pinkstapler
Footballguy
Let me be the first to put my hand up for being guilty as charged so this doesn't come off as condescending. Sure, we all recognize this phenomenon happens. Yet we all seem to fall victim to it year after year. And it's obviously not a black and white issue. Sometimes a player DOES fall victim to a coaching staff/scheme. Studying analytics can lead us to find some diamonds in the rough this way, a la Stef Diggs on the Vikings then moving to Buffalo. And more often than not, the most rational response will be "well it's a little bit of both". However, whenever we own the player in question, it seems there is a strong lean towards blaming the scheme/coaches.
I'll say the quiet part out loud, yes Gibbs prompted this post. But I'd rather it NOT turn into a full blown Gibbs debate. Instead, more of a "how long do you trust your process" and "how do you parse talent from situation" debate. We don't draft players (for the most part) by happenstance. Most of us read a ton of profiles, watch a lot of tape, crunch a bunch of numbers into metrics we trend year after year to find what helps us project success. And then we follow the common themes like "draft the player not the situation. Elite players play elite regardless of circumstances. Exercise patience because a few games is a small sample size." All worthwhile mantras that I think can be validated through data. But eventually there comes a time to cut losses, and especially in dynasty, this is a fickle process because you can cut too late and find your investment next to worthless. Or, some will say even worse, cut too soon and watch your investment skyrocket on someone else's roster. This gets even more difficult though when your player is in a rough situation. Pivot from Gibbs and look at Atlanta. Hard to argue that Pitts and London aren't at the very least making the most of the few opportunities they get. But I hate to be the bearer of bad news, ATL is winning with their current scheme. And looking at their schedule, it's very likely to continue. Are you really spending 5 years (what feels like a lifetime in a dynasty league) watching them put up mediocre numbers on your bench, or at best, in your flex? And hoping that the team doesn't just resign them afterwards? And then praying they go to a situation that's markedly better? Or is it better to allow offseason hype and using those analytics that made you draft them in the first place as leverage to cut bait and squeeze as much value as you can out of them from another owner in August when we all think our rosters are full of breakout candidates who we'll ride to the championship?
I ask all this because I don't have a clear answer myself. I do feel like rookies hold shine for at least two seasons, but I do think their mass appeal and a solid chunk of value drops off if they complete a third year of disappointment. That tends to be the break point in my experience, and find myself making those tough decisions after year two. It often feels like if I don't move them then, and they have another meh season in the third year, I wind up just holding and praying they are a statistical outlier and a late breakout I can use, or give me one last opportunity to recoup at least a modicum of value. (DeVante Parker year 5 stands out for me personally).
Edit: I should also add, though we play imaginary football, I also find it interesting when people blame coaching staffs/schemes that are succeeding in real life. It's easier to blame obviously bad coaching staffs in a case like with Justin Fields. But to blame a staff like Atlanta or Detroit feels... off. I think we confound our imaginary game and the real game and expect them to work in tandem when often they don't.
I'll say the quiet part out loud, yes Gibbs prompted this post. But I'd rather it NOT turn into a full blown Gibbs debate. Instead, more of a "how long do you trust your process" and "how do you parse talent from situation" debate. We don't draft players (for the most part) by happenstance. Most of us read a ton of profiles, watch a lot of tape, crunch a bunch of numbers into metrics we trend year after year to find what helps us project success. And then we follow the common themes like "draft the player not the situation. Elite players play elite regardless of circumstances. Exercise patience because a few games is a small sample size." All worthwhile mantras that I think can be validated through data. But eventually there comes a time to cut losses, and especially in dynasty, this is a fickle process because you can cut too late and find your investment next to worthless. Or, some will say even worse, cut too soon and watch your investment skyrocket on someone else's roster. This gets even more difficult though when your player is in a rough situation. Pivot from Gibbs and look at Atlanta. Hard to argue that Pitts and London aren't at the very least making the most of the few opportunities they get. But I hate to be the bearer of bad news, ATL is winning with their current scheme. And looking at their schedule, it's very likely to continue. Are you really spending 5 years (what feels like a lifetime in a dynasty league) watching them put up mediocre numbers on your bench, or at best, in your flex? And hoping that the team doesn't just resign them afterwards? And then praying they go to a situation that's markedly better? Or is it better to allow offseason hype and using those analytics that made you draft them in the first place as leverage to cut bait and squeeze as much value as you can out of them from another owner in August when we all think our rosters are full of breakout candidates who we'll ride to the championship?
I ask all this because I don't have a clear answer myself. I do feel like rookies hold shine for at least two seasons, but I do think their mass appeal and a solid chunk of value drops off if they complete a third year of disappointment. That tends to be the break point in my experience, and find myself making those tough decisions after year two. It often feels like if I don't move them then, and they have another meh season in the third year, I wind up just holding and praying they are a statistical outlier and a late breakout I can use, or give me one last opportunity to recoup at least a modicum of value. (DeVante Parker year 5 stands out for me personally).
Edit: I should also add, though we play imaginary football, I also find it interesting when people blame coaching staffs/schemes that are succeeding in real life. It's easier to blame obviously bad coaching staffs in a case like with Justin Fields. But to blame a staff like Atlanta or Detroit feels... off. I think we confound our imaginary game and the real game and expect them to work in tandem when often they don't.
I only blame the GM when they do s a bone headed move - usually pick or trade (cough cough AJ brown) and the staff when they fail to develop players who go on to perform elsewhere (Geno?)
