ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
3rd round picks are essentially worthless, so of course AP is worth more even if he only plays 1-2 more years. his value is probably a mid-2nd rookie pick.
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 Value Discussion Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter spider321
- Start date
FUBAR
Footballguy
Not necessarily - he might not get what he wants but that doesn't mean he just takes whatever offer was made, they negotiate. A team like the Patriots, Packers, or Raiders could entice him enough to play for less guaranteed money but help him cement his legacy.
He's currently the 16th all time rushing leader. One more healthy season and he's almost a lock for top 10. Two more seasons and he probably gets top 5. He can improve his chances to get a ring while surpassing LT or Curtis Martin. He's a hall of fame rb, but not really among the GOAT over their careers, yet.
FUBAR
Footballguy
2015 was probably his peak but the panthers bounce back. He's still just behind the truly elite for redraft imo. Value wise in dyno, qb7-10 sounds about right. Behind Rodgers, luck, Winston, Mariota, dak, carr, Wilson. After that it can be argued either way.Hu-Tang Clan said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
It baffles me how people can say Julio jones is getting old but think Peterson can come back and be a rb1 for a team. AP was great, but just like LT the production is falling off fast. Why pay a 32 yr old rb more than league min? Especially with the talent you can get in rds 3-6 of this draft
Biabreakable
Footballguy
In most leagues and most draft years there will not be much of any value after pick 24 so round 3 picks are not worth much in a typical league.
You start adding IDPs or 2QB leagues those 3rd round picks become more useful.
In 2014 I think some were able to get Jarvis Landry in the 3rd round simply because that draft was so excellent and deep at the WR position that there was some value to be found in round 3. Most drafts are not that deep in skill players.
I do think you can land TE talent in the 3rd round that might end up working out for you. Drafting TE always requires quite a bit of patience before you see some return on that (if you do).
I do think guys like Jordan Reed may have been available in round 3 of that draft. I kind of doubt this because that draft class was so thin, I recall ranking Reed and some of the other TE as top 12 prospects because of the lack of other options. While I don't think Reed should have been available in the 3rd round of a rookie draft that year, in some leagues owners might have been able to get him there.
This draft class has a lot of quality at the TE position as well, so I could see a good one possibly slipping through to round 3 this year.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Obviously there are SOME people who might give up SOMETHING of value for Peterson. I didn't mean for it to be taken literally that he has "zero" value, more like almost no value. I certainly wouldnt give up much of anything.
However, I stick by the statement that he does have zero trade value for NFL purposes. Someone will definitely overpay for him though because he will make the team money just on name recognition.
However, I stick by the statement that he does have zero trade value for NFL purposes. Someone will definitely overpay for him though because he will make the team money just on name recognition.
Hu-Tang Clan
Footballguy
FUBAR
Footballguy
No, although Rodgers is 33, so how much will he be worth at 36? Highly doubt cam outperforms Rodgers the next 3 years.
FUBAR
Footballguy
Reed and kelce were both available in the 3rd. But it's generally not prudent to look back at the best and assume you'll match it.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I am not saying that should be the expectation for every draft. Rather just providing some exceptions.
I do think this TE class is good enough that it may be similar in depth, and therefore maybe a good one can be had in the 3rd round this year.
You have to commit the roster spot to the TE a couple seasons is the main drawback in drafting a rookie TE, and why people won't take them higher.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
@bostonfred are you still planning for us to do a mock draft?
I think we had 8 people who wanted to mock. So looking for a few more? Would 12 be the number we are looking for there?
I think we got sidetracked talking about how people should draft for the mock and then the mock itself never got rolling.
Anyone else interested in mocking let us know. I think we are looking for a few more drafters.
I think we had 8 people who wanted to mock. So looking for a few more? Would 12 be the number we are looking for there?
I think we got sidetracked talking about how people should draft for the mock and then the mock itself never got rolling.
Anyone else interested in mocking let us know. I think we are looking for a few more drafters.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Cam has the game/talent to be qb1 in any year, I don't think this year is an indicator of things to come. Buy low if you need a qb imo.Hu-Tang Clan said:
Snorkelson
Footballguy
While this notion may still have traction, to me it's the "3rd yr wr breakout year" idea and it's getting outdated in today's NFL. Hunter Henry owners were rewarded early, no reason a talented class shouldn't produce before year 3. Even if it doesn't happen you can leverage this because they will hold their value for a few years. It comes down to opportunity and landing spot. Some prime te places-Biabreakable said:
MIA- Sims is nice depth but Gase will want more out of his te. Would Julius Thomas be a possibility?
NE- who wouldn't be good landing in NE? They could be looking for gronk insurance. Bennett isn't the answer.
giants- Eli could really benefit from having an athletic safety valve in the mid field range
Sea/ten/dal- have aging producers, similar to gates/Henry situation. Could produce as backup in good offenses
some not prime....
cle/buf/jax/chi/sf/nyjets- wide open depth charts but no qb, or otherwise unstable situations. Be prepared to wait.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I think you make a fine point that the NFL is passing the ball more in recent years than it has in the past, therefore more opportunity is there for receivers. There have definitely been some fantastic rookie WR seasons the last 3 years and part of that is due to opportunity. Another part of that is just how good the WR have been in recent drafts as well.Snorkelson said:
You could break the TE into three categories. Blocking TE. Receiving TE and ones that do both. The TE who are receiving TE such as Reed, I could see pulling the development curve back a year and just consider them like WRs who tend to break out in their second season a bit more than the 3rd season.
I consider Henry a TE who does both. He was used more as a blocker than receiver in college. I agree Henry looked very good at times and to be honest I thought he was more of a threat than Gates was. The presence of Gates likely limited Henry's opportunity and he maybe could have done more if not for Gates and Rivers working on the TD record. He scored 8 TD which is excellent. I think he is in a good situation with Rivers who has a history with Gates that should transfer to Henry when Gates retires. (Will Gates retire this year?)
That said one exception does not really disprove the trend of TE breaking out as receivers in their 3rd to 5th seasons. I did spend quite a bit of time looking at this in relation to Eric Ebron being drafted so high. Jeremy Shockey was about the only TE I could find who broke out as a rookie. I had to go back to Mike Ditka to find another one.
The good receiving TE usually do break out in year two similar to a WR. Recent examples would be Travis Kelce, Jimmy Graham. The production for these players tends to go up slightly from the second season, which is more what I am looking for than the break out season, is where does their productivity peak, or reach the highest point, which would be seasons 3 to 5. You do need to be ahead of the break out age on these guys if you want them at a discount.
As far as good or bad landing spots for rookie TE players, I would have to give that more thought. Why would the Jets be a bad one? They dumped Jace Amaro for another character in ASJ who did not do much. It doesn't seem like a huge obstacle, but maybe ASJ can turn things around and they don't seem very interested in throwing to TE recently anyways. That could always change though.
When it comes to TE's I have two general rules of thumb I follow.
First is obvious to most, never trust a rookie TE. By trust I mean I'm not drafting a rookie TE with any expectation they would ever be useful that first season. What I have noticed with some rookie TE's is they are flashing more than previous years, meaning they are giving you a few spurts of solid games more than historical numbers indicate but they either don't start flashing until later in the season(Graham, Gronk) or they just can't stay healthy for long which seems to wipe out a large chunk of the rookie TE's who actually are producing. Off top of my head I think of Hernandez, Reed, and even Henry to some degree last season who started missing games with injury issues after getting off to impressive starts though in Henry's case I think Gates was bigger obstacle.
The second rule of thumb I follow on TE's is if you don't take a statistical leap from year one to year two it's unlikely you ever will. Just check season one to season two of most dominant fantasy TE's, even going back to timeframe of Gonzalez/Witten/Gates and you often see a huge second year leap. A guy like Olsen is the exception, was better in year two but did not show what I'd call a leap and he was a high pedigreed player who took time and maybe needed an assist from better TE coaching which he got from Chudzinski. Most of the time you don't see a TE take a second year leap they don't later either.
Not saying that second year leap even makes them a useful fantasy asset but you still need to see major statistical improvement and it's a big red flag to me when I don't see it from year one to two. So Pitta and Brate barely played as rookies so was easy to take a statisical leap which they did but neither was useful season 3 and even so barely. A guy like Delanie is very rare exception but I think most players who won't take second year leaps are players like him or are non-pedigreed and just struggling for playing time but very very rare to not take a leap for as many seasons as it took him. Ebron is someone who has disappointed a lot of people but he almost doubled up his year 1 to 2 production and other than TD's had about a 20-25% improvement from year two to 3 so I"m encouraged by his growth, especially considering his youth.
It seems crazy to think about now but Jermaine Gresham had a solid rookie season by TE rookie numbers and was actually getting drafted ahead of Gronk and Hernandez in FFPC startups after their rookie seasons. I did one startup that year and drafted all 3 of them, but took Gresham first. When Gresham failed to show any improvement from year one to two I cut bait and have obviously not regretted it.
First is obvious to most, never trust a rookie TE. By trust I mean I'm not drafting a rookie TE with any expectation they would ever be useful that first season. What I have noticed with some rookie TE's is they are flashing more than previous years, meaning they are giving you a few spurts of solid games more than historical numbers indicate but they either don't start flashing until later in the season(Graham, Gronk) or they just can't stay healthy for long which seems to wipe out a large chunk of the rookie TE's who actually are producing. Off top of my head I think of Hernandez, Reed, and even Henry to some degree last season who started missing games with injury issues after getting off to impressive starts though in Henry's case I think Gates was bigger obstacle.
The second rule of thumb I follow on TE's is if you don't take a statistical leap from year one to year two it's unlikely you ever will. Just check season one to season two of most dominant fantasy TE's, even going back to timeframe of Gonzalez/Witten/Gates and you often see a huge second year leap. A guy like Olsen is the exception, was better in year two but did not show what I'd call a leap and he was a high pedigreed player who took time and maybe needed an assist from better TE coaching which he got from Chudzinski. Most of the time you don't see a TE take a second year leap they don't later either.
Not saying that second year leap even makes them a useful fantasy asset but you still need to see major statistical improvement and it's a big red flag to me when I don't see it from year one to two. So Pitta and Brate barely played as rookies so was easy to take a statisical leap which they did but neither was useful season 3 and even so barely. A guy like Delanie is very rare exception but I think most players who won't take second year leaps are players like him or are non-pedigreed and just struggling for playing time but very very rare to not take a leap for as many seasons as it took him. Ebron is someone who has disappointed a lot of people but he almost doubled up his year 1 to 2 production and other than TD's had about a 20-25% improvement from year two to 3 so I"m encouraged by his growth, especially considering his youth.
It seems crazy to think about now but Jermaine Gresham had a solid rookie season by TE rookie numbers and was actually getting drafted ahead of Gronk and Hernandez in FFPC startups after their rookie seasons. I did one startup that year and drafted all 3 of them, but took Gresham first. When Gresham failed to show any improvement from year one to two I cut bait and have obviously not regretted it.
Sure there is value there in the 3rd round, but I am not sure there is significant value over what will still be available on the waiver wire after a 3rd round. After the first 24 picks in a fantasy rookie draft, it really becomes a crapshoot with little, if any, consensus about player value. Therefore the player you plan to add in the third has a pretty big chance of being there in the 4th or on the waiver wire after the draft. Our league had an abbreviated third round (only the worst six teams get a 3rd round pick) , but neither Kelce (rookie year) nor Reed were taken.Biabreakable said:
Also on third round picks... I don't know about the rest of you, but with 20 man dynasty rosters, I seldom have more than 2 truly empty/replaceable spots at draft time... so the value of a 3rd round pick is lessened by the value of the player I have to drop to make the add.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
The roster size definitely has an effect on the value of a 3rd round rookie pick. This is related to the value of a roster spot in each league, the fewer the roster spots available, the more valuable each spot becomes, the baseline of replacement level players becomes higher.
Based on my observations a league with 20 roster spots will not have much room for long term projects and the quality of free agents tends to be higher than players that would fall that far in a rookie draft.
You start extending this to 25 roster spots or more and the 3rd round picks become more viable, not because you will find good prospects that late, but simply because a roster spot isn't worth as much, and teams have more freedom to park a few long term projects, that might come from the 3rd round.
Generally I don't think 3rd round picks have much value. Leagues with 20 roster spots are pretty common.
Based on my observations a league with 20 roster spots will not have much room for long term projects and the quality of free agents tends to be higher than players that would fall that far in a rookie draft.
You start extending this to 25 roster spots or more and the 3rd round picks become more viable, not because you will find good prospects that late, but simply because a roster spot isn't worth as much, and teams have more freedom to park a few long term projects, that might come from the 3rd round.
Generally I don't think 3rd round picks have much value. Leagues with 20 roster spots are pretty common.
bostonfred
Footballguy
I'd do it, but my daytime availability is limited and I don't want to be "that guy" that holds everybody up.
FBGs are notorious for flying through these things once they get rolling...
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Is the goal for this to be a 12 team mock draft? Scoring some have said they prefer PPR format. 20 roster spots is pretty normal I think (although I could argue more roster spots might be better for dynasty format).
Correct me if I am wrong, but the intent of this mock would be for the commentary of each selection as well, so a slow draft is something that would support that and no real pressure for picks to be made quickly.
Alternatively if an owner is gone for awhile, having an alternate who can fill in and make the pick, or even sending a wish list to Fred or whoever is acting administrator for the mock would be a solution, similar to predrafting.
If a pick hasn't been made for a day or something, then just have someone else step in and make the pick. I know I was pushing for a 4 hour clock, but really wouldn't be a big deal if picks took a day to get in.
I guess I was thinking people wanted a completed mock asap to use as ADP data.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the intent of this mock would be for the commentary of each selection as well, so a slow draft is something that would support that and no real pressure for picks to be made quickly.
Alternatively if an owner is gone for awhile, having an alternate who can fill in and make the pick, or even sending a wish list to Fred or whoever is acting administrator for the mock would be a solution, similar to predrafting.
If a pick hasn't been made for a day or something, then just have someone else step in and make the pick. I know I was pushing for a 4 hour clock, but really wouldn't be a big deal if picks took a day to get in.
I guess I was thinking people wanted a completed mock asap to use as ADP data.
joey
Footballguy
Biabreakable just posted this in another dynasty thread but I thought it might be of interest here as well...
Mike Berry's dynasty rankings
[SIZE=12pt]http://www.espn.com/fantasy/football/story/_/id/15698900/mike-clay-top-200-dynasty-fantasy-football-rankings-nfl[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]thanks biabreakable. [/SIZE]
Mike Berry's dynasty rankings
[SIZE=12pt]http://www.espn.com/fantasy/football/story/_/id/15698900/mike-clay-top-200-dynasty-fantasy-football-rankings-nfl[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]thanks biabreakable. [/SIZE]
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Where are we on Graham? Just saw him moved for Paul Perkins straight up, which feels cheap. Makes me wonder, if the new Graham owner thinks he got a steal and wants to play with house money, if I shouldn't see if I can get Graham+ something good for Reed.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I must be missing the boat on Perkins, he's a hot commodity right now. Graham may have another yr or 2 in the top 5 te conversation, but he's got to be reaching the end. I guess it depends on the "plus something" if giving up reed.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I don't think any rookie te will come out lighting it up weeknin and week out, but i don't think it's a wasted spot. Sure if you have 20 spots maybe stashing Austin hooper isn't an option. However if you had Henry and hooper as your tes this year you got some production while you are waiting for them to be set and forget.
Spike
Footballguy
Not a fan of piling on but someone in the leadership group of FBGs needs to make a statement in regard to the dynasty rankings that is part of what some of us PAY FOR!!
It's just not acceptable that, when doing a search in the pay section, the LAST person who did an update in the "Overall" rankings was Bruce Hammond (on 12/13/16), the LAST person who did an update in the "Quarterback" rankings was Jeff Tefertiller (12/20/16), the LAST person who did an update in the Running Back rankings was Jeff Tefertiller (12/20/16) and the LAST person who did an update in the "Wide Receiver" rankings was Jeff Tefertiller (12/20/16).
It's as if they are outright telling those of us who spend a lot of our FF focus on dynasty, "We simply do not care about you. But continue to give us your money."
Why, for those of us who pay, is there an annual subscription and not a 6-month subscription because there is essentially NOTHING updated from New Year's until some point in April, when things start ramping up for the annual NFL Rookie Draft?
Simply put - they should be embarrassed for stealing our money.
It's just not acceptable that, when doing a search in the pay section, the LAST person who did an update in the "Overall" rankings was Bruce Hammond (on 12/13/16), the LAST person who did an update in the "Quarterback" rankings was Jeff Tefertiller (12/20/16), the LAST person who did an update in the Running Back rankings was Jeff Tefertiller (12/20/16) and the LAST person who did an update in the "Wide Receiver" rankings was Jeff Tefertiller (12/20/16).
It's as if they are outright telling those of us who spend a lot of our FF focus on dynasty, "We simply do not care about you. But continue to give us your money."
Why, for those of us who pay, is there an annual subscription and not a 6-month subscription because there is essentially NOTHING updated from New Year's until some point in April, when things start ramping up for the annual NFL Rookie Draft?
Simply put - they should be embarrassed for stealing our money.
It's been discussed at length in a different thread, but yeah, the only reliable dynasty info on this site is coming from Shark Pool members. Dynasty info from the Staff has been embarrassing all year.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Just playing devils advocate here.
If Couch posted updated dynasty rankings on 13 December 2016 do you think much has changed about those rankings over the last month?
Knowing couch and how he does things, I doubt anything has happened that would cause those rankings to change at all since mid December.
If Couch posted updated dynasty rankings on 13 December 2016 do you think much has changed about those rankings over the last month?
Knowing couch and how he does things, I doubt anything has happened that would cause those rankings to change at all since mid December.
Spike
Footballguy
Three people in FBGs have posted dynasty rankings in the last 90 days.
Three.
/thread/
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Ok so you want more people to post rankings. I can understand that.
I would likely value Bruce's rankings a lot more than others anyways, so that would not matter too much to me although more opinions always welcome.
I don't see why we should end the thread because you made your point more clear.
I would likely value Bruce's rankings a lot more than others anyways, so that would not matter too much to me although more opinions always welcome.
I don't see why we should end the thread because you made your point more clear.
buck naked
Footballguy
I could not care less that only three guys have posted rankings. The discussion in the dynasty threads offer way more than those rankings.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
People pay for stuff on here 
Hankmoody
Footballguy
I suggest you take your outrage to https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/749384-fbg-dynasty-rankings/ where it can be properly ignored by
@Adam Harstad ,
@Dan Hindery,
@Joe Bryant, and @David Dodds,
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
So where are we at on Dez? 28, in his prime, young ascending QB. Is he still pulling hauls, or are people pulling that "well he's almost 29, which is only a year from 30, which is really close to 31, and he'll lose all trade value soon" stuff?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
He is still right near the back of the 1st round start up value.
Next year he will probably be back of 2nd. The following year back of 3rd.
So yes, using common sense his value will likely never be higher than it is right now, and this is your last chance to get a "haul" under normal circumstances (cause as you know, horrible trades happen all the time).
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Just trying to figure out if he's still considered a stud asset, I haven't owned him anywhere in a few years. Have someone offering a straight swap for Dalvin Cook in a devy league, and it's just hard to pass on the upside of a potential top-10 pick at RB. Is 1.01 or 1.02 a fair value for Dez? I'm sure most would not spend that, based on his age. But you never know how these great WRs are going to age, he could be a stud till he's 34 for all we know. Tough to value these guys.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I wouldnt give up a proven stud WR at age 28 for one rookie. If you miss you are screwed, and if you hit you get what, a couple more years of good production that what Dez would give you? And if it is for a RB, maybe the same number of years.
Yes I would take 5 quality RB years over 5 quality WR years all day every day, but that is if you KNOW the rookie you take will be good. I KNOW Dez is good.
Yes I would take 5 quality RB years over 5 quality WR years all day every day, but that is if you KNOW the rookie you take will be good. I KNOW Dez is good.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Id take the 1.01 or 1.02 for Dez
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
I figured it would be split down the middle. He's on the borderline of being too old to be sexy. Good example of one of the toughest dilemmas dynasty owners face on a yearly basis--when do you try to bail for the next big thing?
Last edited by a moderator:
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I will "bail" on any player at any time if I like the deal.
This year, if you are loaded at WR and badly need RB help then I could easily see taking 1 or maybe 2.
I thought that part of the conversation was about Dez? I'm asking because Dez has not been a stud for two full seasons. Can list some reasons/excuses but even when you dial it down to points per game, points per target it's not stud numbers. I think he's got one of the lowest, if the lowest, catch rate among qualified WR's over the last two years.
So when a guy goes two years and he's not a stud, is he still a proven stud? I don't think so myself, I think you are hopeful the guy can get back to what he once was which for me removes the proven part of the equation. Even if you break his numbers down over his career, it's a straight 3 year shot of stud numbers, the other 4 seasons were not..
If this was about a Julio I'd say he's worth more than 1.1 straight up, regardless if you need a RB, because he's a proven stud. I don't fee that way about Dez.
But I really was not trying to turn this into a Dez conversation. Was genuinely asking the question of when for people is a guy you once considered a stud no longer a stud. How many bad years does have have that he can still carry that label? Do you just not care at all how many bad years he had so long as your eyes are telling you he looks like the same player? Serious question.
joey
Footballguy
but to keep it focused on Dez for just another momentmenobrown said:
In my non-ppr, Dez finished as WR9 this year ppg, and overall finished WR17 assuming you somehow didn't bench Dez those 3 weeks he was declared as Out (I know I swapped in a backup, that's for sure).
I know WR9 isn't a "stud" per se (what the heck is a "stud" anyway? top 3? top 5? I don't know) but he's a firm starting WR1 for sure.
I've gone back and forth like crazy of offering up Dez for a top 3 draft pick this coming year, but Dez is as close to a WR1 as I have on my roster, even if for just a couple more years, so it's hard to give up that "safety" for a question mark.
Granted (to make this more of a "look at me") I also have the 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 in this year's draft, so I know I'll get one of the Big Two RBs and then BPA at 5 and 6, so my pov on his worth for a top draft pick is skewed a little by that personal fact.
matttyl
Footballguy
Calvin was still a stud halfway through 2015, right? How'd that turn out? To me dynasty if all about longevity. 2 more top end years of a WR, or maybe 5+ years from a rookie RB (though with risk). If I ever "miss" on a dynasty trade (and trust me I have), I try to do so while still getting the younger players (or picks) in the deal.
You made me realize a few things.but to keep it focused on Dez for just another moment
In my non-ppr, Dez finished as WR9 this year ppg, and overall finished WR17 assuming you somehow didn't bench Dez those 3 weeks he was declared as Out (I know I swapped in a backup, that's for sure).
I know WR9 isn't a "stud" per se (what the heck is a "stud" anyway? top 3? top 5? I don't know) but he's a firm starting WR1 for sure.
I've gone back and forth like crazy of offering up Dez for a top 3 draft pick this coming year, but Dez is as close to a WR1 as I have on my roster, even if for just a couple more years, so it's hard to give up that "safety" for a question mark.
Granted (to make this more of a "look at me") I also have the 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 in this year's draft, so I know I'll get one of the Big Two RBs and then BPA at 5 and 6, so my pov on his worth for a top draft pick is skewed a little by that personal fact.
First I low balled Dez on my math. I inadvertently included week 17 in his PPG production and omitted his TD pass, which seems minor but moves him from sub 14 a game to over 15 a game and makes him WR13 in PPR PPG production and takes him from low level WR2 to high end WR2. Still not stud numbers to me, but enough encouraging stuff from way he finished the season to think he can regain his form.
So better than I thought, but still not what I term a stud and has not been since 2014. But move this past Dez, who has had two non-studly season preceded by three stud type years. What about players like Hopkins and Robinson? Unlike Dez they have not had two straight non-stud seasons but they've not got as many good seasons as Dez on their resume nor an injury "excuse". Are they still proven studs? I don't think so myself but I'm not sure everyone sees it that way. The reason I was trying to take this conversation past Dez was from a conversation on this board from back when I traded Hopkins around week 11 and one of the negative comments I got on the trade was they would not trade a proven stud for what I got in return but to me Hopkins was no longer a proven stud. He's someone who has shown the ability but now I'm hoping he can regain his form and again that to me is not the same thing as me knowing I"m putting a proven stud in my lineup.
All of this is why I asked when is a proven stud no longer a proven stud? When do we stop relying on what they were in the past instead of grading them on what they presently are or the season they just had?
Warhogs
Footballguy
I'll add to the Dez conversation that I think a look at the numbers needs a little more digging. He may deserve a bit of a pass in 2015. Tony Romo started only 4 games that season. The other 12 were started by a combo of Matt Cassel, Brandon Weeden and Kellen Moore. Dez also missed 7 games due to injury.
In 2016 Dez missed 3 games and for the most part missed a 4th game if you want to throw out the meaningless week 17 game with 1 target before being pulled.
In 2016 Dez missed 3 games and for the most part missed a 4th game if you want to throw out the meaningless week 17 game with 1 target before being pulled.
I did allude to the fact that he has several injury issues/excuses but after awhile excuses are what's needed to justify why someone was not a stud and again that negates him being a proven stud, for me anyway. Also by every measure I have analyzed Dez I've tried to focus on per game production, which at least removes the missed games from the equation. As I said earlier that is a little better than my first math and he finished strong.
I'm ok with someone wanting to give Dez a pass, or Hopkins, or Robinson, etc, etc, and consider them a stud. I don't myself, but understand those who do and can see your point. That's why I asked the question when is a proven stud no longer a proven stud? How many concessions will you make for injuries/QB, if any? I'm pretty strict on this myself, I'll give you a pass for missed games but that's it. So taking this past WR's or old WR's, Todd Gurley, who I own the heck out of, is not a proven stud to me any longer. Neither is Hopkins or Robinson or any player who had a poor per game production last season that was not injury related. They all ceased to be proven studs. I might be a little to literal in my definition but to me a difference between say having just done it versus hoping some things around you changed so you can get back to doing what you used to do. Doing it means you are a proven stud, trying to get back go what you used to be means you have stud potential. And when comping against elite incoming rookies what we are talking about is stud potential. This is why in a draft with this kind of talent I"m always going to take the young potential stud over an older ex-stud who is trying to regain his form. I would easily take a top 5 pick in this draft over Dez myself because to me he's not a proven stud, on the other hand I would not take 1.1 straight up Julio because he is a proven stud.
So in conclusion, I usually slant heavily towards youth but agree with Ghost Guy's theory of not trading a proven 28 year old type stud WR for a draft pick, I just don't think I agree on what constitutes a proven stud, I got harsh requirements.
Matt's Eagles
Footballguy
What is the going rate for Edelman?
Haven't seen him traded, but I wouldn't be willing to offer much. He's 31 and his QB will be 40. With a healthy Gronk and maybe a decent WR opposite him next year, he's not a very exciting player.
Similar threads
