FBG Rankings - Discussion (1 Viewer)

[Ramblin Wreck]

The dynasty rankings are such a hard LOL. The opinions of the four rankers really are ALL over the place. I get that they feel it's great to put out dynasty rankings where it's not merely a reflection of ADP, but come on...fantasy football isn't THAT complicated. We can disagree on the smaller details, but some things we know.

One ranker has Sammy Watkins #3 overall and another has him #50. Cooks is either the #6 player or number #44. Jimmy Graham is #15 overall or not even ranked (75+). Russell Wilson is outside the top 75 or #17 overall. TJ Yeldon is outside the top 75 for one ranker but #19 overall for another.

Calvin Johnson as the #50 overall player? WR28...? Seems legit. It really inspires confidence in the rankers when you have one of them that thinks Calvin Johnson is the 28th best wide receiver for dynasty fantasy football.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of that. That's dynasty. Some dynasty owners are very youth-centric. Others are basically playing modified redraft leagues, focusing on super-short windows. The window someone is using is going to have a DRAMATIC impact on how they value a player. But that's just a reflection of the format. I've played in dynasty leagues with both types of owners. I shopped Calvin Johnson this offseason, and I can tell you that there are absolutely guys who would value Calvin as a top-5 dynasty asset and other guys who wouldn't value him as a top-30.

I wrote earlier this offseason about the dangers of thinking we have anything in dynasty "figured out". I always say that the reason I love it is because it's such a hard format. We have no idea what really works until three years after the fact, and by that point, we don't know if it still works anymore.

I think a lot of the staffers are wrong about a lot of things. (Obviously: my rankings are in many places wildly different from theirs.) I've gotten in some pretty knock-down, drag-out debates with people I consider good friends in the dynasty community. But I recognize there's a wide constellation of philosophy and belief, and having a wide range of opinions on staff is an asset because it's more likely to actually represent what your leaguemates are really thinking and doing. Far more even than redraft, it's important to make sure a wide range of opinions are represented in dynasty. And, as a haver-of-outside-of-consensus opinions, I'm always going to argue in favor of someone's right to have an outside-of-consensus opinion. I had Percy Harvin as my WR6 for quite a while. I took a lot of heat for it. I was wrong and everyone else was right. I had Gronk as my #1 TE and my #5 overall player through 2013 and 2014. I took a lot of heat for it. I was right and everyone else was wrong. If I'd been more concerned with making rankings that didn't look silly in hindsight, I'd make a lot fewer rankings that looked brilliant in hindsight, too. If people really want safe, consensus rankings, they should be using ADP and not expert rankings. Expert rankings are not about describing how the market currently stands, they're about articulating a consistent, cohesive philosophical vision. And say what you want about any expert's individual rankings, they all express a pretty consistent and coherent philosophical vision. You can tell which guys are valuing youth and which guys have short windows. You can tell who loves the running backs, who loves the quarterbacks, and who loves the wide receivers.

I can also say that FBGs' dynasty rankers are all pretty experienced. They play in dynasty leagues. I've seen the teams they put together. They know what they're doing, and they have the results to prove it. The guy who has Sammy Watkins as his #50 overall dynasty player, that far outside of consensus? He just *HUMILIATED* the staff dynasty league en route to a dominant championship victory. (See the article I linked to earlier.) I can go on about just how wrong he is and why, but at the end of the day, he can just point to the scoreboard. It's not like these are just a bunch of guys trying to make a name for themselves.

Shopping/buying a player and ranking a player are two completely separate things. If you see Calvin as the 50th best dynasty asset in a vacuum then that's just wrong. You might not find a good market for him in a specific league, and you might not have interest in him for your rebuild, but if you rank him as 50 overall you're just flat out wrong - regardless of preferred dynasty strategy. If your strategy is causing you to pass on value and production like that then you haven't understood how to win in FF. Then you don't have dynasty "figured out". And I'm sure the format seems hard if you make those types of mistakes, but it's really not that difficult. It's a complicated game with tons of random and uncontrollable factors that play into the end result, but some owners make it more complicated than what it has to be by making stupid mistakes. Some of those above mentioned rankings I'll classify as mistakes, not opinions or strategy.

I notice that you call the rankers experts, which is a bit interesting as I don't see that good writers are necessarily good players. Writing is primarily about having a deep understanding of a part of the game, being a good player is about putting all parts of the game together - both the social part, the economics of the game, the understanding of the game and being able to project both production and value. I'm in plenty of leagues with writers and in my experience the best owners in those leagues are usually not the writers. One reason for that is that other owners often put more time and effort into those particular leagues, or that they're better at playing the dynasty market, but quite often I'll find that writers get too attached to their own evaluations of players and "their guys" and are slow to react to what actually transpires on the field and what the actual results are telling us. To me the most successful dynasty owners seem to be the most active owners who are quickly able to react to current tendencies and play the dynasty market well, not the owners that think they have crystal balls and keep betting on their own position rather than recalibrate their view. There's little point in hitting on a sleeper from time to time if you're leaking value by being too patient waiting for your guys to come through.

What is the objective of the rankings? Is it to show potential dynasty strategies and reflect how a league can have owners with wildly different valuations of players or is it to guide owners to win?

Everything in your first paragraph is just your opinion. I don't think there's anything objectively "just flat out wrong." I don't know that particular ranker, but just looking over his rankings, he obviously puts an extremely high premium on youth. I just don't see how you can that is "flat out wrong." With the possible exception of Aaron Rodgers and maybe Lamar Miller, I don't think there's a single player ranked about Johnson that you could say is in the second-half of their career (and even Rodgers may not be given the time horizon QB's can have). Quite simply, this ranker only wants players who are trending up, not trending down. Johnson, I think most would agree, is trending down.

As to your last question, I think the objective of rankings is simply for the person doing them to show owners how they value players. That doesn't mean he would draft Cody Latimer over Calvin Johnson because you are still subject to the subjective feelings of the rest of your league, and anyone with half a brain would know that 99% of owners would give you several Cody Latimer type prospects for Calvin Johnson. I don't think each individual ranker is working in concert with the other rankers at all - it's just one guy's opinion. Some people talk about dynasty teams in terms of like seven year windows - I think that's pretty absurd, but it is a strategy out there, and in that kind of context, Calvin Johnson would not be worth all that much to that owner (other than to trade - but I don't think rankings are an attempt to show what each ranker thinks each player's trade value is - that would defeat the purpose).

Johnson is only 29 years old and is trending down? The infatuation with youth has gotten ridiculously stupid in some cases.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The dynasty rankings are such a hard LOL. The opinions of the four rankers really are ALL over the place. I get that they feel it's great to put out dynasty rankings where it's not merely a reflection of ADP, but come on...fantasy football isn't THAT complicated. We can disagree on the smaller details, but some things we know.

One ranker has Sammy Watkins #3 overall and another has him #50. Cooks is either the #6 player or number #44. Jimmy Graham is #15 overall or not even ranked (75+). Russell Wilson is outside the top 75 or #17 overall. TJ Yeldon is outside the top 75 for one ranker but #19 overall for another.

Calvin Johnson as the #50 overall player? WR28...? Seems legit. It really inspires confidence in the rankers when you have one of them that thinks Calvin Johnson is the 28th best wide receiver for dynasty fantasy football.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with any of that. That's dynasty. Some dynasty owners are very youth-centric. Others are basically playing modified redraft leagues, focusing on super-short windows. The window someone is using is going to have a DRAMATIC impact on how they value a player. But that's just a reflection of the format. I've played in dynasty leagues with both types of owners. I shopped Calvin Johnson this offseason, and I can tell you that there are absolutely guys who would value Calvin as a top-5 dynasty asset and other guys who wouldn't value him as a top-30.

I wrote earlier this offseason about the dangers of thinking we have anything in dynasty "figured out". I always say that the reason I love it is because it's such a hard format. We have no idea what really works until three years after the fact, and by that point, we don't know if it still works anymore.

I think a lot of the staffers are wrong about a lot of things. (Obviously: my rankings are in many places wildly different from theirs.) I've gotten in some pretty knock-down, drag-out debates with people I consider good friends in the dynasty community. But I recognize there's a wide constellation of philosophy and belief, and having a wide range of opinions on staff is an asset because it's more likely to actually represent what your leaguemates are really thinking and doing. Far more even than redraft, it's important to make sure a wide range of opinions are represented in dynasty. And, as a haver-of-outside-of-consensus opinions, I'm always going to argue in favor of someone's right to have an outside-of-consensus opinion. I had Percy Harvin as my WR6 for quite a while. I took a lot of heat for it. I was wrong and everyone else was right. I had Gronk as my #1 TE and my #5 overall player through 2013 and 2014. I took a lot of heat for it. I was right and everyone else was wrong. If I'd been more concerned with making rankings that didn't look silly in hindsight, I'd make a lot fewer rankings that looked brilliant in hindsight, too. If people really want safe, consensus rankings, they should be using ADP and not expert rankings. Expert rankings are not about describing how the market currently stands, they're about articulating a consistent, cohesive philosophical vision. And say what you want about any expert's individual rankings, they all express a pretty consistent and coherent philosophical vision. You can tell which guys are valuing youth and which guys have short windows. You can tell who loves the running backs, who loves the quarterbacks, and who loves the wide receivers.

I can also say that FBGs' dynasty rankers are all pretty experienced. They play in dynasty leagues. I've seen the teams they put together. They know what they're doing, and they have the results to prove it. The guy who has Sammy Watkins as his #50 overall dynasty player, that far outside of consensus? He just *HUMILIATED* the staff dynasty league en route to a dominant championship victory. (See the article I linked to earlier.) I can go on about just how wrong he is and why, but at the end of the day, he can just point to the scoreboard. It's not like these are just a bunch of guys trying to make a name for themselves.

Shopping/buying a player and ranking a player are two completely separate things. If you see Calvin as the 50th best dynasty asset in a vacuum then that's just wrong. You might not find a good market for him in a specific league, and you might not have interest in him for your rebuild, but if you rank him as 50 overall you're just flat out wrong - regardless of preferred dynasty strategy. If your strategy is causing you to pass on value and production like that then you haven't understood how to win in FF. Then you don't have dynasty "figured out". And I'm sure the format seems hard if you make those types of mistakes, but it's really not that difficult. It's a complicated game with tons of random and uncontrollable factors that play into the end result, but some owners make it more complicated than what it has to be by making stupid mistakes. Some of those above mentioned rankings I'll classify as mistakes, not opinions or strategy.

I notice that you call the rankers experts, which is a bit interesting as I don't see that good writers are necessarily good players. Writing is primarily about having a deep understanding of a part of the game, being a good player is about putting all parts of the game together - both the social part, the economics of the game, the understanding of the game and being able to project both production and value. I'm in plenty of leagues with writers and in my experience the best owners in those leagues are usually not the writers. One reason for that is that other owners often put more time and effort into those particular leagues, or that they're better at playing the dynasty market, but quite often I'll find that writers get too attached to their own evaluations of players and "their guys" and are slow to react to what actually transpires on the field and what the actual results are telling us. To me the most successful dynasty owners seem to be the most active owners who are quickly able to react to current tendencies and play the dynasty market well, not the owners that think they have crystal balls and keep betting on their own position rather than recalibrate their view. There's little point in hitting on a sleeper from time to time if you're leaking value by being too patient waiting for your guys to come through.

What is the objective of the rankings? Is it to show potential dynasty strategies and reflect how a league can have owners with wildly different valuations of players or is it to guide owners to win?

Everything in your first paragraph is just your opinion. I don't think there's anything objectively "just flat out wrong." I don't know that particular ranker, but just looking over his rankings, he obviously puts an extremely high premium on youth. I just don't see how you can that is "flat out wrong." With the possible exception of Aaron Rodgers and maybe Lamar Miller, I don't think there's a single player ranked about Johnson that you could say is in the second-half of their career (and even Rodgers may not be given the time horizon QB's can have). Quite simply, this ranker only wants players who are trending up, not trending down. Johnson, I think most would agree, is trending down.

As to your last question, I think the objective of rankings is simply for the person doing them to show owners how they value players. That doesn't mean he would draft Cody Latimer over Calvin Johnson because you are still subject to the subjective feelings of the rest of your league, and anyone with half a brain would know that 99% of owners would give you several Cody Latimer type prospects for Calvin Johnson. I don't think each individual ranker is working in concert with the other rankers at all - it's just one guy's opinion. Some people talk about dynasty teams in terms of like seven year windows - I think that's pretty absurd, but it is a strategy out there, and in that kind of context, Calvin Johnson would not be worth all that much to that owner (other than to trade - but I don't think rankings are an attempt to show what each ranker thinks each player's trade value is - that would defeat the purpose).

Johnson is only 29 years old and is trending down? The infatuation with youth has gotten ridiculously stupid in some cases.

I don't disagree with the second part - but it's how many feel. Johnson has trended down, and continues to be hampered by small but bothersome injuries. Some people don't think of how many points Johnson is going to score over the next few years - they think if how his trade value is going to perform over the next few years. Right or wrong, there's a subset of the dynasty population that is largely driven by this kind of thinking. Whatever you think of Johnson, I think it'd be difficult to argue that he's going to be worth more next year in a trade.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Shopping/buying a player and ranking a player are two completely separate things. If you see Calvin as the 50th best dynasty asset in a vacuum then that's just wrong. You might not find a good market for him in a specific league, and you might not have interest in him for your rebuild, but if you rank him as 50 overall you're just flat out wrong - regardless of preferred dynasty strategy. If your strategy is causing you to pass on value and production like that then you haven't understood how to win in FF. Then you don't have dynasty "figured out". And I'm sure the format seems hard if you make those types of mistakes, but it's really not that difficult. It's a complicated game with tons of random and uncontrollable factors that play into the end result, but some owners make it more complicated than what it has to be by making stupid mistakes. Some of those above mentioned rankings I'll classify as mistakes, not opinions or strategy.

I notice that you call the rankers experts, which is a bit interesting as I don't see that good writers are necessarily good players. Writing is primarily about having a deep understanding of a part of the game, being a good player is about putting all parts of the game together - both the social part, the economics of the game, the understanding of the game and being able to project both production and value. I'm in plenty of leagues with writers and in my experience the best owners in those leagues are usually not the writers. One reason for that is that other owners often put more time and effort into those particular leagues, or that they're better at playing the dynasty market, but quite often I'll find that writers get too attached to their own evaluations of players and "their guys" and are slow to react to what actually transpires on the field and what the actual results are telling us. To me the most successful dynasty owners seem to be the most active owners who are quickly able to react to current tendencies and play the dynasty market well, not the owners that think they have crystal balls and keep betting on their own position rather than recalibrate their view. There's little point in hitting on a sleeper from time to time if you're leaking value by being too patient waiting for your guys to come through.What is the objective of the rankings? Is it to show potential dynasty strategies and reflect how a league can have owners with wildly different valuations of players or is it to guide owners to win?

Hey, that's fine. I obviously think ranking Calvin 50th overall is wrong, too. You can tell that because I don't have Calvin ranked 50th overall. The big difference is that I'm a lot less certain that I'm right and the other guy was wrong. Last season, I would have suggested that a team that was deep at RB and shallow at WR should never, ever, ever trade Demaryius Thomas for Matt Forte. I would have called that an obvious "mistake". And yet Jason Wood did just that and rode Forte to one of the most dominant showings I've ever seen in a strong league. Sometimes things that seem self-evidently wrong to me are not wrong. I try to approach the format with a lot of humility, because I've seen it time and time again where the people who think they have it figured out are quickly reminded of its complexities.

I've never played in a league with Daniel Simpkins. He's new to the staff this year, and I haven't had a chance to get to know him much yet. I look forward to having that opportunity in the coming months. I do know that Footballguys received a massive number of applications from people hoping to fill a very small number of staff openings this offseason, so I assume Simpkins is doing something right if he managed to get one of those coveted spots.

Two of the other guys who had specific rankings called into question, though, are Jeff Tefertiller and Jason Wood. I have had the pleasure of meeting, chatting with, learning from, and playing against both guys, and I have no compunction whatsoever about calling them experts. They're some of the best dynasty players I've played against. Tefertiller is a multiple champion in the well-known HyperActive dynasty leagues, and one of the godfathers of the format. Wood is one of the most accurate projectors in the industry, and as I keep mentioning, he's far from just a redraft superstar; he just destroyed all comers in the FBGs staff dynasty league last year, and was one of the top teams in 2013, too.

Suggesting that those two just don't understand the format, to me, seems short-sighted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think the results certainly suggest otherwise. And what's striking is just how far apart the two guys are philosophically. Wood is consistently one of the biggest "short window" guys around. Tefertiller is consistently one of the biggest "long window" guys. They're at polar opposite ends of the spectrum, and they're both experiencing a lot of success.

I totally get the point you're making about how writers aren't automatically experts. I struggle a lot using the label on myself, because I certainly don't feel like an expert. I'm a guy who dominated the competition in some local leagues, which hardly differentiates me from pretty much anyone else on these forums. I feel like I got on staff because I turn a pretty phrase and have some interesting and counterintuitive takes on the format. I really don't like calling myself a "dynasty expert", or calling my rankings "expert rankings".

Ultimately, I relent and do so because I feel expert is almost a "term of art" in the fantasy format. Fantasy Pros compiles an "expert consensus". Leagues comprised of writers are "expert leagues". Whether I feel like an imposter or not, I recognize that what I produce is something that is referred to in pretty much all quarters as "expert rankings".

And, I suspect, the average Footballguys subscriber is uninterested in philosophical musings on the nature of expertise in a field that's barely even quantifiable. After all, if one guy is ranking on a 3-year window, and another guy is ranking on a 10-year window, both can produce radically different set of rankings that are both "right" based on the philosophy under which they are created. Dynasty is a format where everyone is right, (or, depending on your perspective, where no one is right). If redraft is like Chess, then dynasty is like Go, unsolvable even to computers.

I believe I'm pretty good at dynasty. I believe I probably think about the format more than 99% of people who play it, and that I offer some unique insights. I believe that I'm right about every one of my rankings, on a case-by-case basis, (and if I believed otherwise, I would change my rankings). I believe that everyone who ranks differently is, by extension, wrong. At the same time, I believe that, on the whole, I'm probably wrong about a lot of the things that I believe, (I just don't know which ones at the moment). And I believe that a lot of these people who I disagree with have earned the benefit of the doubt through years of painstakingly building a reputation in the format.

And if anyone thinks that dynasty is easy, I'd recommend reading through the archives of the old dynasty rankings thread. It's like a time capsule into how the community thought and felt about players over the past 8+ years. And reading back through most of it is a cringe-worthy experience. I feel it's 80% horrible takes against 20% meaningful insight. Dynasty is hard. It's humbling. That's why I love it so much.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Johnson is only 29 years old and is trending down? The infatuation with youth has gotten ridiculously stupid in some cases.

He'll be 30 to start the season, and it's pretty inarguable that he's trending down. In the last year and a half he's gone from the consensus #1 player in dynasty to outside of the first round in startups. In the next year and a half, he might not be going in the first three rounds. He's going to put a lot of points in your lineup, for sure, but so will several other wide receivers, and those other guys aren't expiring assets to nearly the same degree.

From 2008 to 2011, (4 seasons), there were 6 times a WR scored 300+ fantasy points in PPR. (Andre had 2, and Calvin, Welker, Roddy, and Fitz had one each.) From 2012 to 2014, (3 seasons), the mark has been exceeded 14 times. Calvin has two, but so do Antonio Brown, A.J. Green, Dez Bryant, Demaryius Thomas, and Brandon Marshall. (The other two to reach the mark were Josh Gordon and Jordy Nelson). And that doesn't include additional 295-point seasons by Demaryius, Julio, Dez, Beckham, and Cobb. Calvin used to be a unique asset. There didn't used to be any WRs who scored anything like him. But recently, he's not nearly as unique; there are several other guys who are scoring just as many points, but who are 3+ years younger.

So yeah, Calvin's not worth as much as he used to be. And several years from now, the next wave of big WRs are still going to be several years younger than Calvin. That age gap isn't closing any time soon. Look at what happened to Andre's value relative to Calvin's over the last three years, even as Andre Johnson was producing huge fantasy totals. That's probably what's going to happen to Calvin relative to Dez, Demaryius, Julio, Green, Brown, and Cobb. (Not to mention the really young guys like Jeffery, Beckham, Evans, and maybe Watkins and Hopkins.)

I wouldn't go so far as to have Calvin as my WR28, but he's WR10 in my rankings, and I feel pretty comfortable with that. This time last year, he was my #1 WR. Now I've got him sandwiched between DeAndre Hopkins and Sammy Watkins, who are 7-8 years younger. I think he's probably going to outscore those two over the next couple of years, but two years from now I'm anticipating Calvin being 32 and Hopkins/Watkins being pro bowlers just entering their prime.

It's a pretty safe bet that Calvin Johnson is never again going to be worth as much as he is right now. As with everything, it's just a question of whether he scores enough points in fantasy to offset that decline in market value.

 

[Louche]

Rankings obviously aren't meant to be a trade value chart as that would make all rankings more or less the same. But at some level ADP anchors where you should take a player. I might not like a player in the 3rd but if he's sitting there in the 5th I would be an idiot not to take him.

The ranker who has Calvin at 50 overall, is he seriously going to pass on Calvin if he's offered Calvin and a 3rd round rookie pick for Christine Michael? And would he trade Dez and Gronk for Brandin Cooks and Sammy Watkins? Okay, to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he ranks them like that but he wouldn't do those trades since that would be crazy based on ADP, but what is he then telling us? That five years from now you would get a big value payoff if you stick to his rankings since all the older guys will have retired by then? That's absurd. Who would willingly put themselves in a position to lose over the next 4-5 years?

Maybe he's trying to be the most youth aggressive "expert" in dynasty and if that is what gives him a stiffy then good for him. But for FBG to publish that as dynasty advice is borderline reckless.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Johnson is only 29 years old and is trending down? The infatuation with youth has gotten ridiculously stupid in some cases.

He'll be 30 to start the season, and it's pretty inarguable that he's trending down. In the last year and a half he's gone from the consensus #1 player in dynasty to outside of the first round in startups. In the next year and a half, he might not be going in the first three rounds. He's going to put a lot of points in your lineup, for sure, but so will several other wide receivers, and those other guys aren't expiring assets to nearly the same degree.

From 2008 to 2011, (4 seasons), there were 6 times a WR scored 300+ fantasy points in PPR. (Andre had 2, and Calvin, Welker, Roddy, and Fitz had one each.) From 2012 to 2014, (3 seasons), the mark has been exceeded 14 times. Calvin has two, but so do Antonio Brown, A.J. Green, Dez Bryant, Demaryius Thomas, and Brandon Marshall. (The other two to reach the mark were Josh Gordon and Jordy Nelson). And that doesn't include additional 295-point seasons by Demaryius, Julio, Dez, Beckham, and Cobb. Calvin used to be a unique asset. There didn't used to be any WRs who scored anything like him. But recently, he's not nearly as unique; there are several other guys who are scoring just as many points, but who are 3+ years younger.

So yeah, Calvin's not worth as much as he used to be. And several years from now, the next wave of big WRs are still going to be several years younger than Calvin. That age gap isn't closing any time soon. Look at what happened to Andre's value relative to Calvin's over the last three years, even as Andre Johnson was producing huge fantasy totals. That's probably what's going to happen to Calvin relative to Dez, Demaryius, Julio, Green, Brown, and Cobb. (Not to mention the really young guys like Jeffery, Beckham, Evans, and maybe Watkins and Hopkins.)

I wouldn't go so far as to have Calvin as my WR28, but he's WR10 in my rankings, and I feel pretty comfortable with that. This time last year, he was my #1 WR. Now I've got him sandwiched between DeAndre Hopkins and Sammy Watkins, who are 7-8 years younger. I think he's probably going to outscore those two over the next couple of years, but two years from now I'm anticipating Calvin being 32 and Hopkins/Watkins being pro bowlers just entering their prime.

It's a pretty safe bet that Calvin Johnson is never again going to be worth as much as he is right now. As with everything, it's just a question of whether he scores enough points in fantasy to offset that decline in market value.

You think Buffalo is firing Rex within a year and finding a serviceable QB? Or are they trading Watkins?

 

[PatsWillWin]

Rankings obviously aren't meant to be a trade value chart as that would make all rankings more or less the same. But at some level ADP anchors where you should take a player. I might not like a player in the 3rd but if he's sitting there in the 5th I would be an idiot not to take him.

The ranker who has Calvin at 50 overall, is he seriously going to pass on Calvin if he's offered Calvin and a 3rd round rookie pick for Christine Michael? And would he trade Dez and Gronk for Brandin Cooks and Sammy Watkins? Okay, to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he ranks them like that but he wouldn't do those trades since that would be crazy based on ADP, but what is he then telling us? That five years from now you would get a big value payoff if you stick to his rankings since all the older guys will have retired by then? That's absurd. Who would willingly put themselves in a position to lose over the next 4-5 years?

Maybe he's trying to be the most youth aggressive "expert" in dynasty and if that is what gives him a stiffy then good for him. But for FBG to publish that as dynasty advice is borderline reckless.

Yeah, I don't think these rankings are indications of trade value. Obviously that particular ranker would be smart enough to know that he could get a lot more for Calvin Johnson than Christine Michael. If the rankings just became "what I think I could get in a trade for Player X" then you really just have a bunch of lists of people guessing trade market values, which is a totally different exercise.

And that goes for everyone, really. If you value a player lower than what you believe a trade partner does, you will try to sell that player for how the other owner values him - nobody's like "I know you're really high on Calvin Johnson, but I have him as WR28, so I'll just take Allen Robinson for him and we'll both go home happy."

 

[Louche]

Rankings obviously aren't meant to be a trade value chart as that would make all rankings more or less the same. But at some level ADP anchors where you should take a player. I might not like a player in the 3rd but if he's sitting there in the 5th I would be an idiot not to take him.

The ranker who has Calvin at 50 overall, is he seriously going to pass on Calvin if he's offered Calvin and a 3rd round rookie pick for Christine Michael? And would he trade Dez and Gronk for Brandin Cooks and Sammy Watkins? Okay, to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he ranks them like that but he wouldn't do those trades since that would be crazy based on ADP, but what is he then telling us? That five years from now you would get a big value payoff if you stick to his rankings since all the older guys will have retired by then? That's absurd. Who would willingly put themselves in a position to lose over the next 4-5 years?

Maybe he's trying to be the most youth aggressive "expert" in dynasty and if that is what gives him a stiffy then good for him. But for FBG to publish that as dynasty advice is borderline reckless.

Yeah, I don't think these rankings are indications of trade value. Obviously that particular ranker would be smart enough to know that he could get a lot more for Calvin Johnson than Christine Michael. If the rankings just became "what I think I could get in a trade for Player X" then you really just have a bunch of lists of people guessing trade market values, which is a totally different exercise.

And that goes for everyone, really. If you value a player lower than what you believe a trade partner does, you will try to sell that player for how the other owner values him - nobody's like "I know you're really high on Calvin Johnson, but I have him as WR28, so I'll just take Allen Robinson for him and we'll both go home happy."

OK, but even if he wouldn't trade at those prices he is still valuing them as dynasty assets so I'm assuming he would pick the players in that order in a startup...? I mean this are his rankings and we use our rankings for startups?

Or maybe not, let's say that he wouldn't trade at those prices and he would not pick them in that order in a startup. But he's still saying that Brandin Cooks and Sammy are better assets than Dez and Gronk. Right? Let's take trade value out of it. So he is saying that production-wise in dynasty that is how he would rank the players? That makes the advice even worse given how he is ranking the players.

Or is he ranking them with future trade value and production in mind with a five year horizon? So basically he is saying that the next four years will be punted but in year five you'll be in a really good position? If that's the case I don't see any point in his rankings. They don't say anything apart from how old players are. I can't see any strategy where it makes sense to gamble on Cooks being the real deal rather than taking the real deal in Julio, Dez or Gronk. Even in a complete rebuild you would rather want the elite players even if only to flip them. How realistic is it that Cooks will be worth more a year from now - so even in a rebuild wouldn't it make sense to go with the elite players? Even if you're playing with a really long horizon, the next few seasons are still going to happen and even if I pick Calvin or Dez today that doesn't mean that I can't trade them away over the next few years. And sure, maybe Calvin's value will never be higher but his value today is certainly higher than 50 overall.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Rankings obviously aren't meant to be a trade value chart as that would make all rankings more or less the same. But at some level ADP anchors where you should take a player. I might not like a player in the 3rd but if he's sitting there in the 5th I would be an idiot not to take him.

The ranker who has Calvin at 50 overall, is he seriously going to pass on Calvin if he's offered Calvin and a 3rd round rookie pick for Christine Michael? And would he trade Dez and Gronk for Brandin Cooks and Sammy Watkins? Okay, to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he ranks them like that but he wouldn't do those trades since that would be crazy based on ADP, but what is he then telling us? That five years from now you would get a big value payoff if you stick to his rankings since all the older guys will have retired by then? That's absurd. Who would willingly put themselves in a position to lose over the next 4-5 years?

Maybe he's trying to be the most youth aggressive "expert" in dynasty and if that is what gives him a stiffy then good for him. But for FBG to publish that as dynasty advice is borderline reckless.

Yeah, I don't think these rankings are indications of trade value. Obviously that particular ranker would be smart enough to know that he could get a lot more for Calvin Johnson than Christine Michael. If the rankings just became "what I think I could get in a trade for Player X" then you really just have a bunch of lists of people guessing trade market values, which is a totally different exercise.

And that goes for everyone, really. If you value a player lower than what you believe a trade partner does, you will try to sell that player for how the other owner values him - nobody's like "I know you're really high on Calvin Johnson, but I have him as WR28, so I'll just take Allen Robinson for him and we'll both go home happy."

OK, but even if he wouldn't trade at those prices he is still valuing them as dynasty assets so I'm assuming he would pick the players in that order in a startup...? I mean this are his rankings and we use our rankings for startups?

Or maybe not, let's say that he wouldn't trade at those prices and he would not pick them in that order in a startup. But he's still saying that Brandin Cooks and Sammy are better assets than Dez and Gronk. Right? Let's take trade value out of it. So he is saying that production-wise in dynasty that is how he would rank the players? That makes the advice even worse given how he is ranking the players.

Or is he ranking them with future trade value and production in mind with a five year horizon? So basically he is saying that the next four years will be punted but in year five you'll be in a really good position? If that's the case I don't see any point in his rankings. They don't say anything apart from how old players are. I can't see any strategy where it makes sense to gamble on Cooks being the real deal rather than taking the real deal in Julio, Dez or Gronk. Even in a complete rebuild you would rather want the elite players even if only to flip them. How realistic is it that Cooks will be worth more a year from now - so even in a rebuild wouldn't it make sense to go with the elite players? Even if you're playing with a really long horizon, the next few seasons are still going to happen and even if I pick Calvin or Dez today that doesn't mean that I can't trade them away over the next few years. And sure, maybe Calvin's value will never be higher but his value today is certainly higher than 50 overall.

No, I don't think he'd draft based on this list in a startup. Even in a startup, you would be aware that it might be better to draft Calvin Johnson and trade him later.

In a hypothetical-hopefully-doesn't-exist no trade dynasty league where market value and perception is of no concern, then yes, I would expect that he would draft roughly off of his rankings. In a hypothetical situation that would never happen in which he could only make one trade and had no other choice - Calvin Johnson for Cody Latimer, then I would expect that he would accept and take Cody Latimer.

I don't want to get into defending specific rankings - I'm not saying that I'm a fan of his approach. All I'm saying is that it seems consistent with the thinking of someone who is overly concerned with dynasty trade value as opposed to performance, which is something I see/hear a lot just on podcasts and Twitter and forums. Cooks over Dez is strange in any philosophy IMO, but overall, looking broadly at his rankings, players that you would expect to be worth more in year n+1 in terms of trade value are ranked well ahead of players who you would expect to be worth less in year n+1.

Personally, I think trade value is a factor, but you can go overboard with it. This guy, I think, has.

 

[Tau837]

Rankings are definitely different from market value.

If someone thinks a given player is worth much more than his market value (e.g., Cooks in the rankings under discussion), I would expect him to possibly take that player a round earlier than his ADP but not necessarily where the ranker ranks him. Or to be willing to overpay (per consensus) (if necessary) to acquire him.

Conversely, for a player a ranker is particularly down on (e.g., Calvin on this discussion), I would expect the ranker would not draft him at his ADP and would be willing to accept less than (consensus) market value (if necessary) to move him.

 

[Adam Harstad]

You think Buffalo is firing Rex within a year and finding a serviceable QB? Or are they trading Watkins?

I rank based on naive heuristics. I think that projecting on a season-long basis is incredibly hard, and extending that beyond a single season is pure folly. I don't know what Buffalo's quarterback situation will look like in a year. I don't know where Sammy Watkins will be playing in three years. I don't know how successful Rex Ryan will be, or how predictive his past preferences will prove. Rather than making poorly-supported guesses at answers to those questions, I instead just cast them aside entirely. I make judgments on Sammy Watkins' talent based on his draft position and his play last season, (which was stellar and, in my mind, more impressive than Mike Evans'). I then say, "based on past experience, WRs Sammy's age and perceived talent level have historically been worth about X". And for 22-year-old stars-in-the-making, "X" is typically quite high.

Now, heuristics have their own failure points, too. Obviously the simple "talent wins out" heuristic has proven terrible for Jonathan Stewart and Larry Fitzgerald owners. But, at the same time, "project the situation" methods have failure points that are just as big, if not bigger. In 2007, Calvin Johnson was drafted by the worst GM in modern NFL history, the fourth top-10 receiver the team had taken in five years, (after the first three were well on their way to "bust" status). In his second year, the team became the first in history to go 0-16. There was no really clear path to improvement for the franchise, but Calvin turned out okay.

In 2011, A.J. Green was drafted in the top 5 to one of the most dysfunctional franchises in modern NFL history. The team's franchise quarterback had repeatedly said he'd rather retire than play another down for them ever again, and Green looked to be paired with a 2nd-round quarterback from TCU. Chris Wesseling, a well-respected dynasty mind, said several times he'd seen enough of the Bengals over the years to want nothing to do with A.J. Green. Green turned out okay, too.

I could go on, though anecdote is hardly to be confused with data. I know Chad Parsons has said he's done a study on draft history and found virtually no correlation between the situation a rookie WR landed in and how his career eventually turned out. Many, (if not most), of the best fantasy WRs in recent memory spent a good portion of their early career on brutally dysfunctional teams.

So I guess this is really just a long-winded way of saying I don't really know how Sammy Watkins is going to justify that high ranking, but that's not important to me, because the "how" is a much smaller part of my ranking process than the "why". I get that my process is very different from a lot of others, and as a result, I would expect wildly different results. And that's great. Like I said, I'm keen on embracing the differences. I don't pretend to have it all figured out. This is merely my current best guess at how to go forward.

For more on the concept of relying on heuristics rather than projections in highly uncertain worlds, see this article.

 

[ZWK]

I know Chad Parsons has said he's done a study on draft history and found virtually no correlation between the situation a rookie WR landed in and how his career eventually turned out.

I looked at some numbers on this. For WRs drafted in the early first round, situation seemed to be irrelevant. For the rest of the draft, WRs drafted to top 10 passing offenses tended to produce more VBD in their first 5 years than other WRs. WRs drafted to bottom 10 passing offenses did no worse than WRs drafted to average passing offenses.

So, I agree with the "ignore situation" heuristic for guys like Sammy Watkins, but not for guys like Dorsett or Davante Adams.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Rankings obviously aren't meant to be a trade value chart as that would make all rankings more or less the same. But at some level ADP anchors where you should take a player. I might not like a player in the 3rd but if he's sitting there in the 5th I would be an idiot not to take him.

The ranker who has Calvin at 50 overall, is he seriously going to pass on Calvin if he's offered Calvin and a 3rd round rookie pick for Christine Michael? And would he trade Dez and Gronk for Brandin Cooks and Sammy Watkins? Okay, to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he ranks them like that but he wouldn't do those trades since that would be crazy based on ADP, but what is he then telling us? That five years from now you would get a big value payoff if you stick to his rankings since all the older guys will have retired by then? That's absurd. Who would willingly put themselves in a position to lose over the next 4-5 years?

Maybe he's trying to be the most youth aggressive "expert" in dynasty and if that is what gives him a stiffy then good for him. But for FBG to publish that as dynasty advice is borderline reckless.

Regarding the bolded... I happen to agree. But that's a philosophical point, and not a matter of fact that is not in dispute. Philosophically, I believe in the efficiency of markets and the wisdom of crowds, so I temper all of my opinions to one degree or another with the broad consensus. Philosophically, others believe that markets are riddled with inefficiencies and if the outcome of a rigorous evaluation contradicts conventional wisdom, the evaluation should win out.

And, while I naturally believe that my approach is right, I can tell horror stories of where tempering my honest opinions with the market consensus has blown up spectacularly in my face. The worst dynasty trade I ever made involved me giving Le'Veon Bell, (who I was among the highest on), along with Randall Cobb and Julius Thomas, to get Keenan Allen, Michael Floyd, Cordarrelle Patterson, and LaDarius Green, all of whom I was much lower than consensus on, simply as an effort to hedge my own bets. You can bet that one made me question whether it's not sometimes better to just stick to my guns, market consensus or no market consensus.

If you had a perfect crystal ball, where would you have ranked Terrell Davis in the 1995 rookie draft? Where would you have ranked Jamaal Charles in the 2008 rookie draft? I'm not asking where you would have drafted them, but where would you have ranked them? Personally, I'd say "in the top 3" is a pretty dang good answer to that question, even if the broad consensus at the time had them as late 2nd or even 3rd round rookie picks. Would you say that the "correct" answer in 2008 was to rank Darren McFadden over Jamaal Charles? Because if we ever get to a point where it's "correct" to rank crappy players over all stars, then I think it's time for us to take a long look at just what qualifies as "correct". (Which isn't to say that Calvin is a crappy player. It's to say that if you believe Calvin is worth a 5th rounder, that doesn't mean you have to rank him as a 3rd rounder just because the market rates him as a 2nd rounder.)

As someone who puts rankings out for public consumption, I also have to say I'm actually pretty insulted by insinuations that I'm stating an opinion out of some misguided desire to get attention, create controversy, look like a hero, or anything else. If I'm motivated by anything at all beyond an honest effort to be right, it's an ongoing effort to remain employed. And to that end, being controversial for the sake of controversiality or in an effort to raise my own profile probably runs against my own self-interest.

Again, I don't know Daniel Simpkins very well and certainly don't mean to speak for him. But speaking solely for myself, if someone suggests that I'm posting a controversial opinion simply in an effort to draw attention to myself, I would like to strongly disabuse them of the notion, and perhaps suggest that I don't think about what others think about me nearly as often as those others might believe or hope.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Hopefully that kind of made sense. Have you though about this (a different approach to rankings), but also an attempt at building a measurement approach that helps you build in the proper distribution/allocations of your investments based on where your team currently is?

I've actually given a lot of thought to that problem, and I've seen various different sites and people take various different approaches to it over the years. I've seen people create multiple sets of rankings, which is obviously a time-consuming workaround. I've seen people try to tackle the problem with algorithms, but they usually produce some pretty monstrous results. As a fan, the easiest solution is just to find expert rankings from guys with different mindsets and work from all the different sets. Which is one of the reasons why I'm such a big proponent of not trying to silence dissenting thought.

As a ranker, I'm not sure I can see an easy, workable, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. And as a proud member of #TeamHeuristics, I'm not even sure that it's actually a problem. Would the "diversified viewpoints" solution really outperform a naive "get the best players" heuristic in the long run? I don't know. I don't think so. I think there's a lot to be said for an approach that just says "the best players are the best players regardless of what the rest of my team looks like, (notwithstanding my preference for a team to be truly terrible than merely mediocre)."

I've talked some about this on Twitter this offseason, but I often think that "winning championships" is the wrong goal for a dynasty team. I think it's sometimes more productive to think of championships, not as an end goal unto themselves, but as a natural byproduct of our REAL goal, which is merely relentlessly improving our team year after year after year. If we keep making our team better, eventually those championships are going to follow. But if we're chasing specific championships, then we're going to be leaking player value in a vain quest to turn a low-percentage play into a slightly-lower-percentage play.

 

[Pokesfan]

I've talked some about this on Twitter this offseason, but I often think that "winning championships" is the wrong goal for a dynasty team. I think it's sometimes more productive to think of championships, not as an end goal unto themselves, but as a natural byproduct of our REAL goal, which is merely relentlessly improving our team year after year after year. If we keep making our team better, eventually those championships are going to follow. But if we're chasing specific championships, then we're going to be leaking player value in a vain quest to turn a low-percentage play into a slightly-lower-percentage play.

This is the way I have tried to look at my team the last 7 years and as far as winning games it has worked out really, really well for me (minus 2013 when half my team was hurt). For some reason it just hasn't transitioned into a single Championship. I keep telling myself they will come if I keep trying to improve...

PS: Sorry for the hijack.

 

[Louche]

Rankings obviously aren't meant to be a trade value chart as that would make all rankings more or less the same. But at some level ADP anchors where you should take a player. I might not like a player in the 3rd but if he's sitting there in the 5th I would be an idiot not to take him.

The ranker who has Calvin at 50 overall, is he seriously going to pass on Calvin if he's offered Calvin and a 3rd round rookie pick for Christine Michael? And would he trade Dez and Gronk for Brandin Cooks and Sammy Watkins? Okay, to give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he ranks them like that but he wouldn't do those trades since that would be crazy based on ADP, but what is he then telling us? That five years from now you would get a big value payoff if you stick to his rankings since all the older guys will have retired by then? That's absurd. Who would willingly put themselves in a position to lose over the next 4-5 years?

Maybe he's trying to be the most youth aggressive "expert" in dynasty and if that is what gives him a stiffy then good for him. But for FBG to publish that as dynasty advice is borderline reckless.

Regarding the bolded... I happen to agree. But that's a philosophical point, and not a matter of fact that is not in dispute. Philosophically, I believe in the efficiency of markets and the wisdom of crowds, so I temper all of my opinions to one degree or another with the broad consensus. Philosophically, others believe that markets are riddled with inefficiencies and if the outcome of a rigorous evaluation contradicts conventional wisdom, the evaluation should win out.

And, while I naturally believe that my approach is right, I can tell horror stories of where tempering my honest opinions with the market consensus has blown up spectacularly in my face. The worst dynasty trade I ever made involved me giving Le'Veon Bell, (who I was among the highest on), along with Randall Cobb and Julius Thomas, to get Keenan Allen, Michael Floyd, Cordarrelle Patterson, and LaDarius Green, all of whom I was much lower than consensus on, simply as an effort to hedge my own bets. You can bet that one made me question whether it's not sometimes better to just stick to my guns, market consensus or no market consensus.

If you had a perfect crystal ball, where would you have ranked Terrell Davis in the 1995 rookie draft? Where would you have ranked Jamaal Charles in the 2008 rookie draft? I'm not asking where you would have drafted them, but where would you have ranked them? Personally, I'd say "in the top 3" is a pretty dang good answer to that question, even if the broad consensus at the time had them as late 2nd or even 3rd round rookie picks. Would you say that the "correct" answer in 2008 was to rank Darren McFadden over Jamaal Charles? Because if we ever get to a point where it's "correct" to rank crappy players over all stars, then I think it's time for us to take a long look at just what qualifies as "correct". (Which isn't to say that Calvin is a crappy player. It's to say that if you believe Calvin is worth a 5th rounder, that doesn't mean you have to rank him as a 3rd rounder just because the market rates him as a 2nd rounder.)

As someone who puts rankings out for public consumption, I also have to say I'm actually pretty insulted by insinuations that I'm stating an opinion out of some misguided desire to get attention, create controversy, look like a hero, or anything else. If I'm motivated by anything at all beyond an honest effort to be right, it's an ongoing effort to remain employed. And to that end, being controversial for the sake of controversiality or in an effort to raise my own profile probably runs against my own self-interest.

Again, I don't know Daniel Simpkins very well and certainly don't mean to speak for him. But speaking solely for myself, if someone suggests that I'm posting a controversial opinion simply in an effort to draw attention to myself, I would like to strongly disabuse them of the notion, and perhaps suggest that I don't think about what others think about me nearly as often as those others might believe or hope.

The thing is though, those rankings are piss poor. You know it and I know it. You said you regretted gunning after Ladarius and Patterson? Well here he is doing the exact same mistake - not by following consensus as you seem to blame it on, but by taking high risk gambles (and low reward given the opportunity cost) on unproven players over established elite players.

If you think FF is about being right all the time then yes, you will never be able to land on a consistent strategy as you focus on those times where you did not hit and dynasty feels very complex and uncontrollable. One has to realize that making good bets will still cause misses from time to time, there is too much variance for that not to happen, all you can do is try to block out the noise and keep making good bets. But the key is keeping odds on your side...

It might be a bit early to bump Tefertiller's rankings that I called out last fall, but he's not doing so well thus far.

Kyle Orton ahead of Ryan Tannehill, Teddy Bridgewater ahead of Peyton Manning and Matthew Stafford, Nick Foles ahead of Matt Ryan, Andy Dalton ahead of Jay Cutler, Charles Sims ahead of Alfred Morris, James White ahead of Lamar Miller, Knowshon Moreno ahead of Jerick McKinnon, Maurice Jones-Drew ahead of Denard Robinson, Denarius Moore ahead of Mike Wallace, Jared Abbrederis ahead of Eric Decker, Hakeem Nicks ahead of John Brown, and James Jones ahead of Martavis Bryant.

There's hope with Teddy and Dalton but overall that is a ton of value he is missing out on.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Hopefully that kind of made sense. Have you though about this (a different approach to rankings), but also an attempt at building a measurement approach that helps you build in the proper distribution/allocations of your investments based on where your team currently is?

I've actually given a lot of thought to that problem, and I've seen various different sites and people take various different approaches to it over the years. I've seen people create multiple sets of rankings, which is obviously a time-consuming workaround. I've seen people try to tackle the problem with algorithms, but they usually produce some pretty monstrous results. As a fan, the easiest solution is just to find expert rankings from guys with different mindsets and work from all the different sets. Which is one of the reasons why I'm such a big proponent of not trying to silence dissenting thought.

As a ranker, I'm not sure I can see an easy, workable, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. And as a proud member of #TeamHeuristics, I'm not even sure that it's actually a problem. Would the "diversified viewpoints" solution really outperform a naive "get the best players" heuristic in the long run? I don't know. I don't think so. I think there's a lot to be said for an approach that just says "the best players are the best players regardless of what the rest of my team looks like, (notwithstanding my preference for a team to be truly terrible than merely mediocre)."

I've talked some about this on Twitter this offseason, but I often think that "winning championships" is the wrong goal for a dynasty team. I think it's sometimes more productive to think of championships, not as an end goal unto themselves, but as a natural byproduct of our REAL goal, which is merely relentlessly improving our team year after year after year. If we keep making our team better, eventually those championships are going to follow. But if we're chasing specific championships, then we're going to be leaking player value in a vain quest to turn a low-percentage play into a slightly-lower-percentage play.

I almost never do rankings since the only players I care about at any given time are the ones I think are both talented and undervalued -- which is always a small list.

But when I do take a stab at it I don't try to combine positions and I don't try to combine different types of players. For example...

RB - elite starters with long-term talent

RB - aging starters with long-term talent

RB - marginal FF starters or backups

RB - elite long-term starter prospects

RB - long shot long-terms starter prospects (if cheap)

RB - marginal FF starter prospects (if cheap)

RB - players I'm not interested in (includes RBs across a wide range of other rankings)

But I typically only buy players in the 4th, 5th and 6th bins, so those are the ones where I'm always trolling for guys I think are undervalued.

Also agree 100% that "winning championships" isn't the goal -- it's a by-product of the "roster as many long-term FF starters as possible."

 

[Fantasy Benchwarmer]

You have to look at the scoring when looking at the rankings on this site. The rookies alwasy seem to be higher than they should for standard scoring.

4 points for QB td and -1 for ints is very generic

Everyone should make their own for their scoring. It's the only way to go these days.

 

[ZWK]

I know Chad Parsons has said he's done a study on draft history and found virtually no correlation between the situation a rookie WR landed in and how his career eventually turned out.

I looked at some numbers on this. For WRs drafted in the early first round, situation seemed to be irrelevant. For the rest of the draft, WRs drafted to top 10 passing offenses tended to produce more VBD in their first 5 years than other WRs. WRs drafted to bottom 10 passing offenses did no worse than WRs drafted to average passing offenses.

So, I agree with the "ignore situation" heuristic for guys like Sammy Watkins, but not for guys like Dorsett or Davante Adams.

I looked up my numbers on this. The sample was the 225 WRs who were drafted at pick 16-100, from 1989-2009. The quality of the team's passing game was rated based on their total receiving fantasy points (0.1 x passing yards + 6 x passing TDs) the year before they drafted the WR. Then I split team quality into 3 groups.

WRs who joined top 10 passing offenses averaged 58.6 VBD in their first 5 years

WRs who joined mid-range passing offenses averaged 36.9 VBD in their first 5 years

WRs who joined bottom 10 passing offenses averaged 39.8 VBD in their first 5 years

If you correct for when the WRs were drafted, that barely changes things (it narrows the gap by about 2 VBD).

In the top 15 of the draft, WRs drafted to bad passing offenses actually have a better track record, but it's tricky because of the small sample size and the imbalance in team quality (e.g., 5 of the 6 WRs drafted in the top 3 went to a bottom 10 passing offense). If you include top 15 picks in the sample, along with picks 16-100, that narrows the gap some more but still leaves the WRs who joined top 10 passing offenses with a 14 VBD edge on the rest.

 

[Dan Hindery]

Hopefully that kind of made sense. Have you though about this (a different approach to rankings), but also an attempt at building a measurement approach that helps you build in the proper distribution/allocations of your investments based on where your team currently is?

I've actually given a lot of thought to that problem, and I've seen various different sites and people take various different approaches to it over the years. I've seen people create multiple sets of rankings, which is obviously a time-consuming workaround. I've seen people try to tackle the problem with algorithms, but they usually produce some pretty monstrous results. As a fan, the easiest solution is just to find expert rankings from guys with different mindsets and work from all the different sets. Which is one of the reasons why I'm such a big proponent of not trying to silence dissenting thought.

As a ranker, I'm not sure I can see an easy, workable, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. And as a proud member of #TeamHeuristics, I'm not even sure that it's actually a problem. Would the "diversified viewpoints" solution really outperform a naive "get the best players" heuristic in the long run? I don't know. I don't think so. I think there's a lot to be said for an approach that just says "the best players are the best players regardless of what the rest of my team looks like, (notwithstanding my preference for a team to be truly terrible than merely mediocre)."

I've talked some about this on Twitter this offseason, but I often think that "winning championships" is the wrong goal for a dynasty team. I think it's sometimes more productive to think of championships, not as an end goal unto themselves, but as a natural byproduct of our REAL goal, which is merely relentlessly improving our team year after year after year. If we keep making our team better, eventually those championships are going to follow. But if we're chasing specific championships, then we're going to be leaking player value in a vain quest to turn a low-percentage play into a slightly-lower-percentage play.

In my rankings articles, I specify how much of a player's dynasty value is due to expected current year (or rest of year) production and how much is future value/production. That's the approach that has made the most sense to me as a dynasty player and what I've tried to bring to FBG.

I think that can be a fairly useful way to look at things for teams that aren't contenders in the current year. For example, I might have half (or more?) of Arian Foster's dynasty value (in terms of VBD) being "used up" in 2015. If you aren't a contender, it doesn't make much sense to "waste" the short term production when you can probably trade it for future value (in terms of expected VBD) when you expect to be a contender. That's where simply focusing just on good players without any regard at all to a window I think can be a mistake.

Where I think some people run into troubles is that they think their team all has to be the same age or something and that having a 30-year old like Calvin Johnson or Jordy Nelson on a rebuilding team is a bad move completely and don't think he's a top asset. Calvin's very likely to give you quality VBD in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and maybe a couple years of declining but still worthwhile production in 2019 and beyond. If your window to compete isn't open until beyond 2019, you are doing something wrong. Every team should see value in a star talent with multiple big years left like Johnson.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Update: Gronk had a slightly better 2014 season than Logan Paulsen. Luckily, I didn't take this bit of (paid) advice seriously during my 2014 draft.

Exclude button in full effect. "Look at me!" rankings hidden going forward. /rant

I'm not even going to bring up the Jordan Cameron over DeMarco Murray 2015 ranking. Carry on...

How did Montee Ball do relative to James Jones?

 

[Turbo Punch]

Hopefully that kind of made sense. Have you though about this (a different approach to rankings), but also an attempt at building a measurement approach that helps you build in the proper distribution/allocations of your investments based on where your team currently is?

I've actually given a lot of thought to that problem, and I've seen various different sites and people take various different approaches to it over the years. I've seen people create multiple sets of rankings, which is obviously a time-consuming workaround. I've seen people try to tackle the problem with algorithms, but they usually produce some pretty monstrous results. As a fan, the easiest solution is just to find expert rankings from guys with different mindsets and work from all the different sets. Which is one of the reasons why I'm such a big proponent of not trying to silence dissenting thought.

As a ranker, I'm not sure I can see an easy, workable, one-size-fits-all solution to the problem. And as a proud member of #TeamHeuristics, I'm not even sure that it's actually a problem. Would the "diversified viewpoints" solution really outperform a naive "get the best players" heuristic in the long run? I don't know. I don't think so. I think there's a lot to be said for an approach that just says "the best players are the best players regardless of what the rest of my team looks like, (notwithstanding my preference for a team to be truly terrible than merely mediocre)."

I've talked some about this on Twitter this offseason, but I often think that "winning championships" is the wrong goal for a dynasty team. I think it's sometimes more productive to think of championships, not as an end goal unto themselves, but as a natural byproduct of our REAL goal, which is merely relentlessly improving our team year after year after year. If we keep making our team better, eventually those championships are going to follow. But if we're chasing specific championships, then we're going to be leaking player value in a vain quest to turn a low-percentage play into a slightly-lower-percentage play.

[SIZE=10.5pt]The goal in dynasty should be to win multiple championships - to make your fantasy team a fantasy league dynasty, by winning multiple and/or consecutive championships. Can you do better than the Steel Curtain who won 4 Super Bowls in 6 years in the 70’s, or how about the Cowboys won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years in the 90’s, or how about the Packers who won 5 championships in 7 years in the ‘60’s. Better yet can you beat the greatest sports dynasty ever and win 8 consecutive championships like the Boston Celtics did between 1959 and 1966.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Given this as the ultimate dynasty league goal I would agree that your argument for the Demaryius Thomas for Matt Forte trade as being a mistake is correct, regardless of the results it led to for one season. Personally I doubt that trade had much to do with a 2014 championship given that Thomas scored 340.9 pts in PPR last year and Forte scored 350.6. I doubt that that difference of less than 10 points was the deciding factor between a championship or not.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Given the well documented differences in the career arcs of RB vs WR it seems that Wood weakened his chances of being a true dynasty. Of course this is unknown as of this writing and his team could still be a true dynasty. Please let us know how his team does over the next several years. [/SIZE]