What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Dynasty Sucker Bets (1 Viewer)

Concept Coop

Footballguy
Wiki: A sucker bet is a gambling wager in which the expected return is significantly lower than the wager(s).

Drafting QB in round 1: The field is simply too deep right now. Running QBs are changing the way we need to value QBs as a whole. 2012 produced 4 top 10-12 dynasty options under the age of 25 (I'm counting Kaep). What used to be rare, now isn't. The first tier is 1/4 of the starters in a standard size league. Those that miss out on the first tier will be "stuck" with Kaepernick, Wilson, Ryan, Stafford, Brady, Brees, Manning. And those that avoid the position in the first 6 rounds all together will still have Romo, Reothlisberger, and Eli to rely on, as well as some potential to pick through; Dalton, Locker, Tanny, Freeman, Geno, etc. You won't get enough of an advantage to justify taking one in the first round.

Paying WR1 prices for Randall Cobb: It is very possible that GB could give Cobb a shot to start next year, despite the fact that they gave the nod to James Jones this year. But it's not a given; his current price ignores the very real possibility that Cobb's 2012 season was above baseline, as he got starts due to two injuries.

Overvaluing WRs: The field is growing, getting more productive, and younger. As sexy as WRs are in dynasty formats - look at the additions over the last couple seasons: Cobb, Shorts, Blackmon, Nelson, Decker, Cruz, Jones, Green, Thomas, Crabtree...etc. The changes in NFL philosophy are making more WRs viable fantasy options. On top of that - more teams every year are supporting 2+ viable fantasy options. This trend will continue. Define your tiers and target the value at the end of the tiers, both in startups and in testing the market.

Undervaluing the RB: The opposite is happening to the RB position; fewer viable options as more teams are moving towards time-shares. Don't be afraid to pay market price for 26+ year old RB. Don't be afraid to pass up AJ Green and Julio Jones for Trent Richardson and Doug Martin. The value gap between the elite RB and the average RB is widening. The RB2 spot is one of the easiest positions to establish a weekly advantage over your league; there aren't 24 healthy, quality RBs on a weekly basis.

Neglecting communication lines: Get to know your league; all of them. Identify the guys willing to overpay for draft picks, and the guys willing to sell theirs cheap for immediate help. Understand what makes them tick. Ask them about their rosters. Ask them about your roster. Talk. Talk. Talk. Respond to offers, send counters, compromise here and there. Make friends. Be the guy that everyone is wiling to give a fair deal. There are countless potential deals that we'll never know existed if we don't talk.



Not understanding how often you're wrong: Adjust your value accordingly. Having a strong feeling is not justification for a bad trade or draft pick. Don't get me wrong, get your guys and trust your gut. But don't value your own opinion as fact. Don't ignore market value. And don't treat any draft pick or free agent as a best case scenario. If you think David Wilson is a top 5 dynasty RB next year, paying a top 5 price is still overpaying. If you think Mike Wallace lands in a better situation, it's still against your best interest to treat it as fact in your potential roster moves.

Happy to discus and explain mine, but would really like to hear others share. Also, my thoughts on Cobb are all over, so I don't want to go in depth on that one.

 
Good info, and I still expect myself to "fall" for the undervaluing the RB. I will probably still refuse to pay top prices for an older guy (but will love to get one late).

 
'Concept Coop said:
Undervaluing the RB: The opposite is happening to the RB position; fewer viable options as more teams are moving towards time-shares. Don't be afraid to pay market price for 26+ year old RB. Don't be afraid to pass up AJ Green and Julio Jones for Trent Richardson and Doug Martin. The value gap between the elite RB and the average RB is widening. The RB2 spot is one of the easiest positions to establish a weekly advantage over your league; there aren't 24 healthy, quality RBs on a weekly basis.
Right, so what makes you think you can find two that are healthy and quality for the whole season, year in and year out? Drafting RBs early (or building around them from year to year) is the easiest way to ruin your team, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I think of sucker bets, I think of Roy Williams and Robert Meachem. I didn't fall for the latter after chasing the former. So who's the next guy in this category?

 
When I think of sucker bets, I think of Roy Williams and Robert Meachem. I didn't fall for the latter after chasing the former. So who's the next guy in this category?
Titus YoungHe is better than Calvin after all...Peace
 
Are teams really moving to time-shares at RB? There are more mediocre starters because the draft was mediocre at the position from 2009-2011. But RBs worthy of being feature backs are given that role. If Yeldon, Seastrunk, etc. are great, they will be feature backs, and the RBs you want in 3 years are not in the league yet with the possible/likely exception of Richardson and Wilson.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CC, I like the thread. You labled it sucker bets. However it reads more like team management, which is fine. I always enjoy these threads in the offseason. After a busy season of managing multiple teams it is helpful to read these and look back at your season to see errors made, or things you did well. In the spirit of the title I will try and list things as sucker bets. 1. Know your league scoring and starter requirements. Don't buy names, buy points. I have seen plenty of trades over the years where people paid a small fortune for wes welker. However the league was not PPR. To counter CC's point above. If your league does not require 2 starting RB's, don't stress about getting elite starters. In leagues that allow you to go 1,4or 2,3 for the rb/wr positions. People give up rb's easily for the next big wr.2. Don't get caught up in the media hype. Almost every week tv, radio, message boards like this, find a player to hype. Don't get caught up in it. Step back and evaluate. Why did that player excel. Was it a great matchup, or several weeks in a row of great matchups. Ask yourself if that player, A. has taken a legit step forward in his career.B will he continue to have the same opportunity he has had. Bryce Brown is my example of seeing owners panic and overpay. Lots of talent. Seemingly limited opportunity. Not saying he is bad to acquire, just don't overpay due to 2 weeks of hype.3. Status Quo, the current state of affairs. Is it changing. If a significant change either in coaching, or surrounding talent changes, so can a players value. Be aware of these changes so you don't either overpay for player. Or miss out on an opportunity. This can be a little harder to evaluate, but if your aware it will help in decision making. A coupel examples are lesean mccoy. A new system as well as a young rb that has shown ability. This type of player tome is a hold if you own, and not a bigoff season target until we know a bit more. I did toss a couple of examples out to help express my thoughts. I know there are more. Just didn't want to turn the thread in the wrong direction.

 
When I think of sucker bets, I think of Roy Williams and Robert Meachem. I didn't fall for the latter after chasing the former. So who's the next guy in this category?
Cordarrelle Patterson sure seems to have more mega bust potential than any high first round WR since DHB. I want to go back and watch more of his clips before I close the book on him completely, but as of right now I'm likely to avoid him.
 
'Concept Coop said:
Undervaluing the RB: The opposite is happening to the RB position; fewer viable options as more teams are moving towards time-shares. Don't be afraid to pay market price for 26+ year old RB. Don't be afraid to pass up AJ Green and Julio Jones for Trent Richardson and Doug Martin. The value gap between the elite RB and the average RB is widening. The RB2 spot is one of the easiest positions to establish a weekly advantage over your league; there aren't 24 healthy, quality RBs on a weekly basis.
Right, so what makes you think you can find two that are healthy and quality for the whole season, year in and year out? Drafting RBs early (or building around them from year to year) is the easiest way to ruin your team, IMO.
It's pretty easy to determine who is likely to start if healthy, and that is a big part of the battle. Determine your stance on talent/duration of production and value accordingly, assuming health is neutral (no red flags). Any shortcoming applied universally to a position (RB get hurt more often, have shorter careers) shouldn't affect that positions value compared to other positions, with the exception of taking flex spots into consideration. 1 flex spot won't move things too much; 2+ will.

I have won a lot going young RB early. I've won 1 dynasty league each of the last 3 years, in leagues started within that same span, finished 2nd 3 times during that span, making the playoffs at about a 90% rate. Went RB 1st in all of them. (McCoy x3, Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson) McCoy made me quite a bit of money and still has value. Peterson is Adrian freaking Peterson. Johnson isn't what he was when I drafted him 3 years ago, but he has provided VBD and still has top 15 RB value.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CC, I like the thread. You labled it sucker bets. However it reads more like team management, which is fine. I always enjoy these threads in the offseason. After a busy season of managing multiple teams it is helpful to read these and look back at your season to see errors made, or things you did well. In the spirit of the title I will try and list things as sucker bets. 1. Know your league scoring and starter requirements. Don't buy names, buy points. I have seen plenty of trades over the years where people paid a small fortune for wes welker. However the league was not PPR. To counter CC's point above. If your league does not require 2 starting RB's, don't stress about getting elite starters. In leagues that allow you to go 1,4or 2,3 for the rb/wr positions. People give up rb's easily for the next big wr.2. Don't get caught up in the media hype. Almost every week tv, radio, message boards like this, find a player to hype. Don't get caught up in it. Step back and evaluate. Why did that player excel. Was it a great matchup, or several weeks in a row of great matchups. Ask yourself if that player, A. has taken a legit step forward in his career.B will he continue to have the same opportunity he has had. Bryce Brown is my example of seeing owners panic and overpay. Lots of talent. Seemingly limited opportunity. Not saying he is bad to acquire, just don't overpay due to 2 weeks of hype.3. Status Quo, the current state of affairs. Is it changing. If a significant change either in coaching, or surrounding talent changes, so can a players value. Be aware of these changes so you don't either overpay for player. Or miss out on an opportunity. This can be a little harder to evaluate, but if your aware it will help in decision making. A coupel examples are lesean mccoy. A new system as well as a young rb that has shown ability. This type of player tome is a hold if you own, and not a bigoff season target until we know a bit more. I did toss a couple of examples out to help express my thoughts. I know there are more. Just didn't want to turn the thread in the wrong direction.
When I started the thread, it was going to be more "sucker bet"-ish, like the Cobb/QB calls. But then I got lost and didn't really feel like changing. Good info.
 
Are teams really moving to time-shares at RB? There are more mediocre starters because the draft was mediocre at the position from 2009-2011. But RBs worthy of being feature backs are given that role. If Yeldon, Seastrunk, etc. are great, they will be feature backs, and the RBs you want in 3 years are not in the league yet with the possible/likely exception of Richardson and Wilson.
I don't think it's the RB classes - I think it's the NFL. Passing attempts:Rushing attempts is a pretty clear indicator, in my opinion.
 
'Concept Coop said:
Undervaluing the RB: The opposite is happening to the RB position; fewer viable options as more teams are moving towards time-shares. Don't be afraid to pay market price for 26+ year old RB. Don't be afraid to pass up AJ Green and Julio Jones for Trent Richardson and Doug Martin. The value gap between the elite RB and the average RB is widening. The RB2 spot is one of the easiest positions to establish a weekly advantage over your league; there aren't 24 healthy, quality RBs on a weekly basis.
Right, so what makes you think you can find two that are healthy and quality for the whole season, year in and year out? Drafting RBs early (or building around them from year to year) is the easiest way to ruin your team, IMO.
There are a lot of easy ways to ruin your team in dynasty. Acquiring bad players will do it, regardless of the position they play. That's no more true at RB than at WR or QB or TE. With that said, Coop is right- when WR is as stacked as it is right now, and RB is as shallow, it raises the value of quality RBs compared to WRs. That's economics 101, basic supply and demand. It's the bedrock principle of VBD, the concept that built this website. It's the reason why 50+% (conservatively) of all 1st round fantasy draft picks in the last 15 years have been RBs.
Are teams really moving to time-shares at RB? There are more mediocre starters because the draft was mediocre at the position from 2009-2011. But RBs worthy of being feature backs are given that role. If Yeldon, Seastrunk, etc. are great, they will be feature backs, and the RBs you want in 3 years are not in the league yet with the possible/likely exception of Richardson and Wilson.
I don't think it's the RB classes - I think it's the NFL. Passing attempts:Rushing attempts is a pretty clear indicator, in my opinion.
The NFL hasn't changed that much since 2008. When a draft produces a lot of high quality RBs, shockingly enough, the result is a disgusting glut of high-quality young dynasty RBs flooding the market. When you have a long string of drafts where the top RB prospects are guys like Moreno, Wells, and Ingram, the result is a disgusting shortage of high-quality young dynasty RBs on the market. There's nothing more complicated to it than that. I mean, is the reason QB is such a filthy deep position because the league has moved more towards the pass... Or is it because the last two drafts have featured Newton, Dalton, Kaepernick, Luck, Griffin, Tannehill, and Wilson? Personally, I think it's pretty clearly the latter. An influx of young studs at one position results in a surplus of young studs at that position. Recently, those positions have been QB (the aforementioned names) and WR (Green, Jones, Demaryius, Dez, Crabtree, Harvin, Cobb, Blackmon, Shorts- all 25 and younger). If that pendulum ever swings and we get a string of disappointing classes at QB and WR, paired with one or two historically great RB classes, we'll quickly find ourselves in exactly the opposite situation, like we were in 2009 with a huge shortage of promising young WRs and guys like Matt Schaub littering the top 10 of the QB rankings.
 
If that pendulum ever swings and we get a string of disappointing classes at QB and WR, paired with one or two historically great RB classes, we'll quickly find ourselves in exactly the opposite situation, like we were in 2009 with a huge shortage of promising young WRs and guys like Matt Schaub littering the top 10 of the QB rankings.
This is a reason to still take QB early. Turnover at QB is coming. There's a bunch of elite QBs who are getting ready to ride off. QB value may be diluted now but it is likely to jump back up to normal in 3-4 years when Brees is 38, Brady is 39, and Peyton is installed as commissioner. Also, the Ben/Eli/Rivers/Romo age group is already low value, and will be even less valued as they pass 35 barring a Brees-esque string of near 5000 yard seasons. We added 4 guys this year who probably are long term QB1s, but we're losing 3+ short term.Is it really the case of college QBs being more ready and coming into the NFL and taking over, or is it the guys who did it? Certainly the hit rate of 1st round QBs is not high, let alone 2nd and 3rd. 2005 gave us Rodgers. 2006, 2007 gave us nothing. 2008 gave us Ryan. 2009 Stafford. 2010 nothing. 2011 Cam/Kap. 2012 Luck/RG3/Wilson. Which is the anomaly. Do we really feel that great about Geno or Bridgewater or Manziel? Are there great QBs on the horizon? Luck's 13+ year window has a lot of value. It might not manifest itself as VBD short term, but sometimes you're better off just not blowing your first or second round pick. There are risk/reward gambles you can make throughout the draft to compensate for being safe early.Sometimes we overreact to how things changed over the past year. We overvalued QB after 2011, now we're undervaluing it by saying there's too many QBs to invest that high a pick. There's only 3 TEs anyone wants right now, so we assume it will always be that way. The number of stud RBs goes down, so it must be the NFL changing.
Are teams really moving to time-shares at RB? There are more mediocre starters because the draft was mediocre at the position from 2009-2011. But RBs worthy of being feature backs are given that role. If Yeldon, Seastrunk, etc. are great, they will be feature backs, and the RBs you want in 3 years are not in the league yet with the possible/likely exception of Richardson and Wilson.
I don't think it's the RB classes - I think it's the NFL. Passing attempts:Rushing attempts is a pretty clear indicator, in my opinion.
Personally I look at it and see 2 teams that run time shares, and the rest of the teams want a feature back. NE and NO run time shares and they have offenses that warrant it. BAL, NYG and CHI have basic starter/spell situations with clear starters who carry high value. BUF and CAR are teams that had 2 great backs (and I think will move to 1 going forward). Pretty much everyone else has a feature back or would use a RB as one if they had them. Teams like DET and PIT are desperate for a guy to walk in and be productive and reliable. If the NFL is so starved for RB that BJGE and Shonn Greene can be feature backs, if the talent comes into the league, it will not be held back. And law of averages, it almost has to be coming.
 
'Concept Coop said:
Undervaluing the RB: The opposite is happening to the RB position; fewer viable options as more teams are moving towards time-shares. Don't be afraid to pay market price for 26+ year old RB. Don't be afraid to pass up AJ Green and Julio Jones for Trent Richardson and Doug Martin. The value gap between the elite RB and the average RB is widening. The RB2 spot is one of the easiest positions to establish a weekly advantage over your league; there aren't 24 healthy, quality RBs on a weekly basis.
Right, so what makes you think you can find two that are healthy and quality for the whole season, year in and year out? Drafting RBs early (or building around them from year to year) is the easiest way to ruin your team, IMO.
There are a lot of easy ways to ruin your team in dynasty. Acquiring bad players will do it, regardless of the position they play. That's no more true at RB than at WR or QB or TE. With that said, Coop is right- when WR is as stacked as it is right now, and RB is as shallow, it raises the value of quality RBs compared to WRs. That's economics 101, basic supply and demand. It's the bedrock principle of VBD, the concept that built this website. It's the reason why 50+% (conservatively) of all 1st round fantasy draft picks in the last 15 years have been RBs.
Sure, picking bad players will do it. But picking players who end up getting hurt for all or part of the season will do it too. And that happens in far greater numbers among RBs than it does among WRs.
 
This is a reason to still take QB early. Turnover at QB is coming. There's a bunch of elite QBs who are getting ready to ride off. QB value may be diluted now but it is likely to jump back up to normal in 3-4 years when Brees is 38, Brady is 39, and Peyton is installed as commissioner. Also, the Ben/Eli/Rivers/Romo age group is already low value, and will be even less valued as they pass 35 barring a Brees-esque string of near 5000 yard seasons. We added 4 guys this year who probably are long term QB1s, but we're losing 3+ short term.
I think the running QB is the variable that we don't agree on. I think they are going to keep coming. IF Kaepernick, Newton, and RG3 didn't add major points on the ground, they wouldn't be the fantasy players that they are now. I see that trend continuing. So - for the record, I do think you are right on this - when the talent pool does dry up some, there will still be top level producers who wouldn't be if it weren't for their running ability. And I don't think it is wise to invest a first round startup in a player whose true value won't display for 3-4 years, while we hope the field dilutes itself organically.
Are teams really moving to time-shares at RB? There are more mediocre starters because the draft was mediocre at the position from 2009-2011. But RBs worthy of being feature backs are given that role. If Yeldon, Seastrunk, etc. are great, they will be feature backs, and the RBs you want in 3 years are not in the league yet with the possible/likely exception of Richardson and Wilson.Personally I look at it and see 2 teams that run time shares, and the rest of the teams want a feature back. NE and NO run time shares and they have offenses that warrant it. BAL, NYG and CHI have basic starter/spell situations with clear starters who carry high value. BUF and CAR are teams that had 2 great backs (and I think will move to 1 going forward). Pretty much everyone else has a feature back or would use a RB as one if they had them. Teams like DET and PIT are desperate for a guy to walk in and be productive and reliable. If the NFL is so starved for RB that BJGE and Shonn Greene can be feature backs, if the talent comes into the league, it will not be held back. And law of averages, it almost has to be coming.
I personally don't think the NFL is as starved at the RB spot as you do - I think there are a number of guys who could produce at a good rate given the opportunity. Also, I think we would need pretty strict definitions of a timeshare to suggest only 2 teams want to use it. Carolina signed both guys to starter money and still brought in Mike Tolbert to get GL work. I think that is pretty clearly a RBBC approach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, picking bad players will do it. But picking players who end up getting hurt for all or part of the season will do it too. And that happens in far greater numbers among RBs than it does among WRs.
You have to start 2 RBs in most leagues, so it shouldn't matter that RBs get hurt more than WRs - you need both. It is about your RBs value compared to the value of the rest of the RB pool, not WRs. So it's not AJ Green vs Trent Richardson; it is Green and the RB you get later vs Richardson and the WR you get later. With such WR value, the better play (depending on formats and assuming you think these guys are both elite talents), in my opinion, is getting Richardson. You can still get Harvin, Nelson, Blackmon who are longterm stable investments. You're not going to get that value at RB later in the draft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, picking bad players will do it. But picking players who end up getting hurt for all or part of the season will do it too. And that happens in far greater numbers among RBs than it does among WRs.
You have to start 2 RBs in most leagues, so it shouldn't matter that RBs get hurt more than WRs - you need both. It is about your RBs value compared to the value of the rest of the RB pool, not WRs. So it's not AJ Green vs Trent Richardson; it is Green and the RB you get later vs Richardson and the WR you get later. With such WR value, the better play (depending on formats and assuming you think these guys are both elite talents), in my opinion, is getting Richardson. You can still get Harvin, Nelson, Blackmon who are longterm stable investments. You're not going to get that value at RB later in the draft.
I understand the concept. But I think you're being too optimistic on the back end for the WRs you'll get. I don't think you can necessarily get the guys you listed, and they're not Green or Calvin either.I'd rather take Calvin or Green and reasonably conclude that they'll start every game for me for the next 8 seasons vs. any RB you can list and hope that they don't get hurt. Or end up in a time share. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
 
I understand the concept. But I think you're being too optimistic on the back end for the WRs you'll get. I don't think you can necessarily get the guys you listed, and they're not Green or Calvin either.I'd rather take Calvin or Green and reasonably conclude that they'll start every game for me for the next 8 seasons vs. any RB you can list and hope that they don't get hurt. Or end up in a time share. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Calvin is an exception for me, I must admit. And Green is quickly becoming that too, so they aren't my best examples. I used the WR names based on ADP. Perhaps those names won't be there everytime in said rounds, but solid WRs will. There are many ways to skin a cat and win, but with so few young, productive, 3-down backs - I'm looking to pounce where and when I can.
 
I think the running QB is the variable that we don't agree on. I think they are going to keep coming.
Why weren't there 10 Michael Vicks after Vick won games? Or Vince Youngs? For every Kaepernick there will be 3 to 5 Lockers. There's only one in this draft (Manuel) and he is not as good a rusher as even Locker (closer to Ponder) and will probably be a bust (barring some Chip Kelly kismet but even then not so great).If every QB is going to be scoring 20+ a game due to running stats, aren't you at even more of a disadvantage for taking Dalton/Ben?
And I don't think it is wise to invest a first round startup in a player whose true value won't display for 3-4 years, while we hope the field dilutes itself organically.
Competing theory is just as valid. I don't want to invest a first round startup pick in a player who could lose half his value this year. Or a player whose career is over in 3 years.
I personally don't think the NFL is as starved at the RB spot as you do - I think there are a number of guys who could produce at a good rate given the opportunity.
And a lot of those guys are backups to established starters.If your point is any schlub can come in and put up RB2 stats, yes. Teams will pick one, like BJGE or Greene, and use him til they find an improvement.If your point is there are lots of RBs who could be feature backs and the NFL just won't use them, I don't see that. Sure there's guys like Pierce and Bryce. They would be feature backs in CIN or ATL.
Carolina signed both guys to starter money and still brought in Mike Tolbert to get GL work. I think that is pretty clearly a RBBC approach.
They signed Tolbert at a discount to play Michael Bush for when they cut DeAngelo this offseason IMO. Tolbert got nothing when both RBs were healthy right?
 
The NFL hasn't changed that much since 2008. When a draft produces a lot of high quality RBs, shockingly enough, the result is a disgusting glut of high-quality young dynasty RBs flooding the market. When you have a long string of drafts where the top RB prospects are guys like Moreno, Wells, and Ingram, the result is a disgusting shortage of high-quality young dynasty RBs on the market. There's nothing more complicated to it than that. I mean, is the reason QB is such a filthy deep position because the league has moved more towards the pass... Or is it because the last two drafts have featured Newton, Dalton, Kaepernick, Luck, Griffin, Tannehill, and Wilson? Personally, I think it's pretty clearly the latter. An influx of young studs at one position results in a surplus of young studs at that position. Recently, those positions have been QB (the aforementioned names) and WR (Green, Jones, Demaryius, Dez, Crabtree, Harvin, Cobb, Blackmon, Shorts- all 25 and younger). If that pendulum ever swings and we get a string of disappointing classes at QB and WR, paired with one or two historically great RB classes, we'll quickly find ourselves in exactly the opposite situation, like we were in 2009 with a huge shortage of promising young WRs and guys like Matt Schaub littering the top 10 of the QB rankings.
I agree to an extent. The talent pool will fluctuate and alter value accordingly. But I do think the NFL is changing. Teams are passing more and are better able to support 2+ top WR(TE) options. Just to throw a random name out there - what does Alvin Harper's career look like if he were drafted by the Cowboys today, as opposed to 199whatever? There are simply more positions open, whether the talent warrants or not.
 
Why weren't there 10 Michael Vicks after Vick won games? Or Vince Youngs? For every Kaepernick there will be 3 to 5 Lockers. There's only one in this draft (Manuel) and he is not as good a rusher as even Locker (closer to Ponder) and will probably be a bust (barring some Chip Kelly kismet but even then not so great).
At every level it is changing, in my opinion. The running QB is changing - it's no longer a gimmick/Nebraska G-option/run first guy. It's guys who can do both pass and run. That change in philosophy is at every level and starts at the bottom and works it's way up to the NFL. Look at the last 4 Heisman winning QBs. That trend isn't a fad, in my opinion.
If every QB is going to be scoring 20+ a game due to running stats, aren't you at even more of a disadvantage for taking Dalton/Ben?.
I don't know where you got that I said every QB is going to be scoring 20/game. Look at the top 15 dynasty options - the field is loaded. Yes, that hurts the value of guys like Dalton/Ben.
Competing theory is just as valid. I don't want to invest a first round startup pick in a player who could lose half his value this year. Or a player whose career is over in 3 years.
I guess that depends on your projections and what you want out of the hobby, but I think you can find guys who can do both provide massive value now and outlast their peers.
They signed Tolbert at a discount to play Michael Bush for when they cut DeAngelo this offseason IMO. Tolbert got nothing when both RBs were healthy right?
Tolbert was the GL back next to Newton, even when everyone was healthy. And "playing Michael Bush" is a form of RBBC. Look at what Tolbert did to Mathews production, and what Bush did to DMC/Forte. Those TDs are huge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, picking bad players will do it. But picking players who end up getting hurt for all or part of the season will do it too. And that happens in far greater numbers among RBs than it does among WRs.
Far greater? No. Slightly greater? Sure. Typical RBs miss about one game more per season than typical WRs. Here's the preseason top 12 at RB and WR, along with games played:Foster-16Rice-16McCoy-12Johnson-16McFadden-16Forte-15Jones-Drew-6Murray-10Peterson-16Charles-16Lynch-16Mathews-12Average-13.91Calvin-16Fitz-16Julio-16Andre-16Welker-16Green-16White-16Jennings-8Cruz-16Marshall-16Nelson-12Nicks-13Average-14.758 of 12 RBs played 15+ games, compared to 9 of 12 WRs. One RB missed half or more of the season, same as at WR. The RBs combined for 25 missed games, vs. 15 for the WRs. Change the parameters from top 12 to top whatever and you'll get similar results- about one game per season difference between the RBs and the WRs.
I understand the concept. But I think you're being too optimistic on the back end for the WRs you'll get. I don't think you can necessarily get the guys you listed, and they're not Green or Calvin either.I'd rather take Calvin or Green and reasonably conclude that they'll start every game for me for the next 8 seasons vs. any RB you can list and hope that they don't get hurt. Or end up in a time share. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
First off, here's a complete list of WRs 25 or younger to rank in the top 12: Dez, Green, Demaryius, Decker, Julio. And here's 13-24: Crabtree, Mike Williams, Shorts, Cobb, Torrey, Hilton. And here's 25-36: Maclin, Blackmon, Denarius Moore, Golden Tate. And none of these lists include Gordon, Harvin, Nicks, or Britt. Here's the same list for RBs in the top 12: Martin, Morris, Richardson, Rice, Spiller, Ridley. And here's 13-24: Mikel LeShoure, Lesean McCoy. Notable omissions: McFadden, Murray, Mathews, Ingram. It's just an unarguable fact that there are a lot more good young WRs than RBs right now, and that's not even accounting for the fact that 26 is a LOT younger for a WR than an RB (nixing the guys who will be 26 next season drops those 12 names to 8). And the fact that there are a lot more older-but-still-under-30 WRs like Cruz, Nelson, Marshall, VJax, Calvin, Colston, Stevie, Austin, Wallace, Fitzgerald, Antonio Brown, etc. in other words, the WR position is ludicrously deep and ludicrously young. Talented WRs are lasting way longer than they usually do, and at pretty much every point in the draft, the quality of the WRs will be noticeably higher than the quality of the RBs. The only exception is at the top of the 1st, which provides the only opportunity you will ever have to grab an RB who is both talented and young.Second off, you can never reasonably conclude that ANYONE will start every game for you for 3 years, let alone 8. Over the past 3 years, only 7 fantasy-relevant WRs have appeared in every game (I.e. I'm not counting Michael Spurlock or Eric Weems). Calvin wasn't one of them. You had Fitz, Stevie, James Jones, Nate Washington, Reggie Wayne, Roddy White, and Tampa Mike Williams. Everyone misses a little bit of time here and there. As I mentioned, WRs only play one game more per season, on average, than RBs.
 
I'd venture to guess that RBs are much more likely to suffer season ending injuries. I can't think of too many elite WRs who have missed massive chunks of games with injuries in recent times. There was Demaryius Thomas and Welker a while back. This year we had Nicks and Jennings kill a lot of FF teams, but that's only a couple major players. Meanwhile it seems like every year you have several RBs like Charles, Peterson, Mendenhall, Benson, McGahee, and MJD going down with season ending injuries. I think a RB is more likely to torpedo your season in this way. My feeling with RBs vs. WRs depends a lot on the scoring system. In ppr leagues that only require you to start 1 RB, I definitely wouldn't recommend stockpiling elite backs. I would much rather have a collection of elite receivers and plug-and-play at RB. In big leagues that require you to start at least 2 RBs, I would be a lot more inclined to spend big on a top back. But I still wouldn't drop down a tier just to fill a positional need. I wouldn't give up Dez Bryant or Julio Jones for Alfred Morris or Stevan Ridley. In a good, balanced league I think the best approach is generally to take the best player available regardless of position. It's more important to get a good player than to get a good player at X position. Thinking the opposite is how you end up taking William Green over Peyton Manning. Of course you probably don't want to end up with a QB and a TE as your first two picks, but at least having something like a Rodgers/Graham combo gives you a good foundation to build from. If you go the Morris/Ridley route you might be looking at two dead spots in your lineup in the near future.

 
Look at the last 4 Heisman winning QBs. That trend isn't a fad, in my opinion.
Sam Bradford? J/K. 4 out of 5.
I don't know where you got that I said every QB is going to be scoring 20/game.
Seems like a natural conclusion to your thinking, no? If half the QBs are going to have 500-800 rushing yards and 4 or 7 rushing TDs (and 4 or 5 others will be Rodgers, Luck, Stafford, etc.) then the baseline for QB production will go up (or scoring systems will have to change). I don't think CFB has magically unlocked some secret to making ATH into QB, though. If anything it's made it harder to find the prototype because not only do you have to have the head and arm, you gotta have the legs and durability. Guys like Manziel and Boyd are not locks to be great pro QB.Really Wilson is no more a running QB than Steve Young. He ran pro style and WCO in college and never broke 500 yards rushing. His 500/4 might be ceiling not average, and 3 of those TDs came in one game (where I didn't start him in superflex).
 
Seems like a natural conclusion to your thinking, no? If half the QBs are going to have 500-800 rushing yards and 4 or 7 rushing TDs (and 4 or 5 others will be Rodgers, Luck, Stafford, etc.) then the baseline for QB production will go up (or scoring systems will have to change).
I never said half. I said more. And I really don't think that is very debatable. There was more running QB production over the last 2 years than there has been in recent memory, by a large margin. Even if it is only 1 running QB every 2 years from this point on - that still changes things.
I don't think CFB has magically unlocked some secret to making ATH into QB, though. If anything it's made it harder to find the prototype because not only do you have to have the head and arm, you gotta have the legs and durability. Guys like Manziel and Boyd are not locks to be great pro QB.
It's not a secret. They aren't really turning guys into QBs - they're recruiting them. Athletic kids who didn't fit the QB mold 10+ years ago are now playing QB and are required to run and pass. Even at a HS level, offenses are being run that both develop and require QBs who can do both. Kids who would have been moved or guided towards other positions are now playing QB. There are more black athletes playing QB at a high level than ever before - that matters too. Black children are growing and dealing with less stigma or historic resistance to the concept of black QBs; they have more examples to look at.
Really Wilson is no more a running QB than Steve Young. He ran pro style and WCO in college and never broke 500 yards rushing. His 500/4 might be ceiling not average, and 3 of those TDs came in one game (where I didn't start him in superflex).
You'll notice I didn't mention Wilson as a running QB. I mentioned RG3, Kaepernick, and Newton. Although the 4 pts/game help, as I am sure they would have for Young.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kids who would have been moved or guided towards other positions are now playing QB. There are more black athletes playing QB at a high level than ever before - that matters too. Black children are growing and dealing with less stigma or historic resistance to the concept of black QBs; they have more examples to look at.
Don't really want to get into the sociology of it all, but I think the racial aspect happened 15 years ago and we already adjusted. There were 8 black starting QBs W1 2000 and 5 in 2012.HS QB are still guided to other positions if they can't throw the ball. A guy from South Jersey just signed with Bama to play CB but was a high school QB. There are still plenty of ATH looking for positions. Denard will never play QB again. If you can throw the ball you can be a QB. I don't think that has changed since the 90s at least.Granted the McNair/McNabb/Culpepper era didn't do it at SEC schools or even Big 12. But cream/top. If McNair goes to MSU instead of ASU it changes the SEC but it doesn't really change the NFL.
 
Don't really want to get into the sociology of it all, but I think the racial aspect happened 15 years ago and we already adjusted. There were 8 black starting QBs W1 2000 and 5 in 2012.
It's happening.
HS QB are still guided to other positions if they can't throw the ball. A guy from South Jersey just signed with Bama to play CB but was a high school QB. There are still plenty of ATH looking for positions. Denard will never play QB again. If you can throw the ball you can be a QB. I don't think that has changed since the 90s at least.
I don't know what I said that suggested I would disagree with any of this.
Granted the McNair/McNabb/Culpepper era didn't do it at SEC schools or even Big 12. But cream/top. If McNair goes to MSU instead of ASU it changes the SEC but it doesn't really change the NFL.
Again - it's changing now. QBs are becoming increasingly athletic. The NFL is adjusting how they use said athletes and the crop is growing - both at an NFL level and below. I really don't understand what is debatable about all of this - it seems pretty clear to me. If you don't think there are more running QBs, or don't think it matters - OK. But I think there is plenty there to support the opinion of those who think the opposite.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again - it's changing now. QBs are becoming increasingly athletic. The NFL is adjusting how they use said athletes and the crop is growing - both at an NFL level and below.

I really don't understand what is debatable about all of this - it seems pretty clear to me. If you don't think there are more running QBs, or don't think it matters - OK. But I think there is plenty there to support the opinion of those who think the opposite.
We've had 4 good running QB's enter the league in the past two years so there's evidence to back that up. Luck, Ponder, Tannehill, Freeman and Locker are also able to run better than the average QB. The only QB's from the past three drafts that don't run the ball much are Stafford, Dalton, Sanchez, Flacco, Ryan and Bradford.I don't think we are headed toward a running QB league but QB's definitely need to be more athletic today than in the past.

 
I really don't understand what is debatable about all of this - it seems pretty clear to me. If you don't think there are more running QBs, or don't think it matters - OK. But I think there is plenty there to support the opinion of those who think the opposite.
You said "I think the running QB is the variable that we don't agree on. I think they are going to keep coming." Sure they will keep coming, but the question is what happens when 80-90% of them are not good enough. What happens if the bust rate is still high. Will an increase in the number of running QBs increase the number of elite fantasy QBs. I do not think it will. I think it will be no easier to find elite talent at QB than it has been over the past 5 or 10 years, and the fact that we got 3 the past 2 years is a blip. I think the bust rate will still be high. Sure Locker, Tannehill, and Ponder have some running ability and were taken early 1st but they need to develop a lot more just to equal Dalton. Locker has great speed but his 22 yd/gm rushing did no one any favors. Ponder had even less. The fact that Kap and RG3 are smart QBs who can run and throw does not necessarily swing the door wide open for a bunch of running QBs to burn through the league, or even through fantasy. There's still a high bar set for how smart you are and how well you can throw. Will a bad dual threat QB still be a good fantasy option? That's not the case for Locker, et al. It hasn't been the case for Vick the past two years. Pryor and Webb would be boom/bust weekly options. Even Kaepernick did not take dynasty leagues by storm. He averaged Romo/Stafford territory down the stretch. And Kaepernick is a high bar given talent + situation.You can throw 32 running QBs at the league with 4.5 speed and big arms, but almost all of them won't be good enough. Hoping to land a next gen dual threat QB might be a sucker bet. We might have 3 of the best ones already in front of us.
 
You said "I think the running QB is the variable that we don't agree on. I think they are going to keep coming." Sure they will keep coming, but the question is what happens when 80-90% of them are not good enough. What happens if the bust rate is still high. Will an increase in the number of running QBs increase the number of elite fantasy QBs. I do not think it will. I think it will be no easier to find elite talent at QB than it has been over the past 5 or 10 years, and the fact that we got 3 the past 2 years is a blip. I think the bust rate will still be high. You can throw 32 running QBs at the league with 4.5 speed and big arms, but almost all of them won't be good enough. Hoping to land a next gen dual threat QB might be a sucker bet. We might have 3 of the best ones already in front of us.
It isn't going to take a lot of running QBs, on top of what we have, to change things. Every QB able to keep pace with the top 12 based in part on running stats, is going to change things. Whether we think that is 1 per year, or 1 every 5 - it changes things. We've had running QBs drafted in the first round each of the last 3 years. As I said, I think the field, at a sub-NFL level is growing. You yourself said Wilson isn't a running QB, yet he averaged about 4 pts/game on the ground. That is enough to make Carson Palmer a top 10 QB.
 
You yourself said Wilson isn't a running QB, yet he averaged about 4 pts/game on the ground. That is enough to make Carson Palmer a top 10 QB.
But it wasn't enough to make Wilson one? So far Cam is the only one who's even sniffing 4000 yd. Yes if we get multiple QBs who are markedly better than the 3 we just got, it will be crazy.
 
You yourself said Wilson isn't a running QB, yet he averaged about 4 pts/game on the ground. That is enough to make Carson Palmer a top 10 QB.
But it wasn't enough to make Wilson one? So far Cam is the only one who's even sniffing 4000 yd. Yes if we get multiple QBs who are markedly better than the 3 we just got, it will be crazy.
Okay?
What do Wilson's numbers look like if you prorate the last 8 or so games over the entire course of next season? When the gloves came off, Wilson started to really open up the offense.
 
What do Wilson's numbers look like if you prorate the last 8 or so games over the entire course of next season? When the gloves came off, Wilson started to really open up the offense.
If you include the playoff game, over his last 11 games he averaged close to 27/game - 430/season, or, in other words, Aaron Rodgers.
 
What do Wilson's numbers look like if you prorate the last 8 or so games over the entire course of next season? When the gloves came off, Wilson started to really open up the offense.
Passing stats aren't much better. Except for the ATL playoff game he didn't have a 300 yard game, for example. 361 of his 489 rushing yards were last 8 (and all of the TDs). His upside is if he becomes a consistent passer, IMO, but who knows.
 
Again - it's changing now. QBs are becoming increasingly athletic. The NFL is adjusting how they use said athletes and the crop is growing - both at an NFL level and below.

I really don't understand what is debatable about all of this - it seems pretty clear to me. If you don't think there are more running QBs, or don't think it matters - OK. But I think there is plenty there to support the opinion of those who think the opposite.
We've had 4 good running QB's enter the league in the past two years so there's evidence to back that up. Luck, Ponder, Tannehill, Freeman and Locker are also able to run better than the average QB. The only QB's from the past three drafts that don't run the ball much are Stafford, Dalton, Sanchez, Flacco, Ryan and Bradford.I don't think we are headed toward a running QB league but QB's definitely need to be more athletic today than in the past.
Stafford and Sanchez came in four drafts ago. Flacco and Ryan came in five drafts ago. That just leaves Dalton and Bradford from the last three (plus Weeden and Gabbart, who you forgot). There are also still guys like Osweiler and Foles who may add to that number in coming years, but no matter what, we've definitely had a bumper crop of mobile QBs recently.
 
Agree about the QB's but disagree about Cobb. There's too much potential in that offense and I love his talent. He's 23 while Nelson is 28 and Jones is 29. Imagine getting a young Harvin with Rodgers throwing him the ball the rest of his career, that's how I view him.

 
Agree about the QB's but disagree about Cobb. There's too much potential in that offense and I love his talent. He's 23 while Nelson is 28 and Jones is 29. Imagine getting a young Harvin with Rodgers throwing him the ball the rest of his career, that's how I view him.
Agree with this. As long as one isn't counting on him as his #1, I don't know how you aren't smiling big.
 
CC, I like the thread. You labled it sucker bets. However it reads more like team management, which is fine. I always enjoy these threads in the offseason. After a busy season of managing multiple teams it is helpful to read these and look back at your season to see errors made, or things you did well. In the spirit of the title I will try and list things as sucker bets. 1. Know your league scoring and starter requirements. Don't buy names, buy points. I have seen plenty of trades over the years where people paid a small fortune for wes welker. However the league was not PPR. To counter CC's point above. If your league does not require 2 starting RB's, don't stress about getting elite starters. In leagues that allow you to go 1,4or 2,3 for the rb/wr positions. People give up rb's easily for the next big wr.2. Don't get caught up in the media hype. Almost every week tv, radio, message boards like this, find a player to hype. Don't get caught up in it. Step back and evaluate. Why did that player excel. Was it a great matchup, or several weeks in a row of great matchups. Ask yourself if that player, A. has taken a legit step forward in his career.B will he continue to have the same opportunity he has had. Bryce Brown is my example of seeing owners panic and overpay. Lots of talent. Seemingly limited opportunity. Not saying he is bad to acquire, just don't overpay due to 2 weeks of hype.3. Status Quo, the current state of affairs. Is it changing. If a significant change either in coaching, or surrounding talent changes, so can a players value. Be aware of these changes so you don't either overpay for player. Or miss out on an opportunity. This can be a little harder to evaluate, but if your aware it will help in decision making. A coupel examples are lesean mccoy. A new system as well as a young rb that has shown ability. This type of player tome is a hold if you own, and not a bigoff season target until we know a bit more. I did toss a couple of examples out to help express my thoughts. I know there are more. Just didn't want to turn the thread in the wrong direction.
LIke your feedback RP
 
Agree about the QB's but disagree about Cobb. There's too much potential in that offense and I love his talent. He's 23 while Nelson is 28 and Jones is 29. Imagine getting a young Harvin with Rodgers throwing him the ball the rest of his career, that's how I view him.
I really don't think he's Percy Harvin. He's not nearly as fast or electric. But beyond my opinion on him as a player, I just think there is a very real chance he's not the starter next year, but is the slot guy, as he was this year. If his price was such that 2012 being a baseline was realistic - I think he'd be a solid buy. But his price dictates that he starts, and soon. They didn't start him over any of the other 3 WRs, and they will likely look to bring in another WR for depth, who could be a better fit outside. Not a better player, but a better X WR. Cobb got 4 of his 8 TD in a 2.75 game span which he lined up on that outside. If that didn't happen, and he finished as a WR3 - what would his value be?Just my thoughts on the matter and why I won't be buying. I think it is much closer to 50/50 that Cobb starts and would only be willing to invest accordingly.
 
Cobb got 4 of his 8 TD in a 2.75 game span which he lined up on that outside. If that didn't happen, and he finished as a WR3 - what would his value be?
There are two possible takeaways here. The first is that outside receivers get the bulk of the TDs in GB. The second is that TDs are a tiny sample and will therefore frequently tend to cluster for reasons having nothing to do with anything but random chance. Some points in favor of that second theory is that Greg Jennings has spent his entire career outside, and has had plenty of TD clusters. In 2006, Jennings scored 100% of his TDs in a 4-game span. In 2008, he scored 44% of his TDs in a 3-game span. In 2009, he only scored 4 TDs, while in 2010 he got 12. Nelson scored 4 of his 7 TDs in 2 out of his 11 games. Cobb might have had 4 TDs in a 3 game span lining up outside, but he had 2 more TDs the week immediately before that span lining up on the inside- was it the switch to the outside that got him those scores, or was GB just making a conscious effort to feature him? Was it the move back inside that caused the TDs to stop, or were defenses just making a conscious effort to shut him down? Are we really going to hang our hat on 4 catches over 3 games, especially considering his 2-TD effort the week before?For me, I'm a lot less concerned with how Green Bay is ultimately going to decide to use him, and a lot more concerned with how MUCH GB is ultimately going to decide to use him. When your coaches say they go to bed at night thinking of how they're going to get you more touches, and when your QB calls you the biggest draft steal on his GM's impressive résumé and talks about how you are the most professional and impressive WR he's worked with, well, that tells me you're going to be an integral part of the offense going forward. Nelson and Jones are good WRs, but no one in GB has ever been half as effusive with the praise as they have been toward Cobb.
 
For me, I'm a lot less concerned with how Green Bay is ultimately going to decide to use him, and a lot more concerned with how MUCH GB is ultimately going to decide to use him. When your coaches say they go to bed at night thinking of how they're going to get you more touches, and when your QB calls you the biggest draft steal on his GM's impressive résumé and talks about how you are the most professional and impressive WR he's worked with, well, that tells me you're going to be an integral part of the offense going forward. Nelson and Jones are good WRs, but no one in GB has ever been half as effusive with the praise as they have been toward Cobb.
I remember a whole lot of similar talk from the coaches and especially Rodgers during camp/early last season regarding Nelson as well. That died down after his monster campaign because, well, it was obvious.
 
There are two possible takeaways here. The first is that outside receivers get the bulk of the TDs in GB. The second is that TDs are a tiny sample and will therefore frequently tend to cluster for reasons having nothing to do with anything but random chance.
I think there is a mix of both, there. But you do make a good point.
For me, I'm a lot less concerned with how Green Bay is ultimately going to decide to use him, and a lot more concerned with how MUCH GB is ultimately going to decide to use him.
They are very closely related. Despite how my claims have been taken, I actually like Cobb as a player. I drafted him in a startup (took place before the combine), before the buzz really got going. Again, I like the guy. I would be stoked to have him on my NFL team and would love to have him on my fantasy team if the price matched my expectations. But we are talking about a top 10-12 ranking for a guy who needed two injuries to produce low end WR2 numbers and was on the field less than 60% of the offensive snaps when everyone was healthy. That matters and will limit his production. They will get him the ball, as they should, but are 1-2 carries a game going to be enough? Will he start and play in 2 WR sets? All of them? We just don't know the answers to these questions, and if you are going to invest in him, based on the market I have seen, you are going to have to do so assuming we do have those answers. And Aaron Rodgers called James Jones the most talented WR on the roster a year or two ago. He's a nice guy. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two possible takeaways here. The first is that outside receivers get the bulk of the TDs in GB. The second is that TDs are a tiny sample and will therefore frequently tend to cluster for reasons having nothing to do with anything but random chance.
I think there is a mix of both, there. But you do make a good point.
For me, I'm a lot less concerned with how Green Bay is ultimately going to decide to use him, and a lot more concerned with how MUCH GB is ultimately going to decide to use him.
They are very closely related. Despite how my claims have been taken, I actually like Cobb as a player. I drafted him in a startup (took place before the combine), before the buzz really got going. Again, I like the guy. I would be stoked to have him on my NFL team and would love to have him on my fantasy team if the price matched my expectations. But we are talking about a top 10-12 ranking for a guy who needed two injuries to produce low end WR2 numbers and was on the field less than 60% of the offensive snaps when everyone was healthy. That matters and will limit his production. They will get him the ball, as they should, but are 1-2 carries a game going to be enough? Will he start and play in 2 WR sets? All of them? We just don't know the answers to these questions, and if you are going to invest in him, based on the market I have seen, you are going to have to do so assuming we do have those answers.

And Aaron Rodgers called James Jones the most talented WR on the roster a year or two ago. He's a nice guy. ;)
Cobb was 14th for WR receptions, 22 in yards and tied for 12th in TDS...those are better than low end WR 2 numbers. I understand you think he's overrated but he was a high end #2 last year and that's with missing week 17 with a leg injury. He also had 132 rushing yards and a return TD that I'm not factoring in. He probably is slightly overrated for startup dynasty drafts but not to the extent where it should be labeled a sucker bet.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top