Concept Coop
Footballguy
Of course, my point was to suggest a model, rather than an individual player.
Adrian Peterson has been more valuable during his career than Peyton has during his, despite the gap in duration and career VBD.
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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Fear & Loathing
- Start date
Adrian Peterson has been more valuable during his career than Peyton has during his, despite the gap in duration and career VBD.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Quarterbacks are available late becuase there are so many quality options, relative to the number of weekly starting positions.
I know that I can wait until 9 owners have picked a QB and still grab Keapernick/Rivers. Or Romo/Brady.
In a recent startup I drafted RG3 and Peyton at the 7/8 turn. Any advantage the Rodgers owner THOUGHT he was going to have is gone. With that context, Rodgers was a bad pick. My 2nd round pick (Gronk) won't be mitigated by a pair of picks in that range, however.
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
In a startup last year I picked up Donald Brown off waivers. Any advantage the Doug Martin owner THOUGHT he was going to have is gone. WIth that context, Doug Martin was a bad pick.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
As a result of random chance, and if we assume their 2013 production (or lack of) holds--sure.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Early startup picks are affected by the picks that follow. If you draft Rodgers 1.01 and the next QB goes off the board in the 4th - your pick did not provide you much value. If you drafted Calvin 1.01 and WRs fall--you take Dez and start him at WR2. Then Cobb and start him at WR3. Then Brpwm and start him at the flex spot. Then Garcon for bye weeks, injuries, and to play matchups. Then Cruz, Fitz, and Tavon and you shouldn't have trouble trading all 3 of them. That's a major risk when drafting QB early and a major advantage of drafting RB/WR early.
Again, not saying QB early is always a bad play. But QB early because "They score more and last longer!" is.
Enjoyed the conversation, fellas! Doubt we'll change each others minds, but it was fun and my work day is half over now.
Again, not saying QB early is always a bad play. But QB early because "They score more and last longer!" is.
Enjoyed the conversation, fellas! Doubt we'll change each others minds, but it was fun and my work day is half over now.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
We've had to adjust our projections by 5+ rushing TDs a season, and to account for the loss of Smith, Lafell, and Ginn.
Still love him within the QB position (top 2), but he's lost some luster outside of it.
If Rodgers really dropped a full round because he was injured last year, that just further underscores how irrational his current valuation is.
Personally, I don't lump Newton in with Luck (because Newton essentially ties Luck in age, but has been historically productive to date), and I don't lump Brees in with Manning (because Brees essentially ties Manning in production, but probably has double the expected career remaining). Which is why I keep mentioning those three names in particular. I do agree that with guys like Andrew Luck (no history of production) and Peyton Manning (major age concerns), you're looking at major question marks that have to be priced in. I just don't think the three guys I keep mentioning carry the same question marks. I mean, Newton has minor production question marks (mostly about the sustainability of his rushing), and Brees has minor age question marks (although I think he easily has 3-4 years left of absurd positional advantage), but I think those two are closer to Rodgers than to Luck/Manning on the spectrum.
I'm mostly on board with that, although I think Peterson/Peyton are close. The gap in duration is actually an advantage for Peterson, because 750 VBD over 7 years is likely more valuable than 1015 VBD over 15 years. I think if you'd used Marshall Faulk, LaDainian Tomlinson, Priest Holmes, Randy Moss, Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens, or Calvin Johnson, your point would have been even stronger- I'd much rather have any of those guys for their entire fantasy career than Peyton Manning.
That's not my point, though. My point isn't that top QBs are the most valuable resource in all of fantasy. They're not. Top RBs are the most valuable resource in all of fantasy, followed by top WRs, followed by top QBs, followed by top TEs. And Gronk/Graham are operating at such a crazy level right now that I'd even argue that top TEs have surpassed top QBs. I'm not suggesting taking Aaron Rodgers over the next Tomlinson, Faulk, Holmes, Moss, or Calvin, and suggesting otherwise is jousting with a straw man. I'm suggesting taking Aaron Rodgers over Zac Stacy. Does a single Zac Stacy owner on the planet honestly feel like he's the next Adrian Peterson? The next LaDainian Tomlinson? The next Marshall Faulk? No, of course not. I'd imagine most Zac Stacy owners are hoping he's the next Rudi Johnson or Matt Forte. And yes, drafting the next Rudi Johnson over an in-his-prime Aaron Rodgers is craaaaaaaazy.
First off, we have to define "quality options". Yes, more QBs than ever are passing for 4,000 yards... but as I said, the top guys have advanced far enough ahead of the field that a 4,000 yard passer in today's NFL is every bit as much of a fantasy liability as a 3,200 yard passer a decade ago.
As to your final point... again, QBs are drafted late because QBs are drafted late. I recognize that's how the world is right now. Within the context of that tautology and shining example of circular reasoning, it makes sense to wait at QB. This has little bearing, however, on my argument that the position as a whole is currently irrationally undervalued.
If dynasty leagues all across the nation got together and decided they weren't going to take a single RB in the first three rounds, then it wouldn't make any sense at all to spend a 2nd round pick on LeSean McCoy. Why draft McCoy in the 2nd when you could get Charles in the 4th, or Martin in the 6th? But, again, this would be an example of the market pricing assets irrationally.
QB's are available late because in start 1 leagues there are plenty to go around, even if there's a huge difference between a top five guy and #18. In comparison, in leagues requiring two starting RB's abd carry a flex, the equivalent of QB18 is RB35 or so. Lower if you consider that byes are more impactful since you're starting 2 or 3 RBs vs. 1 QB. I'm in no way saying that Zac Stacy should go ahead of a bonafide stud like Rogers, but there's a reason QBs are available later- if you miss a stud QB in your draft, you can still find an acceptable option. Miss out on a good RB2, and you can find yourself in big trouble quickly.
There are 20 or more viable QB options for 12 starting slots. There are only about 25-30 viable RB options for about 30 slots. There's nothing at all irrational about these numbers. Nothing irrational about young RB2s with upside going ahead of the lower half of QB1s.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't mean to accuse you of mal intent or anything, but I feel like you're being a bit squirrely and hard to pin down. You keep arguing against the prospect of taking Aaron Rodgers high in the first round. That's all well and good, but you're arguing with yourself, because no one here has suggested taking Aaron Rodgers high in the first round. Also, no one has suggested you should draft QBs high because they score a lot of points. My claim is that top QBs provide just as much of a positional advantage as top players at other positions (with the exception of the crazy-elite RBs and WRs, the Marshall Faulks and Marvin Harrisons of the world), and they provide that advantage over a longer timeframe.Early startup picks are affected by the picks that follow. If you draft Rodgers 1.01 and the next QB goes off the board in the 4th - your pick did not provide you much value. If you drafted Calvin 1.01 and WRs fall--you take Dez and start him at WR2. Then Cobb and start him at WR3. Then Brpwm and start him at the flex spot. Then Garcon for bye weeks, injuries, and to play matchups. Then Cruz, Fitz, and Tavon and you shouldn't have trouble trading all 3 of them. That's a major risk when drafting QB early and a major advantage of drafting RB/WR early.
Again, not saying QB early is always a bad play. But QB early because "They score more and last longer!" is.
Enjoyed the conversation, fellas! Doubt we'll change each others minds, but it was fun and my work day is half over now.
The crux of my argument is that Rodgers falling out of the top 30 is crazy. Do you disagree with this? And if so, can you please name which 30 players you would rather own than Aaron Rodgers?
There are plenty of QBs to go around, if you don't mind owning one that will be outscored by 100 points over the course of the season.
There are also plenty of WRs and RBs to go around, if you don't mind owning one that will be outscored by 100 points over the course of the season. Last year, the difference between Manning/Brees and QB18 was 171 points. That's the difference between WR1 and WR84. So yeah, if you don't mind operating at that huge of a disadvantage, there are tons of WRs to go around. Not everyone can have a Josh Gordon or a Calvin Johnson, but there's enough Leonard Hankersons for everyone to have three. The difference between Manning/Brees and Robert Griffin or Joe Flacco was the difference between Eddie Lacy and Brian Leonard. If you don't mind operating at that huge of a disadvantage, then there are TONS of RBs for everyone. You can get a guy like Brian Leonard for pocket lint, and he'll leave you just as competitive against the top teams at RB as Joe Flacco will leave you against the top teams at QB.
If that qualifies as an "acceptable option" to you, then there are tons of acceptable options at every position.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Obviously, taking Zac Stacy over Aaron Rodgers is madness. But IMO that's more due to Zac Stacy not belonging anywhere near the first three rounds of a startup in the first place. The more interesting questions center around players like Jordy Nelson, Percy Havin, Michael Crabtree, Victor Cruz, DeSean Jackson, CJ Spiller -- all of whom are going right in the neighborhood of where Rodgers is falling in the DLF mocks, and all of whom are equally undervalued, or moreso, than is Aaron Rodgers, IMO. So what we're actually looking at is say Rodgers / Reuben Randle vs Harvin / Brees, or Rodgers / Matthews vs Spiller / Manning. Which is less of a slam dunk IMO.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
It wasn't something I'd really considered before, but I think the point that "you can start more than 1 of them" is a pretty valid one regarding RB/WR even disregarding the positional scarcity it creates.
If you already own a top QB then hitting it big on a good young QB is much less of a boon to your team than it would otherwise be, especially since those guys don't often carry huge trade value. The Rodgers owner in one of my leagues also has Foles, which normally would have been a huge coup. With Rodgers already on his squad though, Foles is only marginally useful for him, and his trade value is far from something that is going to change the dynamic of his team. Compare that to a few years back when I already owned Calvin Johnson and then Demaryius Thomas broke out for me. It didn't mean I had to just leave him sitting on my bench hoping someone else would be interested (though as a WR his value is obviously much higher than Foles' on the trade market), it meant I could just slot him right into the WR2 slot and blow away my opponents at that position most weeks.
In the grand scheme of things it's probably a minor point, but it's something I hadn't really considered before.
If you already own a top QB then hitting it big on a good young QB is much less of a boon to your team than it would otherwise be, especially since those guys don't often carry huge trade value. The Rodgers owner in one of my leagues also has Foles, which normally would have been a huge coup. With Rodgers already on his squad though, Foles is only marginally useful for him, and his trade value is far from something that is going to change the dynamic of his team. Compare that to a few years back when I already owned Calvin Johnson and then Demaryius Thomas broke out for me. It didn't mean I had to just leave him sitting on my bench hoping someone else would be interested (though as a WR his value is obviously much higher than Foles' on the trade market), it meant I could just slot him right into the WR2 slot and blow away my opponents at that position most weeks.
In the grand scheme of things it's probably a minor point, but it's something I hadn't really considered before.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I don't mean to move any goalposts. It was never my stance that Rodgers isn't a top 30 pick.
"My claim is that top QBs provide just as much of a positional advantage as top players at other positions (with the exception of the crazy-elite RBs and WRs, the Marshall Faulks and Marvin Harrisons of the world), and they provide that advantage over a longer timeframe."
This what I am countering. In my opinion, it shouldn't matter that they provide any universal advantage. Duration is just like fantasy points, in that they should be measured within position, then that advantage compared outside of position.
I'm not arguing the extreme against you. I agree that Rogers should go by late third, and I wouldn't blink at late 2nd. I agree that uber stud QB should go before merely "good" options at RB or WR. But you seem to have taken that argument too far. I'm arguing RB15 before QB5, not QB1/2. Uber stud QBs may be under-rated, but QB1s in general are not.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Sure it would, assuming you start more than one RB and have flex spots. I'd be just fine drafting my top 3 or 4 RBs, assuming I can play most of them in my starting lineup--not something you can say about QB in standard leagues.
That's a big reason why I won't be the first to take a QB as things are now: the value I get out of that pick is not dictated by me, but what the league does after my pick. That doesn't apply at RB and WR.
I think it's actually a pretty big point, and a reason why I think Gronk/Graham are made more valuable by the fact that most leagues with a flex allow TEs to be flexed (it's unlikely that you'll hit on the next Gronk when you already own the first Gronk, but if you do, at least you can start them both). And it's yet another reason why top QBs are less valuable than top players at another position. But, again, I'm not comparing top QBs to top players at other positions, I'm comparing them to 2nd and 3rd tier players at other positions.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
With PPR and RBBC, I find this to be "old" thinking. Pierre Thomas, Fred Jackson, Danny Woodhead, Darren Sproles, Joique Bell. RB points are everywhere. The negative perception towards low upside RB makes RB2s very easy to acquire.
Really strongly disagreed. If a guy is going to give me a 100 point advantage every single year, then I don't give a fig what the average career length at his position is, I care how long the player will maintain that advantage.
Imagine we created a new unit called a "Val" that perfectly captured player value on a year-to-year basis- sort of like VBD, but without the flaws. This new unit adjusted for positional limits (so, for instance, QBs are penalized appropriately for the fact that you can only start 1 of them, even if a second breaks out on your bench). Through breakthrough algorithms, a "Val" perfectly measures a player's contribution towards winning, such that the team with more Vals finishes with a better all-play winning percentage than a team with fewer Vals 100% of the time. In short, it's the Holy Grail of statistics- a single numbers that wholly encapsulates how much a player contributes to winning in fantasy football, and is directly comparable across positions.
Now, imagine we have two players. The first is a quarterback who will provide exactly 100 Vals every year for 12 years. The second is a runningback who will provide exactly 100 Vals every year for 10 years. Let's say the average career length at QB is 10 years, and the average career length at RB is 5 years. Which of these two players is more valuable? The RB will beat his career average by a larger value both in absolute terms (5 years > 2 years) and in percentage terms (100% > 20%)... but it doesn't matter. The QB is still more valuable, because 12 years is more than 10 years. Sure, the longer career averages at QB means the QB will be outscoring the same guys every year, while the RB will be outscoring a rotating cast of RB2-types. It doesn't matter, though. 100 Vals are 100 Vals, and 100 Vals over 12 years > 100 Vals over 10 years.
Irrational or not, should we not take advantage of this and plan to take a quality QB late? Sure, Aaron Rodgers would be the choice if all QBs were drafted in the round you think they should be drafted in, but if you take Rodgers early, you make it difficult to take advantage of the other late QBs that fall. You can draft more than one QB, but it is difficult to take advantage of the value after the first because of depressed trade values for QBs (and the fact that you can only start 1). Accordingly, you have one shot to make a "profit" on a QB and that is on the first one you draft.
On the other hand, at WR or RB, you can take one early and if another value presents itself later, you can more readily take advantage of that as well through trade or simply through the fact that you can start more than one.
Then there is the issue of trade value of the top QBs. Right now, most that draft top QBs early are forced to keep them to realize their profit as a result of depressed trade values (much like old players that still produce but can't be traded). Most teams are not in the market to pay a boatload for a QB when they already have Matt Ryan or Russell Wilson. In the second round, I'd rather draft a WR or RB that I think will both later produce as and be tradeable for 1st round value than a QB that I think will score like a 1st rounder but will not carry the trade value of a 1st rounder. I much prefer having the flexibility to trade any given player. If no such WR or RB is available (which is possible), then Rodgers is a fine choice for me in the 2nd (but almost certainly not in the 1st in PPR). In the 3rd, Rodgers becomes a no-brainer in almost any format.
I can get on board with this, except insofar as people tend to underrate the value of "elite QB" upside. Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees give me a crushing advantage over Joe Flacco and Andy Dalton. If I think Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin or Russell Wilson can possibly achieve a similar advantage in the future, I'm going to gamble on them in the 3rd-5th rounds, because that advantage is worthy of a top-12 pick if realized.
Yes, we should. As an example: heading into last season, I thought Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees were worth high 2nd-round redraft picks. The staff does a redraft league, and I passed on both QBs in the late 2nd round, despite them being the highest-rated players remaining on my board. Why? Because I happened to know from all of my mocks with the staff that the rest of the staff was really QB-adverse, so both guys would still be waiting for me in the 3rd, and if I missed on them, there were other QB values to be had even later. There's a difference between where I think players *SHOULD* be going, and where I'm actually going to take them. Ignoring where players are actually being valued is a good way to hemorrhage value in a draft. I have Rob Gronkowski ranked as a mid-1st round pick in my dynasty rankings, but I'd never spend a mid-1st round pick to acquire him (unless I was in a league where I knew several other owners valued him similarly and that would be my only chance to get him), because it'd be wasting value.
To me, it's the difference between "ought" and "is". I recognize that in the current environment, it often "is" the case that Rodgers is available in the 3rd. I'm just suggesting that it "oughtn't" be the case. The reason it's the case isn't based on a sound, logical foundation, but rather it's based on circular reasoning and tautologies. QBs are drafted later than they should be because QBs are drafted later than they should be, meaning there's no reason to draft a QB as early as they should be drafted, because QBs won't be drafted as early as they should be drafted, so owners wait until later to draft QBs, meaning QBs are drafted later, which means that people will wait until later to draft QBs.
To a large extent, the same was true of Tony Gonzalez back in the day. Tony Gonzalez had a 7-year stretch where his season-ending VBD rank was higher than his pre-season ADP rank every year. For seven straight years (and 10 out of 11 overall)! That's a feat that I don't think will ever again be matched. When a player outperforms his draft position, his draft position the next year shifts to match, but Tony Gonzalez was available in the 4th round year after year because there was a rule that you don't draft TEs in the first 3 rounds. With that rule in place, there was no incentive for anyone to draft him in the first 3 rounds (where he deserved to go), because everyone knew no one else would, either. So his ADP remained artificially low because of irrational bias. That's what I'm contending is going on, here. From a purely objective standpoint, QBs are much more valuable than their current costs would suggest, even if it makes sense to pay the lower costs for them because everyone else will be, too.
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I'm also a bit surprised to see Coop on the other side of this one from me, since I think a lot of the arguments for (and against) Rodgers are the same as the arguments for (and against) Gronkowski. Both provide a huge positional advantage. Both play at historically undervalued positions. Both guys suffer from the fact that you can only start 1 player at that particular position (although some leagues allow a 2nd TE to be flexed, realistically speaking, "flex-worthy" is a pretty high bar for most non-Gronk/Graham TEs to clear).
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I always assume TE is a flex-eligible position, as it is in all of my leagues. I'd be a lot higher on Rodgers if it the gap between he and the #2 QB was as wide as Gronk/Graham and the field.
And if someone suggesting that TEs should be valued more because they last longer than position X--I'd be saying the same things.
Last edited by a moderator:
thriftyrocker
Footballguy
I would take the future 1st and hope for a better RB. It is a deep draft for B level talent.
Taken to the extreme, if all RBs lasted one year and all TEs lasted 10, wouldn't that make the top TE so much more valuable than the top RB? The more years, the more time for a player to build on the positional advantage (i.e., more career VBD).
Concept Coop
Footballguy
If I told you that you could add 100VBD/year for 5 years, would you apply it to QB or RB? You'd do it for the RB because 5 years of production at the RB spot is an advantage over your league. 5 years of QB production is baseline or below.
Value over replacement, as a concept, does not simpy apply to fantasy points. It appies to value, period. In dynasty formats, value extends beyond fantasy points; duration of production is now a measurable value. Just like fantasy points - we measure that within position, then compare that advantage across positions.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Top 12 PPG QBs in the HyperActive leagues last season:
1. Peyton - 30.6
2. Brees - 26.6
3. Foles - 22.7
4. Rodgers - 22.3
5. Dalton - 22.3
6. Stafford - 22.0
7. Rivers - 21.8
8. Newton - 21.7
9. Luck - 21.5
10. Romo - 20.7
11. Roethlisberger - 20.5
12. Griffin - 20.4
Pretty flat after the top two guys. It's a similar story at most of the other positions, but the key difference IMO is that you can stack up multiple great RB/WR whereas you can only start the one QB. If you have QB1 and QB5 on your roster, you're getting a big advantage at your QB1 spot but that QB5 isn't doing you any good because he's on your bench every week. If you have WR1 and WR5, you're getting a big advantage at your WR1 spot and also at your WR2 spot where that second elite WR is giving you a huge weekly edge.
Different formats require different approaches, but in leagues like these, I think it makes a lot of sense to basically disregard the QB position. If you KNOW that your QB is going to score out of his mind like Peyton and Brees then that's one thing, but in general there's simply a much bigger edge to be gained by taking shots at WR/RB where you can utilize multiple great players to start to gain a really big weekly advantage. Last season Julian Edelman, TY Hilton, and DeSean Jackson probably did more to help you win in that format than Rodgers or Foles. Anything short of INSANE QB production just isn't that valuable.
In another league, it might be a different story. I'd say QB production is of minimal concern to me in 5/7 of my dynasty leagues though.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Concept Coop
Footballguy
It's hard to answer that. There is no advantage to really measure.
If all TEs lasted 10 years and all RBs lasted 1 year, except for one who lasted 4--who is more valuable, based on duration a random TE or the single RB who outlasts his peers by 400?
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a difference between flex-eligible and flex-capable. In theory, if you have another TE who steps up, it is possible to flex him. In practice, he'll need to step all the way up to the Gronk/Graham tier before flexing him provides a useful advantage. If that second TE you're sitting on becomes the next Greg Olsen or Charles Clay, he'll be as useful in your flex as Harry Douglas or Emmanuel Sanders.
So yes, in leagues that offer a TE flex, you're protected in the instance that you draft Gronk and later wind up rostering another super-elite TE... but it doesn't do much for you in the instances where you draft Gronk and later wind up with a merely-good TE. It's an advantage over the QB position, but not a big one.
Assuming we're talking about my hypothetical "Vals" and not garden-variety VBD, then I wouldn't care where it was applied. Just because it's easier to get a QB who will give you extended bouts of baseline production than an RB who will do the same doesn't mean production over baseline is less valuable at the QB position.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I agree with this for the most part. But the year end baseline doesn't account for bye weeks and injuries. Most of us have to dip below baseline a few times a week. Having a Witten, Reed, or Davis as your TE2 is a solid luxury, even if they are only baseline options.
Ummm... yeah, that's one thing. We KNOW that Aaron Rodgers, if healthy, is going to score out of his mind like Peyton and Brees.
Using the data that you provided, the elite-tier QBs provided a 5-9 point advantage over a mid-tier QB1, and a 6-10 point advantage over a bottom-level QB1. Go back to the same league and look at WR and RB. If you subtracted 5-9 points from, say, the #5 overall WR, what would you be left with? If you did the same from the #5 overall RB?
Yes. Options are valuable. If Charles Clay was given TE/RB eligibility (because he sometimes plays at FB), that would make him more valuable, because it would give you more options. Nevermind the fact that Charles Clay scores terribly for an RB- having more options never hurts, because if you don't like them, you can just opt not to use them. At the same time, there might be occasions where you would use those options, so having them available is a value boost.
I'm just saying it's not a very big one. Gronk is more valuable in flex-eligible leagues because there are times when you might be content with below-baseline flex production from your TE2. He's just not MUCH more valuable, because below-baseline flex production from your TE2, while occasionally better than your alternatives, is typically not very much of a value add.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I strongly disagree with this. A hypothetical asset which provided baseline production to a single position--would vary greatly in value, depending on the position it applied to. At QB, it's nearly worthless. At RB, it's a major, major asset. That should be built into every asset.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jimmy Graham is 27. Aaron Rodgers just turned 30. Even if we want to compare them strictly to their peers, I would say that Aaron Rodgers is as young relative to elite pass-throwers as Jimmy Graham is relative to elite pass-catchers. I would say that both ages (27-28 for catchers and 30-31 for throwers) represent somewhere right around the midpoint of the expected peak career (roughly 24-33 for catchers and 24-38 for throwers).
Again, we're assuming that we have a mythical value metric that automagically incorporates all of this, so that 100 VAL = 100 VAL across all positions (and, therefore, baseline production is baseline production across all positions).
Concept Coop
Footballguy
It sounds like a better version of VBD, but it still doesn't measure duration. Until our mythical value includes that, I'm not sure it brings much to this particular conversation, as that's my point: Duration should be measured the same way we measure fantasy points; in relation to baseline values.
EBF
Footballguy
A top RB/WR is usually going to be worth about 5 pgg in that league. A top QB will usually be worth about the same. Rodgers in 2012 scored 25.3 ppg at QB2 compared with 20.2 ppg for Wilson at QB12. Guys like Romo, Stafford, and Ryan who could probably be had for a late 1st round rookie pick or a 6th-8th round startup pick in that league (if not less) scored 22-23 ppg that season. If you get an out-of-his-gourd season like Peyton in 2013 or Rodgers in 2011 then it can provide a pretty massive edge, but even a modest slide backwards makes them only marginally more valuable than cheap alternatives.
It's nice to have a player like that on your roster, but if you can manage to land another elite RB/WR then I think it will do a lot more for you. Especially if you've already got a great player or two at that position. If you can manage to corral 3-4 really good RB/WR in a league with numerous flex spots for those positions, suddenly you're starting guys like Demaryius and Gordon as your 2nd or 3rd WR while other teams are rolling out TY Hilton and Torrey Smith or worse.
The strategy of stockpiling RB/WR can be devastating if you make the right picks and land a few mega stars. I'd generally rather have a team that's loaded at those spots and roll with Romo/Olsen types at QB/TE as opposed to having Rodgers/Graham and nothing at RB/WR. I actually had those two guys together on a team in 2012 and finished damn near dead last because my RB/WR couldn't carry their weight. Anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates the point. In most formats I think it's easier to win with monsters at RB/WR and spitballs at QB/TE than monsters at QB/TE and spitballs at RB/WR.
That doesn't mean I like the idea of taking Cordarrelle Patterson ahead of Aaron Rodgers in a startup draft, but if Patterson jumps up into that Gordon/Dez/Demaryius production territory then he's probably doing more for you than an average Rodgers season in most leagues, so there's some incentive to take the lower % play because of the higher potential payoff.
It's nice to have a player like that on your roster, but if you can manage to land another elite RB/WR then I think it will do a lot more for you. Especially if you've already got a great player or two at that position. If you can manage to corral 3-4 really good RB/WR in a league with numerous flex spots for those positions, suddenly you're starting guys like Demaryius and Gordon as your 2nd or 3rd WR while other teams are rolling out TY Hilton and Torrey Smith or worse.
The strategy of stockpiling RB/WR can be devastating if you make the right picks and land a few mega stars. I'd generally rather have a team that's loaded at those spots and roll with Romo/Olsen types at QB/TE as opposed to having Rodgers/Graham and nothing at RB/WR. I actually had those two guys together on a team in 2012 and finished damn near dead last because my RB/WR couldn't carry their weight. Anecdotal evidence, but it illustrates the point. In most formats I think it's easier to win with monsters at RB/WR and spitballs at QB/TE than monsters at QB/TE and spitballs at RB/WR.
That doesn't mean I like the idea of taking Cordarrelle Patterson ahead of Aaron Rodgers in a startup draft, but if Patterson jumps up into that Gordon/Dez/Demaryius production territory then he's probably doing more for you than an average Rodgers season in most leagues, so there's some incentive to take the lower % play because of the higher potential payoff.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
I think Graham and Rodgers are close enough, and that's fine. And you're right to point out my inconsistency. I should have said: If Rogers was a safe bet to match 2013 Manning/Brees in points over field, and were similar in age to Gronk/Graham - then there's cause to value him on par with the other two. But that's not the case.
And I disagree. 100 points over baseline is 100 points over baseline. If I had a team that scored 300 points over baseline, it's a championship contender, whether those 300 points came from QB, RB, TE, WR, or Kicker and Defense.
Eli Manning can provide baseline production for 10 years at QB. Guys like BJGE might only get you one year of baseline production before yielding to Bilal Powell. I just don't understand why 5 years of 100 point value from Drew Brees should be less valuable than 5 years of 100 points value from Adrian Peterson just because the baseline for Brees is named "Eli Manning" every year, while the baseline from Peterson changes every year from Law Firm to Powell to Turbin to 'Quizz.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not? Are you disputing that he's a good bet to match Peyton/Brees in points over the field, or are you disputing that he's not similar in age-relative-to-position to Jimmy Graham?
Edit: It seems that you conceded the latter point, so I'd imagine your dispute is with the former point. Last year, Peyton provided 151 points of VBD and Brees provided 99. If you pro-rate each of Rodgers' seasons to 16 games, then during the course of his career he would have provided 78, 115, 95, 197, 93, and 41 points of VBD. That 41 points of VBD is brought down by the inclusion of a game where Rodgers left after two passing attempts- remove that from the sample and it would have been a 75-VBD pace. That's six straight years over 75 VBD, 4 out of 6 over 90 VBD, and an average of 109 VBD. If you know another guy who's a safer bet for 90 points over baseline, I'd love to hear who.
Last edited by a moderator:
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Similar threads
