Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Dynasty Rankings (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
btw... take a look at the number of players who started at each position in your league this past year. In the league I just mentioned 78 RBs started at least one game (2RB x 14 team league).
Donsmith753
Footballguy
What are your thoughts on Russell Wilson going Virgil Green forward?
EBF
Footballguy
I'll pass on Gronk in the top 10. Injury prone and I don't think he can sustain his per game averages over a full career. I wouldn't say he's Jeremy Shockey, but I don't think he's Tony Gonzalez either. And I'd basically have to think that I'm getting the best TE to ever play the game if I were going to take one that high. I understand the whole positional scarcity difference-maker argument, but I'd just rather have a top QB, RB, or WR in almost every one of my leagues.
SSOG
Moderator
Of course he's not going to keep up his per-game averages. His per-game averages are Moss 07-08 levels. Even Randy Moss didn't keep up Randy Moss 07-08 per game averages over his whole career. Calvin won't keep up his ppg averages going forward, either. You're not buying him because you expect him to perform the exact same. You're buying him because nobody in the league- nobody- can come anywhere near is combination of age and production. Even if he's not the next Tony Gonzalez, if he's just the next Antonio Gates you're still looking at 400-500 more career VBD. And I think he's got a great chance of topping that, even. As for the injury-prone tag... please. Broken bones are not predictive events, and he's been playing for three years with no indication that there are any lingering effects from his college back injury. Might as well call Adrian Peterson injury prone because he tore an ACL and missed some time in college. Or, better yet, let's talk about how injury prone Richardson is.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Not to mention that, statistically speaking, Gronk is absolutely pissing on Gonzalez if you compare their first three years. Or even if you compare Gonzo's three best years to Gronk's 1st three. Gronk has been that dominant.
SSOG
Moderator
Well, not by VBD. Gronk has 18, 143, and 47 (112 if you pro-rate) in his three seasons. Gonzo, in his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th seasons had 7, 91, and 114. Gronk finished 7th and 6th (if you pro-rate) in overall VBD, which is higher than anything Gonzo ever did, but Gonzo had a 10th place, three 12th place, and a 13th place finish. So we're at least in the same ballpark of an in-his-prime Tony Gonzalez, at least in terms of what kind of difference he's making. And I'd say a 23 year old Tony Gonzalez would be very much worthy of a very high first round pick in startups. When you get down to it, too... sure, Brady won't play forever, but there's only one other player in the entire league who just dominates his physical matchups like Gronk does. And that guy would be my second choice in a startup.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Im off to post this in the dynasty trade thread for reference, but thought I'd put it here as well since Foster and Gronk have been big topics lately. Gronk's untouchable-ness and value, and Foster's possible perceived drop in value. Together I thought it made an interesting case.
Gave: Foster, Turner, Witten. Got: Gronk, Ryan Mathews
Gave: Foster, Turner, Witten. Got: Gronk, Ryan Mathews
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
While I agree that he's a risky 1.01 pick, because as talented as he is I think playing with Tom Brady is highly beneficial to his production and Brady is 35-36, but how is Gronk injury prone?Does he have skinny legs?I think we could call 85% of the players in the NFL injury prone by some people's standards.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Stafford used to be "injury prone". Now he's been switched to "over rated"
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Not good enough to ever be secure as a featured RB. Has some value - a lot depends on league size/scoring. RB heavy leagues, I'd be holding. More standard PPR formats, I'd be selling. Not really interested in buying anywhere right now.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
My thoughts as well. He looks adequate and if he holds the job he's likely to be semi-productive, but I'd always be worried about him being replaced.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
I love Gronk and own him in a lot of leagues, but he does play reckless. Hopefully in the next year or two he'll tone it back a half-notch and protect himself a little bit better.
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Just got offered Charles for Mathews and L.Fitz. Not looking for advice as I rejected but its a sad state of affairs that I seriously considered it, still not ready to quit Mathews.
For reference, here is how they went in a very recent dynasty startup:2.04 Charles3.09 Fitzgerald5.05 Mathews
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
A lot depends upon roster makeup, but I think its a pretty fair deal. I don't really think Mathews has much value though. Charles has a legit shot as the #1 RB next year under Reid.
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Agreed, it's certainly fair.
SSOG
Moderator
He's Donald Brown with a different jersey. Value accordingly. Honestly, what is the deal with Indy and mediocre running backs? Addai, Brown, Carter, Virgil Green, Ballard... has anyone in the league had a more anonymous stable of backs since Edge left?
I think perhaps we should wait until we get the definitive word on his status and then start a separate thread on that rather than deal with pages of speculation on his draft and/or trade value.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
EBF, sometime between Oct. and Nov. you had Mathews as your #6 RB, and have recently called him a good buy low opportunity.Where do you have him ranked now? Everyone else as well. Starting over with a new coach and a whole offseason to start over again health-wise, how do you all feel about Mathews? Still young, still no competition at RB on a team with way too many holes to bring a decent one in. Has the pedigree, has made some plays in this league despite a crappy season this year.
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
How do folks rank Trent Richardson vs Arian Foster?Upside vs Top 3 production???
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Richardson is already ahead of Foster for me
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Same.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Somewhere in the 15-18 range. I'd rather have McFadden, Murray, Ridley, for reference.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Not high enough to get him anywhere, there's going to be one...two...four people per league buying a bounce back but I'm not one of them. If the current Mathews owner has soured so much that he'll sell him at bargain rates I'll price check, but I'm not going to offer much.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
Not surprising to hear. Everybody loves a shiny new toy.
I will take Foster. Equal talent, better situation.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Strongly disagree about their talent being equal and the Texans' o line struggles this year have made Foster's situation less rosy than it was before. Don't even know what Rich's situation will be like next year anyway, don't even know what sort of system the Browns are going to be running. And before you post ypc #'s from this year please go back in time, break Foster's ribs, then tell him to run the last 10 weeks of the season with them and see how he does.Not surprising to hear. Everybody loves a shiny new toy.
EBF
Footballguy
Isn't Antonio Gates something like 3rd all time among NFL TEs in career receiving yards? I agree that if Gronk "just" has that type of career he'll be a great commodity, but projecting a HoF career for any 23 year old is a big stretch. Gronk's numbers are unsustainable over the course of an entire career and he has an alpha dog playing style that will make him a frequent visitor to the injured list. Great talent, but I'll pass in the top 10. I'd rather have one of the top RBs, QBs, or WRs even if the options are deeper at those positions. Gonzo is the best TE in history by a pretty wide margin and he only averaged 891 yards per season. I can't reasonably expect Gronk to exceed or even match that. VBD is a nice tool, but its usefulness hinges on the accuracy of a person's projections. Anyone can make a list and throw out numbers of what a player's career will be worth, but it's pretty much guaranteed that those rankings and numbers will be damn near worthless a year or two later when the whole equation has been thrown into chaos. I think it's valuable to consider longevity potential and expected performance, but FF is quite chaotic and unpredictable. The "consensus top 10" from one season will almost never look the same as it did a year from now. That doesn't mean the whole enterprise of assigning player values is pointless, but I'd suggest that it's more important to separate the frauds from the genuine superstars than it is to obsess over thin differences in VBD derived from projections that aren't wort their weight in toilet paper.
EBF
Footballguy
He's injury prone. No mistake about that at this point. However, I think the backlash has been excessive. He's a starting caliber RB with a good mixture of speed, power, and quickness. He's also pretty useful in the passing game. There are plenty of superior talents at the RB position in the NFL, but when you factor in age and opportunity there aren't too many who trump Mathews. Obviously you take Richardson or Martin ahead of him. I think you also probably take Rice, Foster, McCoy, Lynch, Spiller, and Charles ahead of him. Probably Peterson too. Beyond that, I don't see anyone that I'd obviously take over him. And it's not out of the question that he could be worth more than a guy like Spiller, Peterson, or Charles a year from now. Bear in mind that one bad year is all it takes for a RB to go from "consensus top 10" to afterthought. Mathews is living proof. Some of these "locks" will struggle next year just as guys like Mathews, McFadden, Mendenall, and MJD did this year. So I'd suggest that the difference in value between him and some of the really fashionable options isn't as great as perceived. I'd probably rank him something like 8th-10th right now, but the important point is that he's worth more than what people think he's worth. If you can get him for a RB2 price, I'd do it. He has upside in that range and won't completely kill you if he continues to frustrate. As a low end RB1 he is a bit more of a gamble. Certainly one that could pay off though.
32 Counter Pass
Footballguy
If I am reading this correctly you are arguing for TRich even though his situation is uncertain, and he had durability issues in his rookie campaign. OK. To each their own. I feel very comfortable rolling with Foster and the certainty of his situation. I fully anticipate Foster to outperform TRich within next 3 year time frame. That is not to say TRich will not be productive, only I like Foster's prospects more.Strongly disagree about their talent being equal and the Texans' o line struggles this year have made Foster's situation less rosy than it was before. Don't even know what Rich's situation will be like next year anyway, don't even know what sort of system the Browns are going to be running. And before you post ypc #'s from this year please go back in time, break Foster's ribs, then tell him to run the last 10 weeks of the season with them and see how he does.Not surprising to hear. Everybody loves a shiny new toy.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
The NFL has changed the way TEs are used; they are lined up in the slot, as flankers, and ever the X guy. They are blocking less and being used as deep threats more than ever. The fact that the best TE ever (until it's Jason Witten) averaged 891 tells you more about the way TEs were used than anyone's talent level.I liken it to Cam Newton. Cam will destroy the QB rushing TD career total before his career is half over, assuming health. He's used differently than any QB in history, thus, his results will be different.
All of us make projections, VBD just requires that we put them on paper. Whether you put an actual number on it or not, you HAVE to project a players most likely production and longevity. VBD doesn't require to-the-yard projections. I play in a MOX league in which I would trade two Trent Richardsons for Gronk. No ppr for RBs and 2 PPR for TEs. Removing VBD from the equation, that sounds crazy...until you do some projections. VBD, as I use it, is just context. If Trent Richardson is a top 5 RB for 5 years, how will his value compare to Aaron Rodgers if he is a top 3 QB for 7 years? VBD can help answer that.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Foster is safer and likely the more productive player over a 3 year span. But a lot of us look beyond that. Situation will sort itself out; Richardson still put up good raw total numbers and caught a good deal of balls. Both are elite talents and I personally wouldn't waste time trying to determine who is better in that area - Foster has been talented enough to be the most productive fantasy back over the last 3 seasons. Richardson was a special prospect. It comes down to each owner, in my opinion. Are you going to roll the dice that Richardson can stay healhty (really the only question in my mind) or gamble that Foster will outscore him a great margin over the next 3 years so it won't matter?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
His only trip to the injured list was a fluke injury which occurred on an extra point attempt. Does he play a little recklessly? Sure but let's remember that the hits he's receiving and dishing out are usually against guys that he outweighs by 20-50 pounds.I am actually on your side about whether or not Gronk is worth a top 10 pick (although I don't think some one would be crazy to make him one), but this whole "injury prone" talk is getting out of hand (and I'm not singling you at on that point).All NFL players are prone to be injured - some will and some won't and it will mostly be due to luck, good or bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
Yea, I was about to point that out. It's as much of a hunch as anything, but I don't see him as a guy who will have Gonzo or even Witten longevity. It would be unfair to compare him to Jeremy Shockey because his numbers blow Shockey's out of the water, but purely in terms of career arc I think he'll be more like that than Gonzo. A few good years followed by decreased effectiveness as the little dings accumulate over time. As for the injury prone debate, I agree that luck is a huge factor. However, I also believe that some players are more likely to get hurt than others. For example, I don't think it's purely because of luck that Ray Rice has been an iron man while Darren McFadden has been injured almost every season. Anatomy and physics play a role.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Remember Fred Taylor? He was the most fragile guy in NFL history. Until he wasn't anymore.Trying to play fortune-teller with an injury crystal ball is usually a big mistake.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
And there are enough people who will anyways to where it can turn up value picks come draft day.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Why, is he more susceptible to twisting his ankle again?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
What do you base this on? TEs last as long as any skill position and are least reliant on speed. Gronk is always going to be physically imposing; his body control, hands, and freakish size and strength aren't going anywhere. He could lose a step and still be a bigger stronger Kyle Rudolph. I see suggesting he will always deal with injuries, although I personally think it is very premature. But suggesting he just falls off, I simply don't buy.
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
Asking the wrong person, not getting on one side or the other because I don't have an opinion either way, just fact providing.
lyon812
Footballguy
While I'm not into the injury-prone tag either, previous sprains do increase your risk for re-injury.
EBF
Footballguy
His main assets are that he's tall with a big wing span and a lot of strength and straight line speed. However, his game doesn't really resemble the two best TEs of the past decade (Witten and Gonzo). When you watch those guys run routes, it is like watching a receiver. They have compact strides, very fluid movement, and great agility for their height. Gronk is a lot goofier. Tall and strong, but not as fluid. Fast in a straight line, but not agile. Not a very smooth cutter or route runner. Just not as efficient in his movements overall. He also takes a ton of hits (a direct consequence of those last few points). Go watch his highlight reels and you'll see him running around defenders with straight line speed and breaking tackles with brute strength, but you won't see a lot of suddenness in his routes or cuts. I don't expect many people to agree with this analysis, but that's my take. Apart from the fact that I don't think ANY TE is capable of sustaining his career averages no matter how talented, I also think he's a prime candidate for injuries and reduced effectiveness because of build and playing style.
bengalbuck
Footballguy
Does anyone here have a solid method for valuing players that takes into account their QBs age. I have a hard time properly valuing guys like Gronk, Demayius, Decker, etc. because I feel that all of them are somewhat QB dependent. Not that they will be worthless when Brady and Manning hang it up or start to decline, but I doubt their numbers will be nearly as good. Do you try to analyze the guy as if he himself is a bit older? Try to factor some potentially lean years into future projections?
Concept Coop
Footballguy
When I do my career VBD, I usually do something like this
er year producion x projected number of years above baseline. If I were adjusting for Gronk, instead of using the same VBD per year, I would do somehting like this (using 100 VBD just to keep the math simple):100,100, 100, 80, 80, 80, 80, 70 = 690instead of100 x 8 = 800It's far from perfect, as it is simply a guess how much his production will dip post-brady. But nothing we do will be perfect.A key factor for me is that at the end of that 3 year time frame, Foster will be going on 30 and likely on his last legs. Even if he had anything left, his trade value would still be close to nil. Foster's market value is already on the decline even after another stellar year. The longer he is held, the decline in value will only accelerate. On the flip side, Trent Richardson would be going on 25, in his prime with a value close to the #1 RB (if not the #1 RB). In a 3 year keeper league, this would be irrelevant. In a dynasty, all this means a lot imo. I had Richardson ahead of Foster even before the season started. A number of others did as well, but that ranking was an aggressive one given Richardson's lack of NFL experience. Now, we've seen what Richardson can do in the NFL. Broken ribs and all, Richardson was still RB8 in his rookie year (PPR) at the age of 21. Now with his rookie year under his belt, what we've seen and more importantly the age difference of 22/27 going into 2013, ranking Richardson ahead of Foster is now the conservative approach imo and Foster over Richardson the risky one.If I am reading this correctly you are arguing for TRich even though his situation is uncertain, and he had durability issues in his rookie campaign. OK. To each their own. I feel very comfortable rolling with Foster and the certainty of his situation. I fully anticipate Foster to outperform TRich within next 3 year time frame. That is not to say TRich will not be productive, only I like Foster's prospects more.Strongly disagree about their talent being equal and the Texans' o line struggles this year have made Foster's situation less rosy than it was before. Don't even know what Rich's situation will be like next year anyway, don't even know what sort of system the Browns are going to be running. And before you post ypc #'s from this year please go back in time, break Foster's ribs, then tell him to run the last 10 weeks of the season with them and see how he does.Not surprising to hear. Everybody loves a shiny new toy.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I don't see WR when I look at Witten, really. He is the best in the business at finding the soft spot in the zone and presenting a target. He lines up in the traditional TE spot, mostly, so he's rarely truly covered 1-on-1. He's a solid route runner, but again, mostly in the sense that he knows where to be. He's fluid enough, but so slow that doens't really mean much. He's not Aaron Hernadez fluid, for example.Can Gronk do that? Witten could be the best ever at it, so I won't suggest he'd do it as well as Witten. But I see no reason why he'd fail. He'll always be one of the better redzone threats in the NFL, something Witten never was (based on being a mismatch, at least).
I feel like you're arguing the differences bewteen Gronk and Witten/Gonzo, but not telling us why Gronk's style won't last. Here are your words: "His main assets are that he's tall with a big wing span and a lot of strength and straight line speed. "What changes about the above with time and to what degree?A RB loses a step and is often replacable. But where else does that happen and how often? Gonzo is very likely to be one of the biggest, longest, strongest TEs in the NFL until he retires.
Why not? He's doing it. And seeing as how today's TE's are often very different than the tradional definition - why does it even matter that he is called a TE? Jimmy Graham, for example, lines up as a WR more often than he does a TE. He is going out on routes as often as the WRs on the team. Again, why does it matter? Why can't Jimmy Graham, Aaron Hernandez, and Rob Gronkowski be measured based on how they are actually used, instead of two words used to describe the position?
