Dynasty running backs (1 Viewer)

[DWidmar]

I see alot of people ranking dynasty players on these boards and I love that some people will stick their neck out and rank players. (some take alot of heat for their rankings also) My question is in regards to length of fantasy production from a RB. I am sure at some point or another this question has been addressed on these boards but I have not seen it talked about in the last two years. (could have missed it though)

How long (in years) do you expect to get out of a RB in order to rank him as a top dynasty back?

My example would be Alexander. If you expected to get three years worth of production would you still rank him out of the top 5? (maybe you have other reasons to rank this player lower but I am talking only about length of time before a RB hits the wall)

Also one other question in terms of dynasty rankings. If you new LT2 was going to have one more year like this past one and then he would fall of the proverbial cliff for old RB's where would you rank him??

I am just curious and I know the time frame I need and want from RB's but wanted to see everyone else's thoughts on this.

 

[JohnnyU]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

 

[KellysHeroes]

I see alot of people ranking dynasty players on these boards and I love that some people will stick their neck out and rank players. (some take alot of heat for their rankings also) My question is in regards to length of fantasy production from a RB. I am sure at some point or another this question has been addressed on these boards but I have not seen it talked about in the last two years. (could have missed it though)How long (in years) do you expect to get out of a RB in order to rank him as a top dynasty back? My example would be Alexander. If you expected to get three years worth of production would you still rank him out of the top 5? (maybe you have other reasons to rank this player lower but I am talking only about length of time before a RB hits the wall)Also one other question in terms of dynasty rankings. If you new LT2 was going to have one more year like this past one and then he would fall of the proverbial cliff for old RB's where would you rank him?? I am just curious and I know the time frame I need and want from RB's but wanted to see everyone else's thoughts on this.

You should expect the 1st yr or 2 too be average since their learning their offense; building up their bodies, etc. Then if you get 3 too 4 yrs of solid production before their Decline... you drafted a good Back

 

[DWidmar]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

I am playing devils advocate right now. Based on your time frame, LT should not be ranked as the #1 dynasty RB. I do not expect him to perform at this level or close to it for 5 years. I would think 3 to 4 years tops. Who do you rank as the #1 dynasty back?

 

[JohnnyU]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

I am playing devils advocate right now. Based on your time frame, LT should not be ranked as the #1 dynasty RB. I do not expect him to perform at this level or close to it for 5 years. I would think 3 to 4 years tops. Who do you rank as the #1 dynasty back?

I was saying 5 years that a RB should remain a top end fantasy starter. Sorry if I strayed from your original post. To answer your last question, of course LT2, or were you being facetious?

 

[DWidmar]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

I am playing devils advocate right now. Based on your time frame, LT should not be ranked as the #1 dynasty RB. I do not expect him to perform at this level or close to it for 5 years. I would think 3 to 4 years tops. Who do you rank as the #1 dynasty back?

I was saying 5 years that a RB should remain a top end fantasy starter. Sorry if I strayed from your original post. To answer your last question, of course LT2, or were you being facetious?

Yeah I agree LT2 is top dynasty RB right now. But at some point even LT2 wont be the top back. When is that time? When he has two years left (as best we can tell). Right now everyone is ranking Alexander around the #10 dynasty back. The reasoning I am hearing is that he is on the downside of his carreer. (most are saying 2 more years left. ) I expect for re-draft purposed he should be around RB #5 (IMHO) but for dynasty purposes he is around #10. So if ALexander had three years left would he be ranked higher as a dynasty back?

 

[FTRWRTR]

I would say 3 - 5 years is the most you should expect. Some of the above poster have mentioned LT but he's far more the exception than the rule. Rbs who were once on top like rickey williams, priest holmes, marshall faulk, etc who give you a few great years is the norm. I laugh when I see ff owners post about how they're set because they have a couple of young, quality rbs. It only takes one hit and the fact is the length of a rb's " career" is about three years.

 

[Riffraff]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format.

1-2 years to take the starters job.

3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)

1-2 to decline out of the picture.

If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

 

[DWidmar]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format. 1-2 years to take the starters job.3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)1-2 to decline out of the picture.If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

I like that breakdown and I agree that is probably the most average life span of an RB. How do you use that breakdown when you rank players? If an RB is at the six year point, you automatically drop their value?Lets say Tiki was going to play for two more years. Where would you rank him in a re-draft league and where would you rank him in a dynasty format? and Why.

 

[FantasyTrader]

We're failing to factor in the ability to trade a player at his sell high point. I like RiffRaff's 6 yr. breakdown. That seems about right to me. As for LT2, I think late in the season this year through offseason '08 would be a great time to sell high on him in Dynasty formats.

IMO too many owners make the mitake of riding a stud until the wheels fall off. I can see why it happens, when a player is at his peak you WANT to believe he still has one more year left...then one more year left...then one more year left. At some point you will be wrong and that's the point that you've kept them too long. When you could have backed up the armored truck in a trade had you gone with historical numbers. I can't remember where I heard it, but I seem to remember 3,200 career touches (carries AND rec. being the avg. studs breaking point.

 

[Riffraff]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format. 1-2 years to take the starters job.3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)1-2 to decline out of the picture.If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

I like that breakdown and I agree that is probably the most average life span of an RB. How do you use that breakdown when you rank players? If an RB is at the six year point, you automatically drop their value?Lets say Tiki was going to play for two more years. Where would you rank him in a re-draft league and where would you rank him in a dynasty format? and Why.

The hypothetical Tiki scenario:Redraft - depends upon scoring format. PPR as high as #5 over-all. In non-PPR, end of the first round, high second round since he was never a high TD guy.Dynasty - depends if my squad is a viable title contender and scoring format. If a title contender, I'd rate him higher since he can put the squad over the top. But if I'm rebuilding, he's a sell candidate with few buyers due to age. His value = late first round rookie pick. Caveat: I don't value rookie picks beyond the first round and half. First few picks are gold, the next dozen are hopefuls. Rest = prayers and roster cuts. I'd rather let someone else be the farm team of the league. Do I drop RBs once they hit the 6 year mark (28/29 years old)? No, but I do know owners that do. Like I said, anything longer than 6 years is gravy. I am wary of purchasing them at that age since you end up over-paying for previous years instead of coming years. Hard to trade them too.I do tend to give up on RBs if they haven't taken the starters job by early year 3. It's fun to watch those that give up in the first season when the player is still learning the pro game. Also fun to watch the less talented rookie that excels in year one and then tails off after that. I had a post where I listed roughly two-thirds of the 2006 starting RBs were not the highest rusher of their team in the first year. Previous year's stats are a baseline, not the current cheatsheet.

 

[DWidmar]

We're failing to factor in the ability to trade a player at his sell high point. I like RiffRaff's 6 yr. breakdown. That seems about right to me. As for LT2, I think late in the season this year through offseason '08 would be a great time to sell high on him in Dynasty formats.

IMO too many owners make the mitake of riding a stud until the wheels fall off. I can see why it happens, when a player is at his peak you WANT to believe he still has one more year left...then one more year left...then one more year left. At some point you will be wrong and that's the point that you've kept them too long. When you could have backed up the armored truck in a trade had you gone with historical numbers. I can't remember where I heard it, but I seem to remember 3,200 career touches (carries AND rec. being the avg. studs breaking point.

So how will you rank LT2 in dynasty formats after season 09 starts? How far will he fall in the dynasty rankings knowing his age will be a factor. (assuming everything else stays the same) I am trying to figure out how to rank an Alexander with two years left vs. a Willie Parker with several years left in a dynasty ranking. I think Alexander will out produce Willie for the next two years then in year three Willie should out produce ALexander. How do you place a value on that? I hope this is making sense. I know there is no specific answer but I am curious how owners who rank players determine that.

 

[DWidmar]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format.

1-2 years to take the starters job.

3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)

1-2 to decline out of the picture.

If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

I like that breakdown and I agree that is probably the most average life span of an RB. How do you use that breakdown when you rank players? If an RB is at the six year point, you automatically drop their value?Lets say Tiki was going to play for two more years. Where would you rank him in a re-draft league and where would you rank him in a dynasty format? and Why.

The hypothetical Tiki scenario:Redraft - depends upon scoring format. PPR as high as #5 over-all. In non-PPR, end of the first round, high second round since he was never a high TD guy.

Dynasty - depends if my squad is a viable title contender and scoring format. If a title contender, I'd rate him higher since he can put the squad over the top. But if I'm rebuilding, he's a sell candidate with few buyers due to age.

His value = late first round rookie pick.

Caveat: I don't value rookie picks beyond the first round and half. First few picks are gold, the next dozen are hopefuls. Rest = prayers and roster cuts. I'd rather let someone else be the farm team of the league.

Do I drop RBs once they hit the 6 year mark (28/29 years old)? No, but I do know owners that do. Like I said, anything longer than 6 years is gravy. I am wary of purchasing them at that age since you end up over-paying for previous years instead of coming years. Hard to trade them too.

I do tend to give up on RBs if they haven't taken the starters job by early year 3.

It's fun to watch those that give up in the first season when the player is still learning the pro game. Also fun to watch the less talented rookie that excels in year one and then tails off after that. I had a post where I listed roughly two-thirds of the 2006 starting RBs were not the highest rusher of their team in the first year. Previous year's stats are a baseline, not the current cheatsheet.

I completely agree with the bolded parts. I am so leery of "young" talent and I prefer to trade away my first round picks in favor of players who are proven. I don't like drafting any rookie WR. I would much rather wait a year or two and trade for them after their value has dropped. Thanks for your replies.

 

[cstu]

Just to give you an idea how hard it is to project dynasty backs, here's the top 15 from 2003. Green, Lewis, McAllister, Taylor, Ricky Williams, and Henry never finished higher than 13 from 2004-2006, despite appearing to be backs with a good dynasty futures and being relatively young. On the other hand, a guy that most people thought was getting past his prime (Tiki Barber) went on to 3 straight top 10 seasons. I'm willing to bet that he could have been obtained before the 2004 season for a young RB like Dom Davis.

1 Priest Holmes rb 2003 30 7 16 320 1420 4.44 27 74 690 9.32 0 373.002 Ahman Green rb 2003 26 6 16 355 1883 5.30 15 50 367 7.34 5 345.003 LaDainian Tomlinson rb 2003 24 3 16 313 1645 5.26 13 100 725 7.25 4 344.054 Jamal Lewis rb 2003 24 4 16 387 2066 5.34 14 26 205 7.88 0 311.105 Clinton Portis rb 2003 22 2 13 290 1591 5.49 14 38 314 8.26 0 274.506 Shaun Alexander rb 2003 26 4 16 326 1435 4.40 14 42 295 7.02 2 269.007 Deuce McAllister rb 2003 25 3 16 351 1641 4.68 8 69 516 7.48 0 263.708 Fred Taylor rb 2003 27 6 16 345 1572 4.56 6 48 370 7.71 1 236.209 Ricky Williams rb 2003 26 5 16 392 1372 3.50 9 50 351 7.02 1 232.3010 Edgerrin James rb 2003 25 5 13 310 1259 4.06 11 51 292 5.73 0 221.1011 Travis Henry rb 2003 25 3 15 331 1356 4.10 10 28 158 5.64 1 216.4012 Stephen Davis rb 2003 29 8 14 318 1444 4.54 8 14 159 11.36 0 208.3013 Moe Williams rb 2003 29 8 16 174 745 4.28 5 65 644 9.91 3 186.9014 Domanick Davis rb 2003 23 1 14 238 1031 4.33 8 47 351 7.47 0 186.2015 Tiki Barber rb 2003 28 7 16 278 1216 4.37 2 69 461 6.68 1 185.70

 

[BigTex]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format. 1-2 years to take the starters job.3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)1-2 to decline out of the picture.If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

:( Outstading! There's only one or two who would defy this logic in a given period of time.

 

[cstu]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format. 1-2 years to take the starters job.3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)1-2 to decline out of the picture.If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

Outstading! There's only one or two who would defy this logic in a given period of time.

 

[Biabreakable]

This issue is a ongoing discussion here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...96123&st=50

 

[Driver]

I gauge RBs in a 6 year format. 1-2 years to take the starters job.3 years in their prime, at the top of their game (how good they are varies)1-2 to decline out of the picture.If you get more than 6 years, it's just gravy.

I like that approach in general. The career of each RB is unique, but there are some prototype patterns.Pattern 1 - As above. Probably the most common for successful RBs.Pattern 2 - Player gets drafted. Starts as RB2 or RB 3 or RB4 on their team. Never progress higher and eventually gets cut by 1st team or subsequent team. Of all RBs drafted or undrafted FAs that make the roster of a NFL team, this is what happens to about 75% of them. And it happens to many players regardless of whether they got drafted in the 1st round or 7th round (increasing probabilities of failure by round).Pattern 3 - Major injury (ACL, etc.) before player hits prime. Some players come back -- for some players, it's career-ending.Pattern 4 - Major injury shortly after player hits prime. Some players come back -- for some players, it's career-ending.Pattern 5 - Major career-ending injury late after RB has had successful career (3+ years of top-15).Pattern 6 - Player starts as RB2 or RB3, progresses to RB2 behind a solid back (Priest behind JLewis, LJordan behind CMartin) for several years -- I think Priest and Jordan each served 4 years in the RB2 role. Then move to new team as UFA and become starting RB with some success. Barber also fits into this "late-bloomer" pattern, and it looks like MTurner will be the next RB in this mold. And I'm sure you can identify 6 other distinct patterns that fit the careers of many RBs. The problem is that you don't know except with hindsight what pattern a specific player's career will have (until it's over). Or whether they have the potential to be a stud or a solid starting RB, or not.The length of a RB's career may be 1 year, or it may be 14 years. Most RBs do not last longer than 5-6 years, but it's the good ones that do last, in general. Few RBs have more than 4 years of top-15 productivity, but it's impossible to predict when injuries will occur or which of the promising RBs with 1 or 2 years of experience will become studs, IMO.An interesting fact about longevity of RBs is that the longer you last, the odds of continuing for X more years keep changing, too. And cumulative wear and tear can be as important as age, especially for big backs that take a lot of hits. For example, the expected shelf life for a 27 year old RB with 1500 carries may be 3 years, but 2 years later, that same back is now age 29 with 2000 carries, and he's still expected to have 2 more full seasons left.ETA: Whoops - forgot to add the 3 most important categoriesattern 7 - Long-term solid RB starter with at least 5 seasons averaging top-10 or better.Pattern 8 - Long-term stud RB with at least 5 seasons averaging top-6 or better.Pattern 9 - Uber-stud with at least 5 seasons averaging top-3 or better (like LT, Edge, Faulk). Note that Terrell Davis was on this trajectory until he wrecked his knee -- he wound up in Pattern 4.

 

[Biabreakable]

Driver another great post on this topic.

You seem to have the numbers together. If you have time I would love to see it all layed out so we can pick it over with a fine tooth comb. Keep up the good work. :(

 

[redman]

RB's are like dogs: the little ones seem to last the longest.

 

[BigJim®]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

I am playing devils advocate right now. Based on your time frame, LT should not be ranked as the #1 dynasty RB. I do not expect him to perform at this level or close to it for 5 years. I would think 3 to 4 years tops. Who do you rank as the #1 dynasty back?

Anything you are suggesting which would place LT out of #1 in dynasty format is ill-founded. I would absolutely measure LT #1 even using a "5 years from today" concept without thinking twice about it. Who else could have more value than him, even arguably, over that period of time? Anyone you could mention would be highly, highly speculative.To answer your initial question I would generally choose to place the most weight on what I'd expect from a RB in the coming 2 years. I'd then place additional weight on how tradeable I see a RB remaining the 2 years following that. It's the 2nd factor that would tend to place somewhat speculative (but talented) RBs over guys nearing the end of their value, such as Alexander.

 

[DWidmar]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

I am playing devils advocate right now. Based on your time frame, LT should not be ranked as the #1 dynasty RB. I do not expect him to perform at this level or close to it for 5 years. I would think 3 to 4 years tops. Who do you rank as the #1 dynasty back?

Anything you are suggesting which would place LT out of #1 in dynasty format is ill-founded. I would absolutely measure LT #1 even using a "5 years from today" concept without thinking twice about it. Who else could have more value than him, even arguably, over that period of time? Anyone you could mention would be highly, highly speculative.To answer your initial question I would generally choose to place the most weight on what I'd expect from a RB in the coming 2 years. I'd then place additional weight on how tradeable I see a RB remaining the 2 years following that. It's the 2nd factor that would tend to place somewhat speculative (but talented) RBs over guys nearing the end of their value, such as Alexander.

Thats what I am looking for. The 2nd factor or what kind of trade value a player has is what confuses me the most in all of this. It is obviously a declining scale as a player will never have youth on his side again, but how to gauge that line when a younger rb with suspect talent over takes a guy who is pretty solid but almost at the end of his carreer. Especially when the solid guy is projected to outperform suspect guy in year one but not in year two. I need to be able to gauge this better so I dont hurt my team by waiting to the wheels fall off of a stud and then I get no value for him. Right now I am holding on to those guys until I get my first superbowl then I worry more about the future.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I would say 5 years at the most on avg.

I am playing devils advocate right now. Based on your time frame, LT should not be ranked as the #1 dynasty RB. I do not expect him to perform at this level or close to it for 5 years. I would think 3 to 4 years tops. Who do you rank as the #1 dynasty back?

Anything you are suggesting which would place LT out of #1 in dynasty format is ill-founded. I would absolutely measure LT #1 even using a "5 years from today" concept without thinking twice about it. Who else could have more value than him, even arguably, over that period of time? Anyone you could mention would be highly, highly speculative.To answer your initial question I would generally choose to place the most weight on what I'd expect from a RB in the coming 2 years. I'd then place additional weight on how tradeable I see a RB remaining the 2 years following that. It's the 2nd factor that would tend to place somewhat speculative (but talented) RBs over guys nearing the end of their value, such as Alexander.

Thats what I am looking for. The 2nd factor or what kind of trade value a player has is what confuses me the most in all of this. It is obviously a declining scale as a player will never have youth on his side again, but how to gauge that line when a younger rb with suspect talent over takes a guy who is pretty solid but almost at the end of his carreer. Especially when the solid guy is projected to outperform suspect guy in year one but not in year two. I need to be able to gauge this better so I dont hurt my team by waiting to the wheels fall off of a stud and then I get no value for him. Right now I am holding on to those guys until I get my first superbowl then I worry more about the future.

There are a lot of ways to do this, but you may want to weight it with the following example:Year 1 50%

Year 2 30%

Year 3 15%

Year 4 5%

Projecting and estimating beyond 4 years doesn't make sense to me, but realize that you should do this same thing next year with the same player. I would also look back at your projections and see if you are valuing long term too much in your initial projections (people do this too much in my book)

 

[Driver]

Driver another great post on this topic.You seem to have the numbers together. If you have time I would love to see it all layed out so we can pick it over with a fine tooth comb. Keep up the good work.

Sorry - just saw this. Biabreakable, I've learned a lot from your posts and they've made me think differently about some key issues, so thanks!Man, I wish I could lay something out that would hold together and make sense. I've tried to look at historical patterns and can see some isolated things that look reasonable -- on average -- and with hindsight. But the trick is to use this information in a format that would serve as a guide when making drafting decisions for your team this year (redraft) or for the future in dynasty. And that comes down to projecting and ranking individual players -- which I find incredibly difficult to do it right. The level of risk and uncertainty in FF is huge IMO. And it's a game of smoke and mirrors to some extent. If you go back to last year and 2 years ago and 3 years ago and look at the highly-ranked players you had most confidence in pre-season -- what a humbling experience -- but I think it illustrates why this is so hard.I usually resort to placing players in tiers -- then taking the top player in the tier in redraft and the youngest player in the tier in dynasty. And I keep coming back to the concept of diversification. When faced by a lot of risk and uncertainty, then rely on quantity and hope that you're lucky enough that enough players pan out so you have a strong starting lineup with sufficient depth at every position.Coming back to your point, I don't mind throwing something else for "review" -- but I just don't have anything more substantial to offer than the comments I've been throwing out. I think it's an incredibly difficult problem -- and I kind of doubt if it ever will be "solved" because of the level of complexity, risk and uncertainty that are involved (but it makes the game all the more fun and challenging IMO).That's not to imply it's impossible to draft a great dynasty team. Experienced FF owners do it all the time. It just takes a lot of skill and knowledge and intuition of "where the puck's going to be" in the future, to quote Gretsky.