversation at hand, why don't you answer the questions?
Because it's so tired at this point I assume most want us to stop. Comparing Rice to Forte is bad and you stepped in that trap yourself. The difference between Charles and Rice is less than the difference between Rice and Forte from a dynasty perspective. It's not a small inconsistency.
It's no longer a discussion, its just going around in circles now. Some believe in Rice, some don't it seems. 
Let me get this straight: you can talk about it when you have, what you perceive to be, an inconsistency to point out, but not when I am asking a valid question beneficial to the thread? The very least you can do is tell me where you rank him, and who you rank him above. Again, it is easy to scream that he is top five, without giving a list or any reasoning behind it. I didn't step in any trap - I have nothing to take back as I didn't say anything I didn't mean. Forte and Rice have a lot in common: 2nd round picks, great pass catching skills, great first (full seasons), let down 2nd (full) season, and if you look at their fantasy numbers, those are dang close too.
Like most arguments we are closer than the contentiousness would make it appear. From yesterday:
That makes him #8 for me.
Bill James' use of advanced statistics to figure out how to win at baseball. Can do the same thing in football, like the DYOA (defense-adjusted yards over average) stat being used to discuss Rice.Link: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rbWhat are sabermetrics... What happened here.
#10. Even if he ran a 4.55 and had a mediocre landing spot.mlball77 said:
15 or so. I really like this kid and am going to try to aquire him, despite is high price tag.mlball77 said:
He would be somewhere around 8-12 for me I think. He is about as bust proof as a RB gets to me, although I don't think he has Peterson-CJ3-MJD upside.mlball77 said:
Greene probably belongs in your tier 5. Tomlinson has to be done soon.
I am not asking to get back into the same Rice argument. But isn't MJD what hope Rice will be, IF he gets goal line carries? MJD is currently #2 in the NFL in terms of rushing yards. I think he is currently RB3 or 4 at the moment in FPF, even after a slow start, and finished ahead of Rice last season too.
I just like Rice's overall skill set more. I think Rice is every bit the rusher MJD is AND is a much better dual threat. MJD is currently a much better touchdown bet, but those are too fluky and can be very up and down (even MJD is having a very down year touchdown wise by his standards). Because of this, and because of the fact that I view Rice and MJD to be equal talents, I prefer the player who I expect to consistently have more overall total yardage.However, I would say the difference is essentially zero between them and it's simply a matter of personal preference. If I were to have listed my value scores for every player, you would have seen that I rate Rice, MJD, McFadden, and Foster as the exact same value score.
I would say 70-75% talent for running backs and 85% for WRs. I can see the argument for less based on shelf life for RBs as well.
It's easy to call some one a buy low, but in reality he's likely not a buy low. If some one held him on his roster all season while he missed games, why would they then turn and "give him away" once he's finally healthy and playing reasonably well for some one that missed so much time. I realize that buying low does not equal "give him away", but trying to make a point.With that said sure you could probably get him cheaper this offseason than last offseason at least.
In fact it's great posting.A few random thoughts:
No Michael Turner ranking within your top 5 tiers?
An interesting discussion topic that could merit a thread on its own (there probably have been numerous over the years) and I am sure that the breakdown of the percentages of talent v. situation has a direct correlation to the one's Dynasty philosopy and what type of team they put together. As I have noted in other posts, I take a shorter term outlook than many here (primarily the next 3 years) consequently situation weighs more heavily into the mix for me than it does for others. That said, I am not that far away from you on the RBs, although there is a significant difference on the WRs. For me the breakdowns would be:RBs - 60% talent and 40% situationWRs - 70% talent and 30% situationIn years past I had the WRs percentages about where you do - as I felt that in theory the elite WRs should do well no matter who their QB is or whatever else goes into the situation equation. But seeing some WRs suffer in their current situation (Fitzgerald comes to mind) I am not too sure talent overcomes all when you have QBs behind center like Leinert/Hall/Anderson/Skelton. Perhaps Fitzgerald is an anomaly, but I am more inclined to think that situation counts more with the WR postion than I had recently thought.
That situation is largely temporary though. With time, talent overcomes all. Elite WRs can deliver with okay QBs. Elite WRs can't deliver with garbage-level rookie QBs. Steve Smith even might outlive his bad situation given how high their draft pick will be. I think the chances of Arizona going into 2011 with Hall, Skelton, and Anderson as the rostered QBs is about 0%. They have a myriad of options at this point, including Palmer, Young, McNabb, and Mallet/Newton/Locker. Like Calvin Johnson last year, I think Fitzgerald qualifies as a buy low because he's dropped from "unattainable" to "attainable." Maybe you have to give up early 1sts and guys like Britt or Maclin to do it, but it can (and should) be done.That is why I'd argue WR value is more pure talent than what you're suggesting. He still put up top 20 numbers in PPR. He still has the same upside.Good situation can still have a positive effect on WRs (plug and play offenses like Indy, NE, SD). But bad situation doesn't affect value for me. Not much at least.
I think he is a top 5-7 dynasty WR and most don't. Therefore, that is exactly what buying low is: getting something for less that you feel it is worth, or would actually be willing to pay. Just because someone held onto Rice, doesn't mean they value him as much as I do. Not at all.
In theory it should, but I am not convinced that with every player of talent that it is simply just a question of time (luck/fate/circumstances can sometimes constantly intervene and the payoff doesn't always happen). In any event, my approach is such that I don't have the patience to possibly wait for 3-5 years for the situation to catch up with the talent. If others do so that is fine, it is just not my approach to Dynasty, which is more results oriented over a shorter time frame.
Not interested in battling on semantics. OK I get what you mean.
You are correct. I have not liked what I have seen from Turner at all this season. Not only is he beginning to fail my "eye test", but his efficiency metrics are down. He is continuing to succeed because of an awesome and virtually unchallenged workload, but that can only continue for so long if he continues to look as unimpressive as he has and conintues to have lagging metrics. The fact that he has the same age concerns as Gore and Jackson and I don't feel he is nearly as talented as either of them doesn't help his standing in my eyes as well.If I was a top level team in need of a running back to put me over the top, I would look to acquire him at a somewhat discounted rate from a non contending team. However, that is the only situation I would ever be looking to have him on my team at this point. I would trade him straight up for every player I have ranked in my top 5 tiers, plus Beanie Wells, Knowshon Moreno, probably DeAngelo Williams, potentially another rookie from this upcoming class (depending how they grade out and where they end up), and probably another player I am just forgetting off the top of my head. In other words, while I value Turner's production for this season, I'm worried about it every year moving forward starting next year (that might be too early to start writing him off for some, but again, I don't think he is on the same talent level as the other "age guys" that have similiar concerns).
In order:1. I'm probably wrong on MJD and most likely am simply being too stubborn to change my opinion, I won't try and cover that up. Usually my process for developing where I rank players is that I wait until I am able to form a strong opinion on a player, slot him where that opinion says he should go in my eyes, and then need strong evidence for me to change that ranking. For instance, while Rice has somewhat struggled from a stat perspective this year (not really since he is still on a great total yardage pace, but I suppose his overall stat package is a slight dissapointment), I have not seen any strong evidence regarding how he actually looks when he plays to cause me to change my opinion on him. With MJD, I formed the opinion that he was among the best of the "non special" bunch (the guys that I don't term once every few years players or once every generation players) and I guess I haven't seen anything out of him that would tell me he is a once every few years or better type player. Again, that's most likely just me being stubborn and not wanting to see it, as most everyone else apparently does see it and his performance indicates it is likely he is.2. All of your thoughts on Bradshaw are fair points. However, I look at everyone I put ahead of him and just feel they are flat out better players, with the exception of LeSean McCoy. I think both Bradshaw and McCoy are similiarly talented, but McCoy is in a much better situation in my eyes. That might sound weird, considering that the Giants offense is very solid and Coughlin loves to run, but I think it is true. I'm not convinced the Giants won't keep Bradshaw in some kind of rbbc for as long as he is there. Whether it's Jacobs or whatever running back they bring in, I think that worry will always exist. It would be less of a concern if I felt he were a more talented player.3. My head tells me that it's some combination of all 3 things with Wells- his coach is too stubborn and unwilling to change (despite what is one of the worst passing games in the entire league, he continues to treat it as if Kurt Warner is still under center and throws it way too much), I may have overestimated Beanie's talent a little (although I still believe in him bigtime), and there is probably something else at play that isn't widely known yet (disputes with coaching staff, lingering knee injury, or something else). All of this makes me lean towards the side that says Beanie is due for a big bounceback next year, but as I said I need to be able to form a strong opinion about a player before I rank him and thus go out and look to acquire him and, while I previously did have a strong opinion of Beanie, I have seen enough to cause me to back off on that opinion and continue to re-evaluate. I'm not to the point that I have re-formed a strong enough opinion yet, good or bad.4. Hillis is a tough nut to crack from a ranking standpoint. The long and short of it is that he just has left me unsatisfied after watching him play too many times this season (that sounds a little dirty). While every running back is going to have down games, many times due to factors outside of his control (game situation, terrible blocking, injury, etc...), usually those running backs still look great or show flashes. For instance, the few times that Arian Foster has had a down game this year (really there's only been 1, maybe 2 games), he still looked scintillating and you could tell he was still the goods, ditto Ray Rice (anytime he gets ANY kind of space, he looks so, so good), Adrian Peterson, Rashard Mendenhall (maybe not flashes of brilliance, but even during bad games he usually produces 1 or 2 plays that show you he is still a step up from a lot of players), etc... So far this season, Hillis has made up for some lack of running production with receiving production, but this is where I point to situation. Right now he is the entire offense- run Hillis left, run Hillis right, run Hillis up the middle, screen to Hillis, dump off to Hillis after none of their crappy receivers get open, check down to Hillis after their crappy QB can't find anybody open or make a play, etc... That is more what I meant by him being in a perfect situation right now. Unlike some of the other running backs with gaudy receiving numbers, I think Hillis' are a result of just being the only person capable of doing ANYTHING on the team. Add on to that the fact that Cleveland's offensive line is so good at run blocking that they can continue to open holes even though every defense knows Hillis is getting the ball and you have an awesome situation. I'm assuming that with Mike Holmgren making personnel decisions, the Browns won't continue to suck offensively, meaning Hillis won't be the only viable option on offense for too long. None of this would make me worry if Hillis looked better than he does. To me, he doesn't look like a great pass catching back, just an above average one who is the sole playmaker on the entire team, meaning he gets fed a TON (by comparison, I think Arian Foster or Ray Rice look like great pass catching backs). Thus, I'm discounting the receiving production somewhat and am analyzing the rushing performances. While at times he has looked great running, he has looked mediocre too many times for me to feel comfortable putting him above anyone I have ranked ahead of him. Add on to that his very aggressive running style and a higher opportunity for injury and I just feel that where I place him is correct. At this point in time, I would feel safer going into next season with every running back I have ranked ahead of him.5. Stewart is a player that I will likely move up to join the Rice, MJD, McFadden, and Foster grouping once his situation solidifies a little bit, assuming it solidifes for the good. The worry that he will have to spend another season splitting with DeAngelo (if Carolina franchises him and can't or won't trade him) means I can't put him on their same level until I know for sure he will be the main show in town in the backfield, but once I do, I don't doubt that he will perform on their level one bit.In fact it's great posting.A few random thoughts:1. MJD belongs in tier two. He's every bit as talented as those two runners and he is the center of his team's offense. MJD has everything CJ and Charles has, plus despite similiar size is far more powerful and has no threat to his goal-line touches.2. I undertsant the Bradshaw hesitence that his ability to break away from Jacobs brings but two things: 1. Coughlin has been a RBBC coach since he's been with the Giants (Tiki/Jacobs, Jacobs/Ward and Jacobs/Bradshaw. The Giants run a lot and need two backs to carry the load; and 2. As much as its fashionable to bash Brandon Jacob's talent level when he's on he's a different animal than anything else in the NFL. What other 260 pound RB breaks 73 yards runs like he did last week? He's in decline for sure as power type backs have sohort shelf lives, but he isn't some slouch.3. Absolutely agree on Wells. He looks like he has all the talent in the world, but something must be up. Hightower produces but looks so average while doing so.4. I disagree to some extent on Hillis. First, so what if his production is so situationally drive? Cleveland's o-line is young and talented, the situation should remain static for a while even if Mangini is canned (and I tend to believe he's earned another season. Second "talent" comes in many different shapes and sizes. No back rund like Hillis. He's 240 and obviously a pounder, but he also has quick nimble feet and soft hands in the passing game. His biggest downfall is that his running style will likely mean that he'll decline muich faster than other backs ala Marion Barber and Rudi Johnson. 5. I actually have Stewart even higher in my rankings so I wouldn't be one that says you have him too high. He's going to be a beast next season and beyond. His size speed combo and vision is outstanding.
As I said at the time- clearly someone doesn't understand what "zero percent" means...
Absolutely, positively, 100% on the money. I was one of them. I feel like I have a blind spot to Tom Brady- historically, I've taken every opportunity to downgrade him. I've clearly got a cognitive bias against him, to the point where I've actually added a note in my rankings spreadsheet that essentially reads "wherever you've got him ranked, you're probably underrating him".A whole lot of people sold him short when Moss got traded.
People get way, way, way too hung up on absolute rankings. Absolutely rankings don't mean a thing. They are literally completely and absolutely meaningless. All that matters is RELATIVE rankings- where you have a player ranked relative to his peers, and where you have a player ranked relative to where everyone else has him ranked.For instance, let's say that I've got Darius Heyward-Bey ranked at 19th in my current rankings (I don't, but we're playing "let's pretend"). Now, let's also say that Darius Heyward-Bey averages 1800 yard and 16 scores over the next 5 seasons. I would say that my current hypothetical ranking of DHB wasn't just a home run, it was a grand slam. Hell, it was more than a grand slam- if there was such a thing as a 6-run homer, it would be that. Sure, DHB might have outperformed my ranking by a mile (and I mean by a literal mile- that's easily 1800+ yards more than I'd expect from the #19 ranked receiver)... but the point is that it doesn't matter, because I guarantee you that I was the DHB owner. If everyone else has a player ranked 60th, and I've got a player ranked 19th, I *GUARANTEE YOU* that that player is on my roster. I've got him ranked so much higher than everyone else that I'm guaranteed to be the beneficiary of any future production he might post.
This is the key, though. Coaches are smart. The fact that Charles isn't allowed to touch the ball as much as Rice does means something.I'm a huge, huge, huge Jamaal Charles fan. He's been ranked in the top 10 of my rankings every single week since I launched my rankings (August 14th), so it's fair to say that I'm one of the "true believers". I think he's an incredible talent, and obviously I'm not worried about the touches. With that said, I still have Rice one spot above him. I think Rice's efficiency metrics this season have been an outlier, but I think his usage metrics this season have been right on the money.
So... state of the thread since I last checked in. Jonathan Stewart is averaging 107 yards per game over his last 3 and has raised his rushing average on the season to 4.4 ypc (which tops Williams' 4.1 ypc in the same situation). Felix Jones finally topped 20 carries... but he only got 83 yards on them, and his season average has now dipped below 4.0 ypc. Arian Foster and Darren McFadden have continued to make those who questioned their talent look foolish. Lesean McCoy is having the quietest top-5 season by a 22 year old RB in dynasty history (seriously, I'm not saying that I'd take him that high, but why is NOBODY mentioning him as a possible #1 overall in startups next year? He's top 5. He's 22 years old. That was at least enough to get Rice in the conversation last year). MJD has been straight beastin' and reminding everybody that there are more elite backs in the league than just Foster, Johnson, and Peterson. Michael Vick has done a lot to silence anyone who questioned ranking him in the top 10 among dynasty QBs. Pat Bowlen might have demolished any value Orton and Lloyd were busy building. Steve Johnson has shown he's not quite ready for prime time. Vincent Jackson and Sidney Rice has given reminders why we shouldn't drop players' values just because they're going to miss a handful of games in the near future. Dwayne Bowe has followed up one of the best stretches by a WR in fantasy history with one of the worst stretches by a WR in fantasy history. Arrelious Benn finally put in a cameo appearance. Curious what everyone else thinks have been the biggest storylines of the past 3-4 weeks.
Also, a couple of thoughts on a couple of conversations I missed:
First off, to be honest, it's a little bit disconcerting to see Charles as a consensus top-5 dynasty RB right now. It seems like early in the season he was 15th or so in the consensus rankings, and then nobody really talked about him for a couple of months, and now everyone seems to have independently arrived at the opinion that he's a top 5 guy. It's not that I disagree with that opinion (I certainly don't), it's just that it really took me by surprise. He's not a guy who seemed to steadily rise through the year, he seems to have instantly jumped from "RB2" to "stud RB1" while skipping all steps in between. Sometimes the consensus can be weird like that.
Absolutely, positively, 100% on the money. I was one of them. I feel like I have a blind spot to Tom Brady- historically, I've taken every opportunity to downgrade him. I've clearly got a cognitive bias against him, to the point where I've actually added a note in my rankings spreadsheet that essentially reads "wherever you've got him ranked, you're probably underrating him".People get way, way, way too hung up on absolute rankings. Absolutely rankings don't mean a thing. They are literally completely and absolutely meaningless. All that matters is RELATIVE rankings- where you have a player ranked relative to his peers, and where you have a player ranked relative to where everyone else has him ranked.For instance, let's say that I've got Darius Heyward-Bey ranked at 19th in my current rankings (I don't, but we're playing "let's pretend"). Now, let's also say that Darius Heyward-Bey averages 1800 yard and 16 scores over the next 5 seasons. I would say that my current hypothetical ranking of DHB wasn't just a home run, it was a grand slam. Hell, it was more than a grand slam- if there was such a thing as a 6-run homer, it would be that. Sure, DHB might have outperformed my ranking by a mile (and I mean by a literal mile- that's easily 1800+ yards more than I'd expect from the #19 ranked receiver)... but the point is that it doesn't matter, because I guarantee you that I was the DHB owner. If everyone else has a player ranked 60th, and I've got a player ranked 19th, I *GUARANTEE YOU* that that player is on my roster. I've got him ranked so much higher than everyone else that I'm guaranteed to be the beneficiary of any future production he might post.
That's what's going on with F&L and Arian Foster. Has Foster outperformed F&L's ranking? Yeah, by a huge margin... but that doesn't matter. F&L had Arian Foster ranked SUBSTANTIALLY higher than anyone else had him ranked (of people who publish their rankings, I had him the second highest... and I had him at 28th). Most of the FBGs staff had him in the 40s. Anyone who had Foster ranked at 19th could have traded any of the RBs that were in the consensus 20-30 range for him. Those guys would now be riding him to a championship.
At the end of the day, it's not a question of how high you are on a player, it's a question of how many people are higher on that player than you are. In F&L's case, when it came to Arian Foster, the answer is "none". I literally could not find a single person ANYWHERE who was more bullish on Arian Foster than F&L was. So you can keep trotting out that "but you only had him ranked 19th!" line all you want, because at the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything. F&L had Foster ranked higher than anyone else did, and F&L was right. And it wasn't just this preseason- F&L has been right every step of the way. He tweeted after week 1 that he'd trade Frank Gore for Arian Foster straight up, and he got a lot of grief over it (much of that grief came from me, by the way).
Similarly, I like to claim guys like Michael Vick and Darren McFadden as successes for me- not because I ever said "Michael Vick and Darren McFadden are going to be top-10 players in VBD this season", but because I repeatedly said "everyone has both of these guys too low". Vick's a guy I've taken a lot of crap for through the season- I took crap for having him in the top 30 at the beginning of August when everyone was busy anointing Kolb, I took crap for bumping him to 16th when everyone assumed he was going back to the backup role as soon as Kolb was healthy, and I took crap for bumping him into the top 10 when he only had a handful of good games against bad defenses... but at the end of the day, even though he's outperformed all of my wildest expectations, I count Michael Vick as a "hit" because he's on my dynasty team, because I was higher on him than everyone else. That's all that matters. None of my leagues subtract points if you didn't expect a player to be quite as good as he was, so I'm getting the full benefit of Vick's fantasy onslaught even though I "only" had him ranked at the bottom of the top 30 this past offseason.
If there were an emote for "Excellent Posting" I'd use that.
Good to have you back. One of my favorite posters, as even when we don't agree, I have to think, which is a good thing.As for the Herm23/F&L comment, I won't go too much into it. I don't want to open that can of worms. I just don't think it is fair to say F&L "won leagues" by having Foster #19, below CJ Spiller and thay GD will never do the same. If we say F&L did, then Go Deep also won leagues by being high on Dewayne Bowe among others, you won leagues by having DMC higher than others, you won leagues by having Vick higher than others, and so on and so on. On the flip side, F&l could have easily cost people championships, if they took CJ over Foster, as his rankings would have suggested. Just trying to keep things realistic.
