Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
FBG WR dynasty rankings (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Holy Schneikes
- Start date
you miss the point, that you two are rating "your gut" vs Eric Moulds actually starting as the Texans #2.Suppose Matt Jones is the #3 in Jax, then what?very, verythat i think is the whole point of this thread. to show relative value. someone stated something about having chad jackson aheah of joe horn and eric moulds. damn straight i would give up either of them for chad jackson. the primary reason being age. horn did not look good at all last year and moulds is now playing second fiddle down in houston. even if they have a couple decent years left, i would rather gamble on a wr that the patriots traded up for in a pretty bare wr squad.
You speak of relative value but have nothing to relate it to but your gut. With all due respect, if Del Rio hasn't named his starters you sure can't.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Excellent work. When I threw that out there I was looking at the current list of "top" receivers, and obviosuly most of the occurences of that happening are older guys.My theory on that is this:
When teams held on to players much longer, they had more time to develop them and would sometimes wait until a player was pretty well established before he got significant time.
With the new state of the NFL, we generally know a little earlier if a guy is going to be a plyer or not because NFL TEAMS need to know if a guy is going to be a player or not well before his rookie contract is up. They need to see if they want to try to keep him around. It really seems like the rookie and sophmore years don't mean a ton, but if a guy hasn't shown anything to indicate he's a #1 receiver in for or five years, he generally isn't going to.
It's funny. You were one of the guys who debunked the 3rd year breakout (and it was an excellent article), but it the 3rd year has still has significance to me.
These days, guys occasionally do well in their rookie years, often break out in their sophmore years and sometimes break out in the 3rd or 4th years (though 4th year breakouts were more infrequent if I remember correctly). Occasionally a guy will break out in the 5th year, and almost never in the 6th. The 3rd year seems to be semi-crucial just because it seems like a good chunk of the time, especially for highly touted players, if your 3rd year goes by and and you haven't done anything, you are in trouble. Thats about the point at which dynasty value goes down significantly for me without some signs - the 4th year.
tlovyankee
Footballguy
I was just wondering if this could be implemnted into the Rankings Page.
Whenever someone does an update if they could color code their rankings somehow to show us if the player moved up, down, or stayed the same on your rankings.
I think this would be a good feature so we can tell how the players changed.
Sorry to post this if it was already mentioned or if you guys are already thinking about this.
Thanks
Whenever someone does an update if they could color code their rankings somehow to show us if the player moved up, down, or stayed the same on your rankings.
I think this would be a good feature so we can tell how the players changed.
Sorry to post this if it was already mentioned or if you guys are already thinking about this.
Thanks
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Bumping this not necessarily to toot my horn, but hoping that we get more realistic DYNASTY rankings next year.V Jackson could still amount to nothing, but at least it's still a question mark. His 88 ranking going into this year behind the guys I mentioned (among others) was bad.For next year, please DUMP all of the has-beens and never-has-beens and move the real dynasty prospects in front of them.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Booker is Wr 32 right now and was on a pretty decent string of games before he got injured. He had clearly moved the WR1 for Harrington in Miami and I think he still has several years left in him.
Jackson is Wr 53 right now. He has started to show some promise this year and I agree he has value moving forward but ranking Booker ahead of Jackson before he ever showed anything is not really wrong here imo. You just do not see value in him thats all. Thats fine thats your opinion but other may see somthing in him that you don't.
As far as your general premise of looking at Wrs who were drafted 1st day but have not done much yet being worth rostering/ranking I agree with you. I just don't neccessarily think they deserve to be ranked higher than players like Booker who are startable.
Jackson is Wr 53 right now. He has started to show some promise this year and I agree he has value moving forward but ranking Booker ahead of Jackson before he ever showed anything is not really wrong here imo. You just do not see value in him thats all. Thats fine thats your opinion but other may see somthing in him that you don't.
As far as your general premise of looking at Wrs who were drafted 1st day but have not done much yet being worth rostering/ranking I agree with you. I just don't neccessarily think they deserve to be ranked higher than players like Booker who are startable.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Well, you picked one guy out of 7 or 8 I mentioned, but lets talk about Booker.Yeah, he had a much better season this year than most expected (including me). But he was "startable" for MAYBE three games this year (starting maybe week 12). For his current ranking, I'd still rather have Jackson just because he COULD be on my team producing for the next 10 years as a #1 for his team. Maybe he will, maybe he won't, but Booker WON'T. But if you REALLY like Booker and think he's going to continue to produce more than Chambers, I'm cool with a decent ranking for him.But what about those other guys? Bethel Johnson? Gabriel, Curry, Engram, McCareins, Joey J? Who in their right mind would want any of these guys over Jackson in a dynasty league right now, particularly the older ones who were ranked 30 or 40 slots higher going into this season? McCareins has 320 yards this year. Engram barely played and will be 34 next year as the #4 on his team (at best). Joey J had 495 yards (believe it or not, his 3rd best year in a 9 year career). Why was a 32 year old journeyman receiver FOURTY slots higher on a DYNASTY list than a guy like Jackson?Again, this is not me pimping Jackson, it is just an attempt to get better dynasty rankings for next year that take youth and potential into consideration.
first of all, hindsight is 20/20. coming into the year, people thought Culpepper would be slinging the rock ala Moss/WR2, so expecting Booker to have a bigger year seems reasonable to me. secondly, coming into the year, Rivers was viewed as being somewhat of a downtick for the passing game. i think it's safe to say he exceeded everyone's expectations, but Jackson still didn't do much of anything.
i'm saying this because i think it's VERY subjective. i'm NOT saying this because i give much weight to the dynasty rankings past the top 30-40, because the truth is, i don't. once you get down around 70-80, i think it's generally a crapshoot anyway, and your likelihood of "hitting the mark" is going to be much more infrequent.
bottom line, if you're going to "go with your gut" when saying you'd rather have a guy like VJackson over a guy like Booker/JoeJ/etc (which to me, totally sounds reasonable on the surface), then why use the rankings at all? clearly it's your gut you trust the most, so would "better" rankings do anything but validate what you think you already know?
for myself, i think the dynasty rankings are a bit iffy. i think arguments can be made that a guy at 20 should be at 12, and vice-versa. but the arguments get more debatable the further down the list you go. my opinion.
i'm saying this because i think it's VERY subjective. i'm NOT saying this because i give much weight to the dynasty rankings past the top 30-40, because the truth is, i don't. once you get down around 70-80, i think it's generally a crapshoot anyway, and your likelihood of "hitting the mark" is going to be much more infrequent.
bottom line, if you're going to "go with your gut" when saying you'd rather have a guy like VJackson over a guy like Booker/JoeJ/etc (which to me, totally sounds reasonable on the surface), then why use the rankings at all? clearly it's your gut you trust the most, so would "better" rankings do anything but validate what you think you already know?
for myself, i think the dynasty rankings are a bit iffy. i think arguments can be made that a guy at 20 should be at 12, and vice-versa. but the arguments get more debatable the further down the list you go. my opinion.
Faust
MVP
Curry looks like he might be auditioning for a starting WR spot next year:
WR Curry Leads Raiders
Jerry McDonald, San Jose Mercury News -
Raiders WR Ronald Curry surpassed WR Randy Moss as the team's leading receiver yesterday with nine receptions and 87 yards. Curry now has 46 catches for 574 yards, which is four receptions and 21 yards more than Moss. He was brought along slowly this season after suffering two ruptured Achilles in as many seasons. Curry is scheduled to receive a $5 million bonus in March should the Raiders choose to keep him for next season. "I feel like I've proven myself to this team, and I feel like I hold a lot of value as part of the foundation of this team," he said.
www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/football/nfl/oakland_raiders/16264732.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_oakland_raiders
With both Moss & Porter likely on their way out in Oakland, Curry has some reasonable dynasty potential
WR Curry Leads Raiders
Jerry McDonald, San Jose Mercury News -
Raiders WR Ronald Curry surpassed WR Randy Moss as the team's leading receiver yesterday with nine receptions and 87 yards. Curry now has 46 catches for 574 yards, which is four receptions and 21 yards more than Moss. He was brought along slowly this season after suffering two ruptured Achilles in as many seasons. Curry is scheduled to receive a $5 million bonus in March should the Raiders choose to keep him for next season. "I feel like I've proven myself to this team, and I feel like I hold a lot of value as part of the foundation of this team," he said.
www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/football/nfl/oakland_raiders/16264732.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_oakland_raiders
With both Moss & Porter likely on their way out in Oakland, Curry has some reasonable dynasty potential
i believe there should be a "2 year out" type measure for dynasty...
the VJ vs Booker example is perfect, while VJ is 53rd (making these #s up) he should be +20 to 33 or so in two years.. bookier on the other hand at 40 right now, might be - 30 to 70th, in two years... as a nice wr3 possession type down the road..
the VJ vs Booker example is perfect, while VJ is 53rd (making these #s up) he should be +20 to 33 or so in two years.. bookier on the other hand at 40 right now, might be - 30 to 70th, in two years... as a nice wr3 possession type down the road..
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Actually, when you say something BEFORE it happens, it's FOREsight, not hindsight. :(But I'm not really getting your point. You say the rankings are subjective. Of COURSE they are, the entire "game" is subjective, that's why it's fun. It isn't about going with your gut vs using rankings either, I believe the rankings have their purpose, which is why I'm trying to improve them. I'm just saying for dynasty purposes, downgrade journeyman and upgrade young guys with potential (relative to last years early FB dynasty lists). That's all.
and like i said, i think that's totally reasonable. although i think as you get further down the list, it becomes more difficult to differentiate value, and thusly, rankings of rookies to vets may become even MORE subjective and difficult to predict.I'M TRYING TO AGREE WITH YOU HERE!!!!Actually, when you say something BEFORE it happens, it's FOREsight, not hindsight.But I'm not really getting your point. You say the rankings are subjective. Of COURSE they are, the entire "game" is subjective, that's why it's fun. It isn't about going with your gut vs using rankings either, I believe the rankings have their purpose, which is why I'm trying to improve them. I'm just saying for dynasty purposes, downgrade journeyman and upgrade young guys with potential (relative to last years early FB dynasty lists). That's all.
Captain Spaulding
Footballguy
Dynasty is all about studs and potential future studs. Most owners in my league have little to no interest in acquiring journeymen WR's or perenially backup players (unless you can get them for nothing off of the waiver wire). People trade in dynasty for stud/starters, draft picks or unproven players who still have opportunity to become a future stud.
Although Mushin Mohhamed really shoot the fantasy world 2 years ago when he came out of nowhere to be the #1 WR in the NFL after a long career as a perineal mid-tiered ranked WR. But that was definitely a freak situation and not the normal trends we see.
Although Mushin Mohhamed really shoot the fantasy world 2 years ago when he came out of nowhere to be the #1 WR in the NFL after a long career as a perineal mid-tiered ranked WR. But that was definitely a freak situation and not the normal trends we see.
Captain Spaulding
Footballguy
Actually here's the easy way to do it. Do the normal redraft ranking of WR's. Then for conversion to dynasty, bump all of the rookie WR's and perhaps some unproven/little playing time due to rookie injury 2nd year WRs up 10+ spots in rankings...something along those lines. Then you have your majic 8 ball projections for dynasty.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
I think I see some validity to the arguments here, and I think I'll revise my list a bit in January (early).
My criteria for being a Top 50 WR is someone who is either a WR3-4 for starter purposes, OR someone who can develop enough to be WR1 or 2 in the future. Those aren't mutually exclusive, but I would agree that this isn't a bad rule.
After the Top 50, I think there are a few rookie/younger WRs that deserve to get "bumped" into that neighborhood, namely:
D.J. Hackett, SEA
Vincent Jackson, SD
Brad Smith, NYJ
Brandon Marshall, DEN
Demetrius Williams, BAL
Brandon Jones, TEN
I'm not sold on Ronald Curry right now, but I might consider him for Top 60s. There's a ton of better names and also a boatload of uncertainty in Oakland, so that's a risky player to go get right now (could easily be overvalued).
Eric Parker could suppress V. Jax's value, as could Gates and even Floyd. Does he warrant Top 50 consideration? Sure. However, a player like Brandon Marshall who's already involved and has a WR2 (Rod Smith) who's aging has a defined path to the starter role. I'm not sure VJax has that, and even if he does Gates makes WR much less valuable.
Good discussion, though, and I'll give the 6 players above some thought.
My criteria for being a Top 50 WR is someone who is either a WR3-4 for starter purposes, OR someone who can develop enough to be WR1 or 2 in the future. Those aren't mutually exclusive, but I would agree that this isn't a bad rule.
After the Top 50, I think there are a few rookie/younger WRs that deserve to get "bumped" into that neighborhood, namely:
D.J. Hackett, SEA
Vincent Jackson, SD
Brad Smith, NYJ
Brandon Marshall, DEN
Demetrius Williams, BAL
Brandon Jones, TEN
I'm not sold on Ronald Curry right now, but I might consider him for Top 60s. There's a ton of better names and also a boatload of uncertainty in Oakland, so that's a risky player to go get right now (could easily be overvalued).
Eric Parker could suppress V. Jax's value, as could Gates and even Floyd. Does he warrant Top 50 consideration? Sure. However, a player like Brandon Marshall who's already involved and has a WR2 (Rod Smith) who's aging has a defined path to the starter role. I'm not sure VJax has that, and even if he does Gates makes WR much less valuable.
Good discussion, though, and I'll give the 6 players above some thought.
lloyd christmas
Footballguy
Im not sure if this thread wants to be about dynasty evaluation or Vincent Jackson specifically...Dynasty rankings are difficult, as the balance between unproven, but high ceiling prospects and more proven but 'boring' vets often has a lot to do with the owner, the league and the team needs. It seems that yourself and Bloom have different views on this balance. In most cases Bloom gives more weight to potential. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the updated dynasty rankings. Both perspectives have merit, and I appreciate the two of you updating projections throughout the year. Comparing how each of you ranks players is more informative than the generic average value to me.
I don't really understand this argument though, as Jackson seems more involved right now (24 Rec for 426 yds and 5TDs vs 18 for 289 and 2). As far as starting track goes, McCardell is similar to Smith, and I think VJax has a shot at the number one spot next year, while Marshall will be behind Walker. Im not saying Jackson is far and away the better dynasty prospect, just that if he is its not for the above stated reasons. (Talent, Gates, LT2, and Shanahan vs Marty would all be good reasons, IMO).Its hard to say who I would prefer to have, as these unproven WRs are like lottery tickets. With the limited information available it is difficult to say who will be productive, or even studly, a few years down the road. I am typically looking for a few of these hit or miss players each year, and generally prefer them to the Engrams and bookers of the world. Im glad that Holy Schneikes and others sold me on Vincent Jackson, he was available cheap last offseason.For the hell of it Ill rank the 6:Brandon MarshallVincent JacksonBrandon Jones-----------------------Drop offDemetrius-QB play holds him backHacket-not sure how or when he gets the opportunitySmith-I plead ignorance.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Something I've noticed year in and year out is that dynasty rankings (this isn't pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but at dynasty rankings in general) are behind the curve. In most cases, redraft rankings are modified somewhat as a result of players' ages and that's about it. To me, this does not make them dynasty rankings. Changes occur in the NFL a lot faster than such dynasty rankings account for, and all you need for proof is to look at any two sets of redraft rankings from Year X and Year X+2.
Let's take one example of a current ranking that to me just doesn't work. Brodie Croyle vs. Trent Green. Croyle is ranked anywhere from late QB30s to mid 40s, while Green is ranked in the mid to late 20s. Green will be 37 next year and if all goes well he'll start one more season. If all doesn't go well, he'll start less than a season and be replaced. After that it's Croyle's show for the forseeable future. We have to forget the past and Green's 4,000 yard seasons and remember we are ranking only future value.
Why is this ranking of Green and Croyle not working for me? This is the same situation as Brad Johnson and Tarvaris Jackson this preseason. In this year's preseason dynasty rankings, Johnson was sitting at about QB31 and Tarvaris Jackson late 40s. Johnson was 37 when the year began and everyone knew this was his last year starting. The season's now over and where are they now? Jackson mid 20s and Johnson has ZERO value. If I'm thinking dynasty, no way I'd own Johnson over Jackson to start 2006, but dynasty rankings invariably had it that way becasue Johnson was the current starter. That's a short term approach that is a losing approach in the long run.
Value isn't a name sitting on a fantasy bench. Value is fantasy points usable in a lineup. Johnson was a starting NFL QB but he wasn't going to start for fantasy teams or even be a fantasy QB2 in most cases, so his value was nearly nothing. If Trent Green was a top 12 QB for redraft going into 2007, his current dynasty ranking might be justified because owners would actually be using him, but like Johnson in 2006, Green isn't going to start next year for fantasy teams. He'll be some team's 3rd QB just like Brad Johnson was. So, as a dynasty owner, I'd rather have the future value in Croyle (maybe he's another Brady, who knows?) than hold onto a guy I'm not going to start and see his value become zero in a year.
Again, value is future usable fantasy points, and that's what people need to remember when doing dynasty rankings and choosing among players for rosters. If Green's current usable points will equal Croyle's (zero because he'll be a QB3 and not needed), own the guy instead who will have future upside and rank them both accordingly.
I used Brad Johnson and Tarvaris Jackson as my 2006 example, but I could have used Warner/Leinart or Brunell/Campbell just as easily. It's the same with other positions. Don't look at current year starter as automatically having to be ahead of the backup if it's a one year situation. That's a losing approach when that current year starter isn't your fantasy starter. Take the guy with upside and with a future, and rank them that way. You'll be a far better dynasty player for it.
Vincent Jackson in the WR80s and Eric Parker in the 50s this year was wacko if a person is truly thinking dynasty. Time will show that. Parker may have had more points in 2006, but few owners ever used those points - they were bench points. When Jackson gets his shot full time, he will far surpass Parker's numbers, and for several years. No way I would have owned Parker over Jackson to start 2006.
Let's take one example of a current ranking that to me just doesn't work. Brodie Croyle vs. Trent Green. Croyle is ranked anywhere from late QB30s to mid 40s, while Green is ranked in the mid to late 20s. Green will be 37 next year and if all goes well he'll start one more season. If all doesn't go well, he'll start less than a season and be replaced. After that it's Croyle's show for the forseeable future. We have to forget the past and Green's 4,000 yard seasons and remember we are ranking only future value.
Why is this ranking of Green and Croyle not working for me? This is the same situation as Brad Johnson and Tarvaris Jackson this preseason. In this year's preseason dynasty rankings, Johnson was sitting at about QB31 and Tarvaris Jackson late 40s. Johnson was 37 when the year began and everyone knew this was his last year starting. The season's now over and where are they now? Jackson mid 20s and Johnson has ZERO value. If I'm thinking dynasty, no way I'd own Johnson over Jackson to start 2006, but dynasty rankings invariably had it that way becasue Johnson was the current starter. That's a short term approach that is a losing approach in the long run.
Value isn't a name sitting on a fantasy bench. Value is fantasy points usable in a lineup. Johnson was a starting NFL QB but he wasn't going to start for fantasy teams or even be a fantasy QB2 in most cases, so his value was nearly nothing. If Trent Green was a top 12 QB for redraft going into 2007, his current dynasty ranking might be justified because owners would actually be using him, but like Johnson in 2006, Green isn't going to start next year for fantasy teams. He'll be some team's 3rd QB just like Brad Johnson was. So, as a dynasty owner, I'd rather have the future value in Croyle (maybe he's another Brady, who knows?) than hold onto a guy I'm not going to start and see his value become zero in a year.
Again, value is future usable fantasy points, and that's what people need to remember when doing dynasty rankings and choosing among players for rosters. If Green's current usable points will equal Croyle's (zero because he'll be a QB3 and not needed), own the guy instead who will have future upside and rank them both accordingly.
I used Brad Johnson and Tarvaris Jackson as my 2006 example, but I could have used Warner/Leinart or Brunell/Campbell just as easily. It's the same with other positions. Don't look at current year starter as automatically having to be ahead of the backup if it's a one year situation. That's a losing approach when that current year starter isn't your fantasy starter. Take the guy with upside and with a future, and rank them that way. You'll be a far better dynasty player for it.
Vincent Jackson in the WR80s and Eric Parker in the 50s this year was wacko if a person is truly thinking dynasty. Time will show that. Parker may have had more points in 2006, but few owners ever used those points - they were bench points. When Jackson gets his shot full time, he will far surpass Parker's numbers, and for several years. No way I would have owned Parker over Jackson to start 2006.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Good post. One thing I've noticed in the past few years is that unheralded 2nd-3rd round NFL draft picks who don't make much noise during their first 1-2 seasons are almost completely ignored in subsequent dynasty drafts. How many people are pimping Chad Jackson right now? Ryan Moats? Brian Calhoun? Derek Hagan? The funny flipside of this is that 1st round picks who don't make much noise during their first 1-2 seasons are often given the benefit of the doubt. Laurence Maroney will be a top 50 pick in every dynasty draft next year despite the fact that he pretty much failed to beat out Dillon and only had 1-2 good games all season. Cedric Benson and DeAngelo Williams hold similar value. Now I'm not saying these players shouldn't be high picks. But if we're going to punish guys like Ladell Betts and JJ Arrington for slow starts, then why do we give guys like Benson the benefit of the doubt? Of course, Benson was drafted a lot higher, but the difference in value between a 1st round NFL pick and a 2nd round NFL pick probably isn't enough to justify the kind of ADP gap that you see between guys like Benson and guys like Arrington. This past year I was able to get Bernard Berrian off waivers during the summer in all of my money dynasty leagues. That's because people largely wrote him off after his early struggles. It didn't seem to matter that he was a relatively early draft pick, a star in college, and was at one time considered a potential top 10 pick (back in his David Carr glory days). In the late rounds, I'll take my chances on a Derek Hagan over a Reche Caldwell or Ernest Wilford every time. It's a no-brainer. A minor shot at an eventual impact player is always a better gamble than taking a guy who will never be more than mediocre. Dynasty rankings should always reflect that fact, although I think people tend to be far too optimistic about the top rookies in general. Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Matt Leinart, Maurice Drew, Reggie Bush, Joseph Addai, and Laurence Maroney probably aren't ALL going to be long-term studs. Like most draft classes, this bunch will probably yield a handful of studs, a few solid players, and a lot of useless.Couch Potato said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
I agree with the general sentiment here, but some leagues aren't that forgiving in your focus on the future. Let's say you start 10 players (1/2/3/1/1/1, flex) and you have a bench of 16. You can hold about 10 projects max, then you have to hold some talent to fill in your byes / roster holes for that particular year.So, take the Top 24 at QB, Top 36+ at RB and Top 50-60 at WR FOR THAT GIVEN YEAR and they have to be not only rostered, but they have to play at some point for your team. Every team should have a viable RB3 or WR4 in this format, so you have to give those players some rankings.The argument here is that you might put a project on your bench (VJax, Marshall, etc.) but you also have to have Joe Jurevicius or Reche Caldwell to fill in.Good points all, but I agree that where / how to mix these folks in impacts your team's viability for Year X and also impacts Year X+1 or +2. Both need to be addressed, but you can't favor one way or the other too much.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
This is exactly why evaluations in the middle of the season are dangerous.I think that Jay Cutler is better, long term, than Philip Rivers.I also think that VJax is less than a #1 or #2 than Marshall, as Rod Smith could be done sooner than McCardell.I also think that Marshall has more talent and has less threats from Kircus at his position on the team than VJax does from Malcom Floyd. That's just my opinion.lloyd christmas said:
JayMan
Footballguy
VeryCouch Potato said:
- probably the post of the year - in my opinion...It nails every aspect of [DYNASTY] rankings flaws in a concise and precise way... excellent post...Read the post once again - it's worth it - it will let you know all you need to know about [DYNASTY] in 2 minutes...
To draw a financial and mathematical analogy... the present value of an investment is the sum of the cash flows discounted at the appropriate rate... FFwise... the present value of a player is the sum of his starting FF points discounted at the turnover rate in the NFL...
Obvisouly, the sum of the starting FF points is the tricky part... the one you have to figure out yourself... and this is why [DYNASTY] FF is so much fun... will VJackson become an uberstub for the next 5 years or will he be out of the NFL by then?... The turnover rate is related to position (QB/WR have longer careers than RB/TE for example) and thus are affecting the [DYNASTY] value of these players accordingly...
Like CP mentioned - a player that is starting for an NFL team but never does for your FF team - is an absolute waste of a roster spot... the value of a player only reside in the sum of the points he will account for when in your starting lineup... as Jeff mentioned, Joe J or MBooker have some value - they will be in your starting lineup for 1 or 2 or 3 weeks next year - but their ranking value should only be discounting those 1 or 2 or 3 weeks... not the fact that they will get 60 receptions while VJackson only gets 25...
If you think VJackson will get 80/90/100 receptions per year in 2/3/4 years... he certainly will be on your starting lineup week-in week-out... and thus, his [DYNASTY] value (the sum of his cash flows - discounted for in a few years) is certainly far greater than JoeJ's who's value is only the sum of his FF points for a few weeks next year... and not much more...
This only re-enforce the theory that [DYNASTY] leagues are all about uberstuds and the potential "next-ones"... for who's the cash flows are the biggest...
Last edited by a moderator:
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Jeff, this is the thinking behind so many of the rankings I see that I have a problem with. Dynasty rankings should be (but too often are not) about total future usable value over an extended period of time (generally 3-5 years), and short term thinking like moving guys up the list due to current year bye week fill-in value shouldn't enter into it. Dynasty rankings are value lists, not draft lists for the current year. So many rankings go wrong by trying to merge both concepts. If people want to be sure they have guys rostered for bye weeks, by all means look at redraft rankings for that, but keep the dynasty rankings focused on their purpose. Don't rank Eric Parker higher on a dynasty list than Vincent Jackson because he'll get you 5-6 points a couple of weeks in the current year as a bye filler while Jackson gets you zero. Do that on a redraft list, but on a dynasty list look at projected total usable value over a chosen time horizon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Couch Potato
Footballguy
We're on the same page, JayMan. I keep this crazy-big spreadsheet with all players, and on part of that I actually do come up with a 'present value' of player values. I use factors such as current and projected role, a projected production curve using a 5 year window that takes into account age and typical production patterns during the player's age window, and a baseline ppg below which a player cannot go (essentially a waiver wire replacement value), and I discount back those future values using both a moderate and a fairly high discount (risk) rate to give me a value range for the player that gives me a sense of his value. It makes no decisions for me, and of course sometimes I make short term decisions because I want to win now, but armed with this data I feel I have a better foundation for making dynasty decisions than I'd have without it.VeryCouch Potato said:- probably the post of the year - in my opinion...It nails every aspect of [DYNASTY] rankings flaws in a concise and precise way... excellent post...
Read the post once again - it's worth it - it will let you know all you need to know about [DYNASTY] in 2 minutes...
To draw a financial and mathematical analogy... the present value of an investment is the sum of the cash flows discounted at the appropriate rate... FFwise... the present value of a player is the sum of his starting FF points discounted at the turnover rate in the NFL...
Obvisouly, the sum of the starting FF points is the tricky part... the one you have to figure out yourself... and this is why [DYNASTY] FF is so much fun... will VJackson become an uberstub for the next 5 years or will he be out of the NFL by then?... The turnover rate is related to position (QB/WR have longer careers than RB/TE for example) and thus are affecting the [DYNASTY] value of these players accordingly...
Like CP mentioned - a player that is starting for an NFL team but never does for your FF team - is an absolute waste of a roster spot... the value of a player only reside in the sum of the points he will account for when in your starting lineup... as Jeff mentioned, Joe J or MBooker have some value - they will be in your starting lineup for 1 or 2 or 3 weeks next year - but their ranking value should only be discounting those 1 or 2 or 3 weeks... not the fact that they will get 60 receptions while VJackson only gets 25...
If you think VJackson will get 80/90/100 receptions per year in 2/3/4 years... he certainly will be on your starting lineup week-in week-out... and thus, his [DYNASTY] value (the sum of his cash flows - discounted for in a few years) is certainly far greater than JoeJ's who's value is only the sum of his FF points for a few weeks next year... and not much more...
This only re-enforce the theory that [DYNASTY] leagues are all about uberstuds and the potential "next-ones"... for who's the cash flows are the biggest...
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Couch tater I like your post about ranking for dynasty and what methods you use in doing that. I really think your thoughts on this belong in this thread : http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= and I would apprechiate if you would make a contribution to discussion there.
Methodology of ranking and reasoning behind it is the main thing I am trying to get at for discussion there.
By looking at player rankings/projections/values for current year then year +1 year +2 I hear you saying in this thread that you project 5 years out? By doing this we get numbers that can be compared that includes expected future years performance. This would certainly push the ranking of some backup players who may not have any expected value numbers/performance for current year but are expected to produce in following years. I am very curious to hear how you use your spread sheet and what weighting you give to each year respectivly for a combined ranking.
Would also like to hear from JayMan and others on this issue as well.
Methodology of ranking and reasoning behind it is the main thing I am trying to get at for discussion there.
By looking at player rankings/projections/values for current year then year +1 year +2 I hear you saying in this thread that you project 5 years out? By doing this we get numbers that can be compared that includes expected future years performance. This would certainly push the ranking of some backup players who may not have any expected value numbers/performance for current year but are expected to produce in following years. I am very curious to hear how you use your spread sheet and what weighting you give to each year respectivly for a combined ranking.
Would also like to hear from JayMan and others on this issue as well.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Way to steal my thunder CP. I say something nice and simple-like with a concrete example and people have no time for it. YOU come along and give this wandering disposition on X-2(*47)+1 year value and everybody calls you a genius.
Just kidding. This is exactly the kind of talk I was trying to foster. I am glad I am not alone in thinking that many of these rankings are really out of whack when it comes to true dynasty value. Aside from theory, I think most of us realize that if you actually tried to do trades in an established dynasty league using these rankings as a value indication, you wouldn't get very far.
In any of my dynasty leagues if you would have proposed Jackson (or someone like him) for a guy like McCareins at the beginning of this year he (Jackson) would have been snapped up in a heartbeat. Unless you are in a league that starts 4+ WRs in a 14 teamer or something like that, journeymen just don't get started, probably never will be started and thus have very little value. On the other hand, guys with POTENTIAL to be real fantasy starters have a fair amount of value, even if they never reach that potential (and many of them don't of course).
Just kidding. This is exactly the kind of talk I was trying to foster. I am glad I am not alone in thinking that many of these rankings are really out of whack when it comes to true dynasty value. Aside from theory, I think most of us realize that if you actually tried to do trades in an established dynasty league using these rankings as a value indication, you wouldn't get very far.
In any of my dynasty leagues if you would have proposed Jackson (or someone like him) for a guy like McCareins at the beginning of this year he (Jackson) would have been snapped up in a heartbeat. Unless you are in a league that starts 4+ WRs in a 14 teamer or something like that, journeymen just don't get started, probably never will be started and thus have very little value. On the other hand, guys with POTENTIAL to be real fantasy starters have a fair amount of value, even if they never reach that potential (and many of them don't of course).
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
In the bolded statement lies the main issue. There are so many different types of Dynasty leagues that it is impossible to please everyone. Play in a 12 teamer that starts just 2-3 WRs? Joe Jurevicius has virtually ZERO value and you are correct about having VJax above him. If you play in a 32 team league that starts 3-4 WRs, Joe Jurevicius ABSOLUTELY starts in that league, this year and next. That's the problem with a "try and please all" ranking list.Do I agree that VJax has big upside? Sure. Does he pose risk for the future too? Yes. Who's more valuable on a weekly basis this year and possibly next? Joe Jurevicius - in some leagues.
If you're in a smaller league, you take risks because you need #1 WRs almost all across the board. If you have a super-deep league, everyone with a pulse has value.
Just keep in mind that my list and Bloom's list are different somewhat on purpose but also reflect different views, but NEITHER will be 100% aligned with any particular league.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
That's true Jeff, but which kind of dynasty league is more common- the 32 team league that starts 3-4 WRs or the 12 or 14 team league that starts 2 or 3?Some of your rankings might make sense for the 1st league and not the 2nd, but my impression is that the 2nd is FAR more common. I've never seen a 32 team dynasty league that starts 3-4 WRs, but I'm sure one exists out there somewhere. But if that is the league you are ranking for, you might want to let us know that.
Secondly, in very limited playing time (mostly in the 2nd half of the season), Vincent Jackson actually scored more fantasy points than Joey did THIS year, let alone next year or the year after that. It's not even like Joey was a sure thing for 40 or 50 yards as a good fill-in, he had games of 0, 22, 28, 0, 4, 16, 19 yards this year and only 3 total TDs. Point is, even in a reasonably deep league, you can get that kind of production off of the wire (or a trade) in a dynasty league if you need to (God forbid you do...).
Finally, even in your hypothetical super-deep league, I'd still EASILY take a Jackson over a Joey in a dynasty, because Jackson has a chance to become a solid starter for 5-10 YEARs (which would be absolute gold in that league, given the scarcity), and Joey will at BEST give you a very slightly better performer for one or two years.
In all seriousness, you make a good point about the difference between leagues. Aside from our differences in valuation of these guys, it might be a good idea to mention the basics of the kind of dynasty league the rankings are based on, because it does make a (in some cases large) difference. But in any case, I can't see any justification for ranking a Joey J 30 or 40 slots higher than a Vincent Jackson at the beginning of this year. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
You know the old saying, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull***t.
Before going on, since I haven't done it yet let me say now that I have tremendous respect for the time, work, and output both Jeff and Bloom provide. I don't want anything I've said or will say to be misconstrued as dismissing their efforts in any way. These guys rock. And, given their list philosophy, they do a great job.To Jeff's comment (and your response) concerning the Jurevicius v. V Jackson ranking, it is the list philosophy that I look at differently than Jeff and because I look at it differently, lineup requirements don't factor into the ranking. I go back to my concept of dynasty list focus vs. draft list focus I mentioned in one of my previous posts. I don't draft from a dynasty list. It is a future overall value list that isn't affected by lineup requirements but does take into account how deep the league is overall. I won't go too deeply into it here, but I use projections and league scoring rules to come up with a ppg value for each player, a time horizon (I use 5 years, some prefer 3 years) and production curve (i.e., pre-prime players improving and post-prime players declining) to determing ppg for future years, subtract from each year's ppg a baseline waiver wire 'free replacement' ppg (result not to go below zero) to come up with a player's ppg over the rabble (thereby taking into account the overall league size issue but not lineup requirements), and then discount each value back to today for a net present value for that player. This gives me a single value for each player, representing today's value of the next 5 years' production over and above 'free replacement' value. Some players have more value today and none in 3 or 5 years, some have little today but potentially lots in 3 or 5 years, and this single number takes into account all my assumptions. The list I've just created doesn't care about bye weeks or lineup requirements. It only cares about long-term value over free replacement value. To me, that is a dynasty list. Of course I want to win now too, not just collect a roster full of prospects whose values may be higher overall but won't come to fruition for 3 years, but I don't try to hybridize my dynasty value list to decide now vs. later value and roster mix for current year needs. The list is only one tool in this balancing act, it is not a draft list, and it does not think for me. Often I will have to sacrifice overall value to win today, but this list gives me a better idea what I'm sacrificing when I choose greater current production over greater overall value.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
I'll do that. No promises as to doing it right away though. Available time has been an issue lately.Quickly though, as to projecting 5 years out, no I don't crank detailed projections for that. I project the upcoming year (often using those of others I trust at FBG), and determine whether those projections place the player in his production curve or not (this has to do with whether a player is yet in the role I'm expecting for him). If not, I'll project the following year also. After that I use production curve rates I've come up with through independent research over the years to give me a ballpark idea what ppgs to expect of a player in future years given his age and/or years in the league.
For example, the WR rates I use are 100% at ages 26-27 (what I believe to be a WR's prime), and lesser rates before and after. If I project a 29 year old WR at 9.5 ppg in the upcoming year (Year X) using actual projections, my spreadsheet will calculate Year X+1 at age 30 as 85/90x9.5=9.0 ppg because at 29 he is at 90% of prime and at 30 he is at 85% of prime. In Year X+2 at age 31, it's 80/90x9.5=8.4 ppg, and so on. The decline in rates is not straight line; players drop off more rapidly as time goes on. Also, RBs and WRs and QBs decline at different rates and at different ages. Anyway, once I have a calculated ppg for each year I subtract a 'free replacement' ppg (it will depend on the WW quality in a given league). Let's say it's 5.5, so my hypothetical WR at 29 has a net ppg value of 9.5-5.5=4.0 in Year X, 3.5 in Year X+1, 2.9 in Year X+2, etc. I then discount these values back to Year X. Discounting is necessary because future ppgs are less certain and less valuable right now than current ppgs.
If you want to post this in the other thread, that's cool, but I have to get going for now. Seeya!
Last edited by a moderator:
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
Excellent posting from many of you. I would agree with CP's premise about value and dismiss worthless points from any thoughts on dynasty rankings. The only issue I had was with the 5 year projection. I think that is entirely too long in the NFL and it simply will not be as accurate as you want. That being said, I think one needs to look at the position when saying that. For example, I think it is reasonable to look at QB's and project farther than 3 years.
Switching gears slightly (and doing so only because I don't see where else this thread could go after the solid posts), what do you guys think of semi dynasty leagues or a 9 keeper league. The idea was to go for a dynasty feel, yet allow more turnover for the weaker teams to develop players without allowing the better teams as much freedom as they go for the win. I am wondering what your thoughts are and if you see a huge difference/benefit of each?
Switching gears slightly (and doing so only because I don't see where else this thread could go after the solid posts), what do you guys think of semi dynasty leagues or a 9 keeper league. The idea was to go for a dynasty feel, yet allow more turnover for the weaker teams to develop players without allowing the better teams as much freedom as they go for the win. I am wondering what your thoughts are and if you see a huge difference/benefit of each?
Couch Potato
Footballguy
By discounting, I take into account the increasing unreliability of future values. However, to ignore years 4 and 5 is a mistake IMO. This would blunt the value difference between players like SJax and SAlex, Fitzgerald and Owens, etc., and could lead to faulty decisions. Shaun Alexander, by the way, is in my mind the poster boy for erroneous dynasty rankings. I see a consensus thread in this forum ranking him very high, and that tells me people haven't learned the lessons of Holmes, Faulk, Terrell Davis, etc. etc. etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
To let you all know, in case you haven't seen me say it before:
1. I take all your advice / input / comments to heart. I may or may not use them, but I do listen.
2. I don't pretend that my list(s) are "gospel" and I often state I know that there's mistakes in them. I'm ranking 300+ guys and there's bound to be an issue somewhere.
3. The discussions make the lists better. Regardless of where I come down on the side of the fence - either I agree with it and support my decision, or I disagree and change my mind (with previous self) and make a switch - by challenging the list(s) and forcing me to keep an open mind, I create a better list.
Bottom line - keep the input coming. I'm glad to be involved in the discussions.
As to the particular example of Joe Jur vs. VJax - I'll likely have VJax far higher in January and vets will drop off w/ rookies come May.
1. I take all your advice / input / comments to heart. I may or may not use them, but I do listen.
2. I don't pretend that my list(s) are "gospel" and I often state I know that there's mistakes in them. I'm ranking 300+ guys and there's bound to be an issue somewhere.
3. The discussions make the lists better. Regardless of where I come down on the side of the fence - either I agree with it and support my decision, or I disagree and change my mind (with previous self) and make a switch - by challenging the list(s) and forcing me to keep an open mind, I create a better list.
Bottom line - keep the input coming. I'm glad to be involved in the discussions.
As to the particular example of Joe Jur vs. VJax - I'll likely have VJax far higher in January and vets will drop off w/ rookies come May.
wannabee
Footballguy
JayMan
Footballguy
Again... very, very very
... I thought I was the only one doing this (professional deformation - financial/mathematical)... the only difference being that I look at the complete career instead of a 3year or 5year span in order to discount the values to today...How do I get to the "complete career discounting factors"?... I have looked at every "starter" season from the last 12 years and was able through cubic splined curving to derive a mathematical formula for every offensive position (QB/RB/WR/TE) that show, on average, how much a 4th year WR will improve in year5, year6 - eventually declining to the end of his career...to finally discount these values to today - since values that are 4 years from now carry less weight than those for next year (for example)...I think this is very important, since you obvisouly do this naturally when you value Larry Fitzgerald and Calvin Johnson compared to Derrick Mason for example... you naturally factor in that Fitz will be an uberstud for the next 10 years when you rank him / not only a 3year span...I plan on trying to have a freelance article posted on that exact subject... and am already working on the details of the article... more to come...Also, I'm very pleased to see that CP is calculating a (what he calls) "ppg baseline waiver wire" replacement (interestingly enough, the first time I've seen it here).. you need to do this, in order to make sure that you only value "added" FF points depending on your league requirements... if you can get Eric Parker on the waiver wire and he can get you 5.5 points per game - then you obvisouly don't need to keep a guy on your roster that has a lesser "present value" than that baseline, what I call "risk-free investment rate"... The exact same concept CP is talking about...
Liquid Tension
Footballguy
If years 4 and 5 have a very small factor in the equation that is OK, but I wouldn't see it having a huge change in value if it is done that way. With so many RB's changing value so quickly over the course of a few years, I think it should be greatly diminished. I mean look at Jamal Lewis. Young and studly and was probably incredibly high on dynasty rankings after his 2000+ yard campaign. What is more important to look at was what was to be expected in the next few years and then take age into account. TALENT will prevail most of the time as the teams around players change so much. Yes, if Mcgahee were behind the Pitt or KC OL he would be incredibly high on the list, but you need to look at all the factors.You also need to win though now and the earlier years must take a higher % of your weighing otherwise you simply won't win. What happens if your guy doesn't develop? How long do wait on Jamal Lewis as he is still young or do you move onto Lendale White over Jamal now? More rhetorical, but you get my point.At the end of the day I look at long term value probably more than most as long as I don't have to pay too much for it. My feeling is that eventually you get the dividends of your smart value choices and once that starts to roll you are dealing from a position of strength. Take advantage of the people who want to win now at all costs because that is when you can set yourself up for long term success, but don't fall into the trap of only looking into the future otherwise you will "always" end up in 2nd place.Couch Potato said:
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Changes over the course of less than a year (using FBG guys composite dynasty list of rankings in 2007):Jackson goes to low 30s. Hope some folks bought low.Booker - drops to 56.Bethel Johnson - not on list (of 96 guys).Gabriel - no longer on list.Curry - is now 48 (and might still over-rated).Brandon Jones is - 38.Engram is off of the list.McCareins drops to 77 (but is only on 1 out of 4 rankings at all).Joey J - dropped entriely from list, even though he was listed 40 slots HIGHER than Jackson last yearThese drops were EASY to predict and reflects why journeymen should not be highly ranked on dynasty lists at all. Quite a few of these guys really had essentially no value last year, it just took the dynasty "deciders" a year to realize it.So far, it looks like the early dynasty rankings are considerably better than last year. I'm just following up this post hoping to remind people who are doing rankings so they stay solid.
oukurt
Footballguy
He was cheap if you bought early. Could pay off huge. What dynasty guy wouldn't love owning him?deal i made back in august of 2006:I GOT:Jackson, Vincent SDC WR(Rookie Taxi Squad)Scobee, Josh JAC PK(4yrs)Kiwanuka, Mathias NYG DE(Rookie Taxi SquadRound 3 Draft Pick 2007(Ends up being 3.16)Round 5 Draft Pick 2007(Ends up being 5.11)I GAVE UP:Smith, L.J. PHI TE(5)at the time of the deal i also had Kellen WinslowI know longer have Kiwi or Winslow but VJax is sitting on the Taxi Squad
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
concur.Bloom has a real handle on dynasty rankings.I put a lot of stock in his rankings.
-OZ-
Footballguy
He's one of those WRs who everyone knew would take time to develop, but some still got impatient with. He was picked ahead of Merrimen and Tatupu in many rookie drafts, but was able to be traded for at a good price after a year or so. I'm not sure how many owners would love having him. I mean, he looks talented, but do you really see him being a top 30 WR in San Diego?He was cheap if you bought early. Could pay off huge. What dynasty guy wouldn't love owning him?
wannabee
Footballguy
He's one of those WRs who everyone knew would take time to develop, but some still got impatient with. He was picked ahead of Merrimen and Tatupu in many rookie drafts, but was able to be traded for at a good price after a year or so.He was cheap if you bought early. Could pay off huge. What dynasty guy wouldn't love owning him?
I'm not sure how many owners would love having him. I mean, he looks talented, but do you really see him being a top 30 WR in San Diego?
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Jackson did score 6 TD last year. Rivers seem more likely to target him than Bree's was. That may just be because it has taken time for Jackson to develop. He will likely become a bigger part of thier offense now that McCardell has fallen off and Parker disapointed in the playoffs.
Vincent Jackson 2006:
Vincent Jackson 2006:
Jackson definitly became a bigger part of the offense later on in the season and he could easily build on that in his 3rd year. Top 30 is very possible. I didn't even realise this as I was focused on other things when he put together this decent string of games late in the season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
1. I just updated my rankings.
2. VJax. Raw - very raw. Malcom Floyd may prove to be better. Also not a Rivers fan, and WRs are the 3rd (at best) target in SD after Gates and LT2.
2. VJax. Raw - very raw. Malcom Floyd may prove to be better. Also not a Rivers fan, and WRs are the 3rd (at best) target in SD after Gates and LT2.
JayMan
Footballguy
I still think that there are factors that prevent him from being a week-in/week-out starter for you... especially in nonPPR leagues since most of his TDs have to come on long passes - LT and Gates being automatic in the red-zone (not to mention Floyd being used there also)... Still too inconsistent to be relied on every week - he might be getting there in PPR leagues though since I would assume that most McCardell targets will go his way...TDs last year: 12 - 33 - 5 - 9 - 37 - 14 yard passes... (still 4 in the RZ!)Biabreakable said:
Last edited by a moderator:
