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] When evaluating players (1 Viewer)

When evaluating players for dynasty leagues, how many years do you look down the road?

  • 1 (the current year only)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10+ (I draft pee-wee players)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Kleck.

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff. I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.

I normally don't look any further than 3.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jurb26

Footballguy
Depends on the state of my team currently. I voted 5 yrs, becuase for the one in my sig that is where I put them.

 

coco the monkey

Footballguy
3. You never know how long a league's going to be around for and it's hard to predict player performances past one year. But it is a dynasty so you have to look somewhat into the future and set your team up for a long run.

 

Tick

Footballguy
For me, it varies by position. 3 for RBs and IDPs, 4-5 for QB/WR/TE, and 2 for PK.

 

-OZ-

Footballguy
For me, it varies by position. 3 for RBs and IDPs, 4-5 for QB/WR/TE, and 2 for PK.
You actually worry about PK, even for 2 years?I agree on 3 for RBs, and longer for the other positions. For IDP, it depends, but generally I want 1 or 2 DL, 2 LB and 1 Safety that I can build around, 5 years or so. The rest I'll fill in yearly.

 

Tick

Footballguy
For me, it varies by position. 3 for RBs and IDPs, 4-5 for QB/WR/TE, and 2 for PK.
You actually worry about PK, even for 2 years?I agree on 3 for RBs, and longer for the other positions. For IDP, it depends, but generally I want 1 or 2 DL, 2 LB and 1 Safety that I can build around, 5 years or so. The rest I'll fill in yearly.
Yeah, I think about PKs a little. It's nice to get a guy you can plug in for five years and forget about.
 

-OZ-

Footballguy
For me, it varies by position. 3 for RBs and IDPs, 4-5 for QB/WR/TE, and 2 for PK.
You actually worry about PK, even for 2 years?I agree on 3 for RBs, and longer for the other positions. For IDP, it depends, but generally I want 1 or 2 DL, 2 LB and 1 Safety that I can build around, 5 years or so. The rest I'll fill in yearly.
Yeah, I think about PKs a little. It's nice to get a guy you can plug in for five years and forget about.
Yeah, I'm a guy who drafted Nugent last year. I agree to an extent, but if I don't get a stud PK like that, it's a position i don't care about
 

Biabreakable

Footballguy
I don't think you can project very much beyond 3 years with so many variables that can change a players situation.

Free Agency/trades - for the player and supporting cast around them.

Injuries - can strike at any time.

Coaching changes - can effect a players role.

Age- player ability declining.

Honestly I do not see NFL teams planning much further out than 3 years either with so many changes every year.

I can see things like age and contract length (team commitment) possibly being a tie breaker between similarly valuable players. Tick does have a point about teams making a longer term commitment to Qbs and Wrs having more longevity compared to Rbs though.

ETA - Elite players will excell even if thier situation changes and should be valued as such.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kleck.

Footballguy
I don't think you can project very much beyond 3 years with so many variables that can change a players situation.

Free Agency/trades - for the player and supporting cast around them.

Injuries - can strike at any time.

Coaching changes - can effect a players role.

Age- player ability declining.

Honestly I do not see NFL teams planning much further out than 3 years either with so many changes every year.

I can see things like age and contract length (team commitment) possibly being a tie breaker between similarly valuable players. Tick does have a point about teams making a longer term commitment to Qbs and Wrs having more longevity compared to Rbs though.

ETA - Elite players will excell even if thier situation changes and should be valued as such.
Agreed.Like Tick, I'll also evaluate positions differently, but becuase of strict roster requirements and salary/performace cap numbers I don't have the luxary to sit and wait on players for more than 3 years.

 

fsufan

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff. I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
 

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff. I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kleck.

Footballguy
I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.
I don't see how this is so hard to buy. Maybe the majority of people voting 3 are not posting their rankings. I have not posted mine and if I did, I could assure you Tiki would be in my top 10 and if it is a PPR league he'd be even higher. Many may also feel that Jackson, Brown and Caddy will improve on last year's numbers and continue in an upward trend while Tiki's will decline possibly giving the others more value in years x2 and x3. It would not be impossible for any of those 3 RB's to be consensus top 5 redraft picks in a year from now. Some have them as top 10 now.
 

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.
I don't see how this is so hard to buy. Maybe the majority of people voting 3 are not posting their rankings. I have not posted mine and if I did, I could assure you Tiki would be in my top 10 and if it is a PPR league he'd be even higher.

Many may also feel that Jackson, Brown and Caddy will improve on last year's numbers and continue in an upward trend while Tiki's will decline possibly giving the others more value in years x2 and x3. It would not be impossible for any of those 3 RB's to be consensus top 5 redraft picks in a year from now. Some have them as top 10 now.
Even extending beyond this year Tiki was a 2nd rounder in most dynasty drafts when he was 29 and coming off a 20 TD season.The vast majority of people out there penalize a guy who is 27 or 28 vs. a guy who is 23 or 24, yet the vast majority also claim they're only looking three years ahead. I don't think we'd see nearly as many rankings with guys like Caddy and Brown ahead of guys like Jordan in Edge if that were legitimately the case.

Rookies are another perfect indication. QBs go lower yes, but if we're talking 3 year window here a rookie QB should never even be drafted. Similar deal with the WRs, I doubt people would give up what they do for those mid first round picks to grab WRs that generally don't pan out until year 3 of that 3 year window. Even the RBs drafted into situations where they must wait are much more valuable than a 3 year window would indicate.

I think it's pretty safe to say that if I started up a dynasty league with the stipulation that it was only going to run for 3 years before it is shut down the draft would be quite different than a dynasty league that is going to go on indefinitely, and those young/rookie players would find themselves falling further down the draft boards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fruity pebbles

Footballguy
There's more to the 3 year window than player performance though, there's the player's trade value. Once guys near 30 their trade value decreases exponentially, especially runningbacks. Even if they're still playing at a high level.

 

fsufan

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
 

fruity pebbles

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
 

Kleck.

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
 

fruity pebbles

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
If you're winning, you're going to be near the end of the rookie draft. Trading older players for near fair value is very tough in competitive leagues, seems like everyone wants young guys.
 

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
What a useless, blanket statement. So do you take Tiki over Jackson/Caddy/Brown? Dillon over Bush?I'm not saying to build a team of all 25 year olds by any means, but outright ignoring age in a dynasty is the making of someone who jumps for league to league every couple years when they're left with nothing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
Another decent example for the 3 year thing is Mcgahee going ahead of Alexander in many (probably more than half) of initial dynasty drafts last year. Did people really think Mcgahee was going to outperform Alexander for the next 3 years, or were people more intrigued with the idea that Mcgahee would be solid for those 3 years and then vastly outperform Alexander after that?

 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
I still don't get this.

I want to get a mix of players on my teams...those that will perform well in the next couple years, as well as some younger players that could emerge to take over starting jobs once my current starters start to wear down. If torn between two players, I'll almost always value the younger player...and I tend to value rookie picks very highly, especially those in the first couple rounds b/c if you draft well, your roster will be continually stocked with young talent to supplement your aging vets. I don't really care about years. I just look for the best/youngest players I can find, but frequently the older productive players are the best values in dynasty leagues. Many players (QBs/WRs especially) wind up producing for much longer than people expect them to while tons of young players flame out and do nothing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fsufan

Footballguy
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
What a useless, blanket statement. So do you take Tiki over Jackson/Caddy/Brown? Dillon over Bush?I'm not saying to build a team of all 25 year olds by any means, but outright ignoring age in a dynasty is the making of someone who jumps for league to league every couple years when they're left with nothing.
I think it depends on what the dynasty owner wants from the first vet draft. I have seen owner draft vet players to build a win now team. I seen owners draft a young team. I seen owner draft a combo of young and vet players. I think it depends on what the owners goals are
 

Zaphod

Two heads are better than one
I still don't get this.

I want to get a mix of players on my teams...those that will perform well in the next couple years, as well as some younger players that could emerge to take over starting jobs once my current starters start to wear down. If torn between two players, I'll almost always value the younger player...and I tend to value rookie picks very highly, especially those in the first couple rounds b/c if you draft well, your roster will be continually stocked with young talent to supplement your aging vets. I don't really care about years. I just look for the best/youngest players I can find, but frequently the older productive players are the best values in dynasty leagues. Many players (QBs/WRs especially) wind up producing for much longer than people expect them to while tons of young players flame out and do nothing.
Very good reply, especially the last sentence. :thumbup:
 

Birdie048

Footballguy
Voted 2 yrs. In most of my leagues, there are too many trades and WW pickups that would make 4+ years a killer on the roster. Having to hold a player for 4 years? I'd forget why I had them!

 

nerangers

Footballguy
I think you have to look at the situation of the players to determine how many years you will need to evaluate them, and adjust each year. For me, WRs are pretty much a three year evaluation, since it seems to take that long for a rookie to develop. I put QBs in this same category. Unless an RB gets injured or is no longer considered in his prime, do the rookie RBs get a chance. Both Larry Johnson and Steven Jackson were the high RBs drafted, but you pretty much knew they would not get the start for a few years. I drafted Jackson his rookie year and feel he will finally pay off this year.

We are talking Dynasty hear...some of the examples in this thread seemed more geared towards redraft. I am sure you do not have to worry about drafting Tiki...for I am sure he is already locked on someones roster.

Your team needs to be like an NFL team...a good mix of veterans and upcoming players. Hopefully your dynasty roster has the room in it to allow a few players to develop.

:2cents:

 

Kleck.

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
If you're winning, you're going to be near the end of the rookie draft. Trading older players for near fair value is very tough in competitive leagues, seems like everyone wants young guys.
Agreed, and in those cases I would try to trade for those vets who have a couple of years of solid performances left if they can be had for below market value. Add that with making the rookie picks you have count and staying active on the waiver wire and there is no reason why you cannot stay at the top and have a nice mix of older and younger talent.
 

Kleck.

Footballguy
I still don't get this.

I want to get a mix of players on my teams...those that will perform well in the next couple years, as well as some younger players that could emerge to take over starting jobs once my current starters start to wear down. If torn between two players, I'll almost always value the younger player...and I tend to value rookie picks very highly, especially those in the first couple rounds b/c if you draft well, your roster will be continually stocked with young talent to supplement your aging vets. I don't really care about years. I just look for the best/youngest players I can find, but frequently the older productive players are the best values in dynasty leagues. Many players (QBs/WRs especially) wind up producing for much longer than people expect them to while tons of young players flame out and do nothing.
Very good reply, especially the last sentence. :thumbup:
:yes:
 

Holy Schneikes

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
 

fsufan

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
I think trading in the fastest way to improve a dyansty team
 

Kleck.

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
My primary dynasty league has been going on seven years now. We have teams that have been at the top for the majority of those years by doing just that. I'm not suggesting that you will win every year or be in the championship game every year, just that you can keep your team a contender year-to-year. Sure, there will be times when you get hit with crutial injuries and miss the playoffs, and then you get those valuable rookie picks. I usually get all of my RB's through the rookie/FA draft. I'll pick up a few more during the year on the waiver wire. I'm constantly traded RB's for other areas or rookie picks. With those rookie picks I'll usually grab more RB's and keep that flow going. If I feel one of my RB's has hit max value I won't hesitate to cash in if someone offers me an above market price value. My current roster of RB's is actually very young right now with Portis, McGahee, KJones, Perry, Suggs and Moore. Through trades I have rookie picks #2, #6, #8, and #12 in 2006 and already two in 2007. I'll grab a few more in this years draft, hopefully one or two pan out, and maybe trade one if the right offer comes by.

Since we all will have a different set of rules and requirements, strategies might not work as well in other leagues. Salary/performance caps and lower roster sizes can make some huge differences. If you start with a good mix and a contending team, I don't believe there is any reason why you cannot keep it that way through smart rookie picks, trades and waiver pick-ups.

 

Holy Schneikes

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
My primary dynasty league has been going on seven years now. We have teams that have been at the top for the majority of those years by doing just that. I'm not suggesting that you will win every year or be in the championship game every year, just that you can keep your team a contender year-to-year. Sure, there will be times when you get hit with crutial injuries and miss the playoffs, and then you get those valuable rookie picks. I usually get all of my RB's through the rookie/FA draft. I'll pick up a few more during the year on the waiver wire. I'm constantly traded RB's for other areas or rookie picks. With those rookie picks I'll usually grab more RB's and keep that flow going. If I feel one of my RB's has hit max value I won't hesitate to cash in if someone offers me an above market price value. My current roster of RB's is actually very young right now with Portis, McGahee, KJones, Perry, Suggs and Moore. Through trades I have rookie picks #2, #6, #8, and #12 in 2006 and already two in 2007. I'll grab a few more in this years draft, hopefully one or two pan out, and maybe trade one if the right offer comes by.

Since we all will have a different set of rules and requirements, strategies might not work as well in other leagues. Salary/performance caps and lower roster sizes can make some huge differences. If you start with a good mix and a contending team, I don't believe there is any reason why you cannot keep it that way through smart rookie picks, trades and waiver pick-ups.
I'm not saying you can't keep a good dynasty team good. Obviously, you can (though it is hard).What I'm saying is that if you went into an initial dynasty draft and ONLY looked at a 2 or 3 year window, you team will suck in two or three years unless it just isn't a very competitive league. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of guys saying they did just that, but I simply don't believe that if you are in a GOOD dynasty league, where rookie picks are highly valued, and no one is going to trade away something for nothing, you can be competitive after the "window closes" on your vet team. If you have small rosters, or a small league size it might be little easier, but most dynasty leagues aren't that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zaphod

Two heads are better than one
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
My primary dynasty league has been going on seven years now. We have teams that have been at the top for the majority of those years by doing just that. I'm not suggesting that you will win every year or be in the championship game every year, just that you can keep your team a contender year-to-year. Sure, there will be times when you get hit with crutial injuries and miss the playoffs, and then you get those valuable rookie picks. I usually get all of my RB's through the rookie/FA draft. I'll pick up a few more during the year on the waiver wire. I'm constantly traded RB's for other areas or rookie picks. With those rookie picks I'll usually grab more RB's and keep that flow going. If I feel one of my RB's has hit max value I won't hesitate to cash in if someone offers me an above market price value. My current roster of RB's is actually very young right now with Portis, McGahee, KJones, Perry, Suggs and Moore. Through trades I have rookie picks #2, #6, #8, and #12 in 2006 and already two in 2007. I'll grab a few more in this years draft, hopefully one or two pan out, and maybe trade one if the right offer comes by.

Since we all will have a different set of rules and requirements, strategies might not work as well in other leagues. Salary/performance caps and lower roster sizes can make some huge differences. If you start with a good mix and a contending team, I don't believe there is any reason why you cannot keep it that way through smart rookie picks, trades and waiver pick-ups.
I'm not saying you can't keep a good dynasty team good. Obviously, you can (though it is hard).What I'm saying is that if you went into an initial dynasty draft and ONLY looked at a 2 or 3 year window, you team will suck in two or three years unless it just isn't a very competitive league. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of guys saying they did just that, but I simply don't believe that if you are in a GOOD dynasty league, where rookie picks are highly valued, and no one is going to trade away something for nothing, you can be competitive after the "window closes" on your vet team. If you have small rosters, or a small league size it might be little easier, but most dynasty leagues aren't that way.
To be honest, I really don't understand people that say they consistently look further ahead than that. :shrug: It may simply be my small cranial capacity, but I can't effectively project players or situations any longer out than 2 to 3 years. There are just too many changes in players, personel, offensive and defensive schemes, etc. Heck, I am lucky if I hit 60% on my yearly projections, let alone 5+ years...

The main point I think you are missing, at least from my perspective, is that it isn't a 3 year window and then you open a new window after 3 years. It is a constantly evolving open window of 2 to 3 years.

Personally, I thrive on the rookie lovers. This is my favorite time of year, when every rookie is the next superstar of the NFL. These very boards will be filled with thousands of threads on just about every offensive skill position player that is on an NFL team.

Obviously, many factors come into play when trying to keep a dynasty team on top. A good eye for talent doesn't hurt. But even late 1st round picks will be sure to net you an 'over the hill' Marvin or the like in most leagues and players like Ahman Green can be had for less. Owners are always so stuck on 'looking ahead', they have a hard time not trading potential for a proven vet.

There is no 'right or wrong' method here, but I do find that owners are willing to give up on players much too soon and are also willing to pay too much for youth and potential, and those are two factors that help me maintain a nicely balanced team over the years.

 

FreeBaGeL

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff. I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
My primary dynasty league has been going on seven years now. We have teams that have been at the top for the majority of those years by doing just that. I'm not suggesting that you will win every year or be in the championship game every year, just that you can keep your team a contender year-to-year. Sure, there will be times when you get hit with crutial injuries and miss the playoffs, and then you get those valuable rookie picks. I usually get all of my RB's through the rookie/FA draft. I'll pick up a few more during the year on the waiver wire. I'm constantly traded RB's for other areas or rookie picks. With those rookie picks I'll usually grab more RB's and keep that flow going. If I feel one of my RB's has hit max value I won't hesitate to cash in if someone offers me an above market price value. My current roster of RB's is actually very young right now with Portis, McGahee, KJones, Perry, Suggs and Moore. Through trades I have rookie picks #2, #6, #8, and #12 in 2006 and already two in 2007. I'll grab a few more in this years draft, hopefully one or two pan out, and maybe trade one if the right offer comes by.

Since we all will have a different set of rules and requirements, strategies might not work as well in other leagues. Salary/performance caps and lower roster sizes can make some huge differences. If you start with a good mix and a contending team, I don't believe there is any reason why you cannot keep it that way through smart rookie picks, trades and waiver pick-ups.
I'm not saying you can't keep a good dynasty team good. Obviously, you can (though it is hard).What I'm saying is that if you went into an initial dynasty draft and ONLY looked at a 2 or 3 year window, you team will suck in two or three years unless it just isn't a very competitive league. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of guys saying they did just that, but I simply don't believe that if you are in a GOOD dynasty league, where rookie picks are highly valued, and no one is going to trade away something for nothing, you can be competitive after the "window closes" on your vet team. If you have small rosters, or a small league size it might be little easier, but most dynasty leagues aren't that way.
To be honest, I really don't understand people that say they consistently look further ahead than that. :shrug: It may simply be my small cranial capacity, but I can't effectively project players or situations any longer out than 2 to 3 years. There are just too many changes in players, personel, offensive and defensive schemes, etc. Heck, I am lucky if I hit 60% on my yearly projections, let alone 5+ years...

The main point I think you are missing, at least from my perspective, is that it isn't a 3 year window and then you open a new window after 3 years. It is a constantly evolving open window of 2 to 3 years.

Personally, I thrive on the rookie lovers. This is my favorite time of year, when every rookie is the next superstar of the NFL. These very boards will be filled with thousands of threads on just about every offensive skill position player that is on an NFL team.

Obviously, many factors come into play when trying to keep a dynasty team on top. A good eye for talent doesn't hurt. But even late 1st round picks will be sure to net you an 'over the hill' Marvin or the like in most leagues and players like Ahman Green can be had for less. Owners are always so stuck on 'looking ahead', they have a hard time not trading potential for a proven vet.

There is no 'right or wrong' method here, but I do find that owners are willing to give up on players much too soon and are also willing to pay too much for youth and potential, and those are two factors that help me maintain a nicely balanced team over the years.
Yet I'd imaging you still rank Jackson, Caddy, Brown towards the middle of the top 10 like most other dynasty rankings when there are much better choices for the next 3 years.How many owners that rank Caddy/Brown at 6-8 actually think they're going to outperform guys like Jordan or Rudi over the next three years? They're ranked 6-8 because they're 23 years old with 6 or 7 years left. No, you're not "projecting" their stats 5 years from now, but the fact that they're still going to be playing and putting up stats 5 years from now certainly factors into their ranking.

 

hoopsfan3386

Footballguy
Technically proboably 10. Realistically proboably 2-4 with a heavy emphasis on just this season. It's hard enough to predict one season at a time. The reason I say 10 is that if I had a 22 year old ranked the same as a 28 year old the fact that the 22 year old could potentially contribute 10 years down the line and the 28 year old proboably can't factors in.

 

Kleck.

Footballguy
The staff dynasty rankings went 5 years out according to Jeff.  I'm just curious if 5 years is the consensus around here.   

I normally don't look any further than 3.
Who wants to wait 5 years for a player to develop?
No one said anything about waiting 5 years for them to develope.I'm sorry, but the people that put 3 are kidding themselves. If they truly only look 3 years down the road then they should be picking Alexander ahead of LT, and should be picking Tiki in the top 5 ahead of Jackson, Brown, Caddy, etc. You won't find either of these things happening in many rankings so forgive me if I don't buy it.

I also don't think we'd see Portis so snug at #4 if he were 27 years old rather than 24, but the 3 year rule would imply little difference there. Likewise with Jackson, Brown, Caddy.
I play to win NOW not 5 years down the road
That's fine as long as you stick with the league after your team dives.
It's not hard to keep it a winner through rookie drafts, free agency and trading.
I hate to be cliche, but that is simply NOT the case in any of the dynasty leagues I am in. When your guys hit 30 and start to decline, it hurts because you can't just just "replace them". Where do you get starting RBs? The draft? Not if you are doing well. And if ALL of your guys are getting up there, you are in a world of hurt.
My primary dynasty league has been going on seven years now. We have teams that have been at the top for the majority of those years by doing just that. I'm not suggesting that you will win every year or be in the championship game every year, just that you can keep your team a contender year-to-year. Sure, there will be times when you get hit with crutial injuries and miss the playoffs, and then you get those valuable rookie picks. I usually get all of my RB's through the rookie/FA draft. I'll pick up a few more during the year on the waiver wire. I'm constantly traded RB's for other areas or rookie picks. With those rookie picks I'll usually grab more RB's and keep that flow going. If I feel one of my RB's has hit max value I won't hesitate to cash in if someone offers me an above market price value. My current roster of RB's is actually very young right now with Portis, McGahee, KJones, Perry, Suggs and Moore. Through trades I have rookie picks #2, #6, #8, and #12 in 2006 and already two in 2007. I'll grab a few more in this years draft, hopefully one or two pan out, and maybe trade one if the right offer comes by.

Since we all will have a different set of rules and requirements, strategies might not work as well in other leagues. Salary/performance caps and lower roster sizes can make some huge differences. If you start with a good mix and a contending team, I don't believe there is any reason why you cannot keep it that way through smart rookie picks, trades and waiver pick-ups.
I'm not saying you can't keep a good dynasty team good. Obviously, you can (though it is hard).What I'm saying is that if you went into an initial dynasty draft and ONLY looked at a 2 or 3 year window, you team will suck in two or three years unless it just isn't a very competitive league. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of guys saying they did just that, but I simply don't believe that if you are in a GOOD dynasty league, where rookie picks are highly valued, and no one is going to trade away something for nothing, you can be competitive after the "window closes" on your vet team. If you have small rosters, or a small league size it might be little easier, but most dynasty leagues aren't that way.
I don't understand why it would have to suck in 2 or 3 years? If you take a redraft team from last year, it's not like all of those players will all of a sudden suck in years x2 and x3. Add in a couple of rookie drafts, trades and waiver wire moves and this team is still competetive.The 2-3 window does not mean you are drafting players with only 2-3 solid years left.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top