jeter23
Footballguy
This is how I have them too.LuckRank 'em: Newton, RG3, Luck.
Newton
RG3
Luck and Newton are so close though.
This is how I have them too.LuckRank 'em: Newton, RG3, Luck.
Newton
RG3
Luck and Newton are so close though.
Newton has dealt with a ton of drops this year. Hopefully they'll address the position.Face it though. Cam has NOONE to throw to. Once he has a big body target to throw to, it may change up his passing statistics a little bit. My stomach churned watching LaFell, Smith, and whoever other clowns they have dropping every other pass. More importantly, 5 yard 3rd down (1st down conversion) passes
He's not a traditional read-option QB, and he's not Andrew Luck. Given the current QB situation in dynasty leagues - I think it's going to take a lot for a QB like Foles to get a lot of buzz, and establish dynasty value.Wanted to throw this out here instead of the Foles topic and get some opinions.
My pre-draft evaluation of Foles (strong) has changed some since I added sack data and rejiggered how I look at collegiate TDs and INTs, but Foles profile actually improved a bit as a result and with the changes his best comparables are Matt Schaub and Tom Brady when you include draft position (i.e. non-first rounders).
And what we've seen so far suggests that Foles could have a bright future despite his draft status.
But since I don't include any non-quantitative data in my evaluations and don't try to dissect a QB based on what he 'looks like' I thought I'd ask people who do those things what it is they don't like about Foles?
Usually a young prospect that's lighting it up as he has is instantly considered the next big thing, but the skepticism around Foles is still pretty high. Why?
Well, ok. But that's all opinion. I'm looking for flaws.he's not Andrew Luck
I'm speaking from a Dynasty market perspective.Well, ok. But that's all opinion. I'm looking for flaws.Why has a guy that's averaged 30+ppg in his last 3.5 games not started to make people think... 'maybe he's Tom Brady'. What is it about Foles that convinces you he wasn't misdrafted?
RE: Dallas game - he had a groin injury and had trouble planting his feet. That's why his accuracy was so off and he was holding onto the ball. He wasn't himself because he was hurt. His concussion game him time to heal up from that injury.I'm speaking from a Dynasty market perspective.Well, ok. But that's all opinion. I'm looking for flaws.Why has a guy that's averaged 30+ppg in his last 3.5 games not started to make people think... 'maybe he's Tom Brady'. What is it about Foles that convinces you he wasn't misdrafted?
In terms of him as an NFL player, I haven't seen enough to form a strong opinion. The only full game I watched was the Dallas game, and he looked pretty bad. I've seen the stats and have been impressed, but I automatically think "I guess the Raiders weren't ready for the system". Right or wrong.
In summary: I don't know.
I'm biased since I thought he was misdrafted last year. And obviously if that's your starting position what's happening now isn't going to change it. I also own him in almost all my leagues. So I know I'm no longer objective about the guy (outside the original all-#s evaluation).I'm speaking from a Dynasty market perspective.Well, ok. But that's all opinion. I'm looking for flaws.
Why has a guy that's averaged 30+ppg in his last 3.5 games not started to make people think... 'maybe he's Tom Brady'. What is it about Foles that convinces you he wasn't misdrafted?
In terms of him as an NFL player, I haven't seen enough to form a strong opinion. The only full game I watched was the Dallas game, and he looked pretty bad. I've seen the stats and have been impressed, but I automatically think "I guess the Raiders weren't ready for the system". Right or wrong.
In summary: I don't know.
People assume his success is due to Chip, and the bad games are due to offenses having figured out Chip, and that eventually everyone will figure out Chip, and you'll be left with a 3rd round backup QB again. Additionally his role is still not defined. Chip still leans on the excuse that he's the QB because Vick is hurt, and there's an assumption he'll go get someone who fits his prototype better like Marriota or Manziel making Foles the next Eagles-QB-trade-for-picks bust. The flukiness of some of the big plays doesn't add to the aura. A couple of the Oak TDs were due to defenders falling down (so, what, he would have only had 5 TDs that day), and 2 of the 3 vs. GB were "go get it" passes that bounced the right way. Local response is no more definitive. Still a lot of skepticism. So yeah he's proved he belongs in the NFL. But for his dynasty value to skyrocket he needs both his tenure to be more definitive and his production be less open to skepticism. Foles has a much better resume than Tannehill outside of draft stock but Tannehill is probably worth more on the open market because his value as "upside QB" is not subject to the whim of a NFL FO. Even if Chip waits on QB and somehow gets Hundley in the 2nd or something, that is still a knock to Foles' value.Yet the response is muted. I get that some of it is that there's a glut of good QBs and people feel OK with where they're at, but it still seems odd.I automatically think "I guess the Raiders weren't ready for the system". Right or wrong.
Sure. it's more "can" than "will". Luck is a pretty adept runner, but I think it's because he can pass much better than those guys, that he gets some easy TD runs down by the goaline. Defenders drop back more into pass protection and he can take that space with his legs if he doesn't find someone open.Coeur de Lion said:Historically even guys like Michael Vick and Kordell Stewart have barely maintained that type of rushing TD production over a significant multi-year window -- and both of those guys were / are MUCH better runners and MUCH worse passers than is Luck. The huge variance in year to year QB rushing production makes me personally a little hesitant to hitch my wagon to the guys for whom running is a major part of their value.Dr. Octopus said:Luck looks like a guy that will/can get you 4-6 rushing TDs per season as well.I think it's gonna depend on your format a little bit. I'm in leagues with a premium on passing yards and TDs. In those formats Peyton and Brees are gods. I think Luck has a higher chance of becoming that type of passer, so I'd favor him over the other two. In a league where rushing TDs count more it would be a tougher call. I had both Luck and Newton on the same roster last year. Wasn't an easy decision, but I ultimately traded Cam. Luck is just such a great passer and I think that's going to be the key variable over the long haul. Especially once you get into the second half of their careers and they're not running as much.
I don't know if you did it intentionally, but the problem with scouting these 3 specific guys is they had a better next-to-last year than last year in college. Lee is falling under the same trap by having the same dip in production. If you dominate in college consistently there are less questions. Granted, people questioned Crabtree some because his measurables were not elite. However he was still consistently a top 1 or top 2 pick in PPR leagues and close to that in standard. The NFL decides some of this for us. Jeffery could have still been a top 10 pick in the NFL based on talent and his soph year but people with more information than us decided otherwise. Were they wrong? Or just equally overcautious (when they're putting real money down)? I think this ties in nicely to the discussion earlier about using the NFL draft as a market to evaluate players, because evidence at least YTD is that it was pretty wrong and that draftniks know more than we give them credit for. Stacy and Ellington were the two most "overvalued" RBs due to fantasy draft position and they both delivered. Allen is another guy that took a hit in dynasty due to the NFL's evaluation but draftniks who still kept him top 4 or 5 were much closer to right.Alshon Jeffery
Keenan Allen
Robert Woods
Taylor seemed to get more buzz than Ellington, and Franklin was cleary next to Stacy, if not the most "overvalued" based on draft slot. Terrence Williams is proving to be a counter example: a guy the draftniks didn't respect, in relation to his draft position, but whom has shown worthy, thus far. Jordan Reed too, perhaps.I think this ties in nicely to the discussion earlier about using the NFL draft as a market to evaluate players, because evidence at least YTD is that it was pretty wrong and that draftniks know more than we give them credit for. Stacy and Ellington were the two most "overvalued" RBs due to fantasy draft position and they both delivered. Allen is another guy that took a hit in dynasty due to the NFL's evaluation but draftniks who still kept him top 4 or 5 were much closer to right.
Ellington's ADP was higher (22.9 vs 26.3 according to Post Draft RSP). My experience was Ellington was taken earlier but I am not in any leagues with EBF. YMM have V.Taylor seemed to get more buzz than Ellington, and Franklin was cleary next to Stacy, if not the most "overvalued" based on draft slot. Terrence Williams is proving to be a counter example: a guy the draftniks didn't respect, in relation to his draft position, but whom has shown worthy, thus far. Jordan Reed too, perhaps.
Going back to this, as I think it's interesting to think about, and potentially find value in:Anybody else think that as a group, dynasty owners and draftniks, we just overthink WR prospects?
Alshon Jeffery
Keenan Allen
Robert Woods
It's a middle ground between what we thought pre and post NFL draft. At one point, we thought Allen was a top 15 pick, Woods top 20, Lacy top 30, Franklin top 50.The question is what is its reliability compared to other naive indicators.
Bostick is the only one you won't have a chance to pick up on waivers next month.I have a chance to pick up Vance McDonald, Gavin Escobar, or Brandon Bostick off the waiver wire. How would you guys rank these three in terms of dynasty potential?
Thanks again for all the great analysis! This is definitely one of my favorite threads anywhere.
I'm starting to think that Hanna is the buy (free pickup) in Dallas, so scratch Escobar. I'd likely go McDonald then Bostick.I have a chance to pick up Vance McDonald, Gavin Escobar, or Brandon Bostick off the waiver wire. How would you guys rank these three in terms of dynasty potential?
Thanks again for all the great analysis! This is definitely one of my favorite threads anywhere.
I'm definitely coming (back) around to that stance after getting a little carried away with the height/weight/speed stuff this past year. Look at someone like Allen Robinson. He's unlikely to run an insane time and he might be a little slight for his height, but the guy can just ball. Based on the success of players like Randle and Allen, I'm pretty sure he can make the jump to the NFL despite not quite being VJax or Demaryius from a tools standpoint.Anybody else think that as a group, dynasty owners and draftniks, we just overthink WR prospects?
Alshon Jeffery
Keenan Allen
Robert Woods
These guys were all obvious college studs. Insane production, absolute dominance at times.
Every one of those guys was discounted for various reasons--
Too fat. Can't separate. Lazy.
The knee. Other things I can't remember.
Not special. Not a measurables guy.
All these guys were natural, fluid receivers, and we all overthought it. Maybe the NFL did as well.
Is it time we just stop questioning these guys, stop nit-picking so much? Sometimes guys are just good. They're smooth, they're natural, they've got hands.
As a Redskins fan, I could not agree with this more. When I watch Wilson and Kap run, it seems like they get every yard that's there but are great about getting down or out of bounds. Seems like RG3 takes at least a couple scary hits every game, and I thought he'd be a little better about that by now.Lastly, RG3 seems clueless on how to avoid taking punishment. He is getting absolutely KILLED on a game by game basis and would seem to be a far greater injury risk due to it. I'm going to discount the ACL injury, as that is a total fluke and can happen to anyone, but at his current pace, he seems a far greater risk to sustain concussions, seperated shoulders, etc... that happen from taking repeated big hits.
Here's the problem with that... K Allen is in a stone cold perfect situation as a WR (elite QB, HOF TE, no great WR) and he's only WR19 since Week 3 (when he started playing). His situation isn't going to get much better and if teams ever decide they want to take Allen away, he's done.EBF said:players like Randle and Allen ... despite not quite being VJax or Demaryius from a tools standpoint
I don't think so. He's only in there for his blocking and then because he's out there he'll get a catch here and there. I would say Escobar seems to have a better shot at taking over for Witten some day than Hanna does.Concept Coop said:I'm starting to think that Hanna is the buy (free pickup) in Dallas, so scratch Escobar. I'd likely go McDonald then Bostick.killrobotkill said:I have a chance to pick up Vance McDonald, Gavin Escobar, or Brandon Bostick off the waiver wire. How would you guys rank these three in terms of dynasty potential?
Thanks again for all the great analysis! This is definitely one of my favorite threads anywhere.
There are just too many non-height/weight/speed guys for me to completely buy this, including the best WR of all time. I don't know if Allen and Randle can be the top priority of a defense and still produce. Hell, Dez Bryant is struggling with that right now. But I think it's too soon to say that they can't, and ignore the flashes, based on measurables.In other words, Thomas and VJax can help win you games under almost any circumstance. Guys like Allen and Randle can't unless the stars line up just so. And what separates the two is height, weight, quickness and speed.
Hanna is in there becuase he's the backup TE. Escobar has 4 catches on the season, so it's not as if they are using him in the passing game.I don't think so. He's only in there for his blocking and then because he's out there he'll get a catch here and there. I would say Escobar seems to have a better shot at taking over for Witten some day than Hanna does.
OK, well, Troy Aikman, who probably knows more than you or me, specifically said Hanna was moved up to the "backup" role specifically and only because they wanted him to play in two-TE sets because of his blocking.Hanna is in there becuase he's the backup TE. Escobar has 4 catches on the season, so it's not as if they are using him in the passing game.I don't think so. He's only in there for his blocking and then because he's out there he'll get a catch here and there. I would say Escobar seems to have a better shot at taking over for Witten some day than Hanna does.
I'm not writing Escobar off, and will be picking him up if and when dropped. But I'd rather Hanna for free than give up much for Escobar.
You left out quicknessThere are just too many non-height/weight/speed guysIn other words, Thomas and VJax can help win you games under almost any circumstance. Guys like Allen and Randle can't unless the stars line up just so. And what separates the two is height, weight, quickness and speed.
They are not replacing Hanna with Escobar in passing situations. Blocking might be the biggest advantage that Hanna has over Escobar, but I don't take that be a good sign for Escobar, or a bad one for Hanna. If they were pulling Hanna out, and targeting Escobar, I'd likely have a different opinion.OK, well, Troy Aikman, who probably knows more than you or me, specifically said Hanna was moved up to the "backup" role specifically and only because they wanted him to play in two-TE sets because of his blocking.
Allen and Randle are quick. If whatever you're using to quantify quickness doesn't confirm that then it's most likely not a good measure.You left out quicknessThere are just too many non-height/weight/speed guysIn other words, Thomas and VJax can help win you games under almost any circumstance. Guys like Allen and Randle can't unless the stars line up just so. And what separates the two is height, weight, quickness and speed.
Even in passing situations, it seems to me that Hanna, if he's on the field, more often than not stays in to block. They're using him in that regard so they don't have to keep Witten in when the line is getting killed or they need extra time to maybe take a shot down the field. I don't take it as good news that Escobar is playing as little as he is, but I also don't think it tells the whole story. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Escobar who started, while Hanna stays in his current role, if Witten went down with an injury.They are not replacing Hanna with Escobar in passing situations. Blocking might be the biggest advantage that Hanna has over Escobar, but I don't take that be a good sign for Escobar, or a bad one for Hanna. If they were pulling Hanna out, and targeting Escobar, I'd likely have a different opinion.OK, well, Troy Aikman, who probably knows more than you or me, specifically said Hanna was moved up to the "backup" role specifically and only because they wanted him to play in two-TE sets because of his blocking.
I'm not saying Escobar can't or won't replace Witten. I am saying Hanna has a shot too, and is free. Unless the roster sizes are really big, I like betting on the underdog in this situation, assuming Escobar costs me assets and Hanna does not.
I don't disagree with any of this.Even in passing situations, it seems to me that Hanna, if he's on the field, more often than not stays in to block. They're using him in that regard so they don't have to keep Witten in when the line is getting killed or they need extra time to maybe take a shot down the field. I don't take it as good news that Escobar is playing as little as he is, but I also don't think it tells the whole story. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Escobar who started, while Hanna stays in his current role, if Witten went down with an injury.
Would not be surprised if they used another relatively high pick on a back. They could also be candidates to sign someone like Ben Tate or Toby Gerhart.I have (what I think is) an interesting dynasty question:
How do we see the Giants backfield situation from a dynasty perspective?
On the one hand you have David Wilson - highly touted rookie, 1st round pick, electric with the ball in space. But he has shown continued struggles, recording more fumbles than rushing TDs and only 3.3 YPC this season before going down with a severe neck injury.
On the other hand you have Andre Brown - 26 (soon to be 27) years old, who has a respectable 4.8 YPC over his career. He has had issues with injury - but of the "broken bone" type, as opposed to the tweaking things/knee/muscle/recurring problem type.
Is this just a mess of RBBC for the next few years? Is the "lead dog" for the Giants in 2014 even on their current roster? (or on IR?) Is Brown the guy in 2014 until he gets hurt or is Wilson the guy until he proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he isn't?
Thoughts?
Brown tore his achilles his rookie year. A tendon is not a muscle but despite his success it remains a "recurring" type thing to keep tabs on. Brown is a FA this year but I'd expect the Giants to value him more than other teams. Although who knows.On the other hand you have Andre Brown - 26 (soon to be 27) years old, who has a respectable 4.8 YPC over his career. He has had issues with injury - but of the "broken bone" type, as opposed to the tweaking things/knee/muscle/recurring problem type.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but I can't see that happening. I think it would be more likely that Witten and even good buddy Romo would just restructure so he could stay on the team. Witten has to be getting close to the end I would think. Would he rather just finish as a Cowboy for life or move on elsewhere for a shot at a ring or one last shot at a big payday? No idea. Just seems like the kind of guy that would restructure to stay with the Cowboys.In reference to the Hanna/Escobar chatter, any chance with the Cowboys massive cap problems this coming offseason that they let Witten loose? I'm not sure if it makes sense contract-wise, and I know its probably hearsay to suggest it, but they drafted a cheap rookie pretty highly and also have Hanna. Seems like a move they might be forced to make if the numbers line up. Could put this conversation in a whole new light.
I agree, just seems like restructuring deals like Romo's puts them in even deeper #### in the future. I do agree that Witten seems like the type to do whatever he can to make it work and stay, but you never know.Anything is possible, I suppose, but I can't see that happening. I think it would be more likely that Witten and even good buddy Romo would just restructure so he could stay on the team. Witten has to be getting close to the end I would think. Would he rather just finish as a Cowboy for life or move on elsewhere for a shot at a ring or one last shot at a big payday? No idea. Just seems like the kind of guy that would restructure to stay with the Cowboys.In reference to the Hanna/Escobar chatter, any chance with the Cowboys massive cap problems this coming offseason that they let Witten loose? I'm not sure if it makes sense contract-wise, and I know its probably hearsay to suggest it, but they drafted a cheap rookie pretty highly and also have Hanna. Seems like a move they might be forced to make if the numbers line up. Could put this conversation in a whole new light.
I agree, just seems like restructuring deals like Romo's puts them in even deeper #### in the future.
Oh, I agree. The restructure comment was in response to someone saying that Romo could restructure his new contract again to help the team this offseason--that would only make the cap situation worse in the future, right?I think the plan was solid. The Romo/Witten/Ware window is the teams best chance to win a championship in the next decade. They didn't think they could win a championship without Austin, Spencer, and Free. Austin and Spencer being the obvious cut candidates, and Spencer being - at the time - a very important part of the defensive scheme change, and an important signing.I agree, just seems like restructuring deals like Romo's puts them in even deeper #### in the future.
It only looks bad now because they aren't winning, for reasons other than money. Had the team been as good as Jerry thought it was, it would have been viewed differently right now.
There will be money saving cuts this off-season, but I'd be shocked if Witten was one of them.
Good question. I hadn't put any thought into the potential of them doing the same thing again. It seems far-fetched, but, again, it never really crossed my mind, so I haven't looked into it.Oh, I agree. The restructure comment was in response to someone saying that Romo could restructure his new contract again to help the team this offseason--that would only make the cap situation worse in the future, right?
It's generally a terrible idea, converting more of the future money into a bonus and being able to re-spread it out over the rest of the contract again, or whatever they do. Skins did it for years under Gibbs/Cerrato to try to extend the window they thought we were in. Puts you even deeper into cap hell.Good question. I hadn't put any thought into the potential of them doing the same thing again. It seems far-fetched, but, again, it never really crossed my mind, so I haven't looked into it.Oh, I agree. The restructure comment was in response to someone saying that Romo could restructure his new contract again to help the team this offseason--that would only make the cap situation worse in the future, right?
Seems like something Jerry might pull if he feels they can extend their window just a bit longer. Because you're right, they need to do it now with Romo, or rebuild.
Do you think Garrett is sticking around another year if they take the division? To finish out this run? Seems like eventually he'll be shone the door, and if they don't make much noise the rest of the season, could be a new coach is brought in--and then the contract decisions on the older players gets a lot more difficult.Exactly. If you're going to cut Witten, you might as well start over. I don't think Jerry is ready to do that - and I don't blame him. Then again, it is Jerry Jones, so nothing would surprise me.Seems like something Jerry might pull if he feels they can extend their window just a bit longer. Because you're right, they need to do it now with Romo, or rebuild.
For what it's worth, I'm with you. Everyone seems to agree in principle that, at QB, it's all about the upside... but here we have a young QB who is demonstrating elite upside, playing with a coach whose system is tailor-made to putting up video game numbers, and nobody's really all that excited about him. In my mind, Nick Foles is probably the best dynasty QB2, and even a credible low-end dynasty QB1. There's risks (I'm not 100% sure he locks down the job long-term, unlike with a Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick), but in that range, risk is irrelevant. It's all about the potential payoff.I'm biased since I thought he was misdrafted last year. And obviously if that's your starting position what's happening now isn't going to change it. I also own him in almost all my leagues. So I know I'm no longer objective about the guy (outside the original all-#s evaluation).I'm speaking from a Dynasty market perspective.Well, ok. But that's all opinion. I'm looking for flaws.
Why has a guy that's averaged 30+ppg in his last 3.5 games not started to make people think... 'maybe he's Tom Brady'. What is it about Foles that convinces you he wasn't misdrafted?
In terms of him as an NFL player, I haven't seen enough to form a strong opinion. The only full game I watched was the Dallas game, and he looked pretty bad. I've seen the stats and have been impressed, but I automatically think "I guess the Raiders weren't ready for the system". Right or wrong.
In summary: I don't know.
So I'm trying to get a handle on the skepticism to check my own optimism and properly value the guy.
He's averaged 30+ the last 4.5 games (not 3.5) -- with the Dallas defense (25th) being the weakest of the five he's faced. Using Net Yards/Attempt the Giants are fairly good (7th) and the Bucs, Raiders and Packers (17th, 21st, 22nd) aren't terrible. Especially if you take out the the game where they faced Nick Foles.
Yet the response is muted. I get that some of it is that there's a glut of good QBs and people feel OK with where they're at, but it still seems odd.
Do you think Garrett is sticking around another year if they take the division? To finish out this run? Seems like eventually he'll be shone the door, and if they don't make much noise the rest of the season, could be a new coach is brought in--and then the contract decisions on the older players gets a lot more difficult.