Five Profiles of Successful Dynasty Owners (1 Viewer)

[Bamac]

1. The Scout

The Scout is a "pure" fantasy football star. He wins, quite simply, because he evaluates talent better than his opponents. He is most in his element during draft season, and he builds his team from the ground up. The Scout fares best in leagues with roster spots for developmental players.

Pros: because he acquires players cheaply, the Scout can build truly dominant teams.

Cons: opponents have access to evaluations of draft experts, fantasy experts, and (indirectly) NFL scouting departments. A successful Scout must be better than the information sources to which his opponents have access.

2. The Algorithm

The Algorithm's advantage comes from understanding the implications of her league's settings better than her opponents. When her opponents are drafting the most talented players, she's drafting the players who provide the greatest scoring advantage.

Pros: because there no outside experts on particular leagues, an Algorithm needn't worry about her opponents' access to fantasy and NFL analysts.

Cons: An Algorithm's advantage depends on complicated and unorthodox league settings. And the advantage should dissipate over time, as other league members better understand the nuances of the league.

3. The Analyst

The Analyst knows and exploits other owners' systematic biases regarding risk, certain types of players, and other features of the game. He buys and sells rookie picks at precisely the right times. He properly values injury risks. And he understands which features of players' past performance indicate future success (or failure).

Pros: over time, the Analyst can build a dominant squad. His tactics apply to every league, and he takes advantage of systematic biases perpetuated by fantasy experts.

Cons: advantage comes from other owners' weakness; if they behave rationally, the Analyst is just throwing darts. Also, an owner who believes himself an Analyst may see trends where only coincidence exists.

4. The Facilitator

Unlike the above owners, the Facilitator has no informational advantage. He gets a leg up by making trades that benefit his team and his trade partner's. Although the benefits are incremental, they eventually add up to make the Facilitator's team one of the best in the league.

Pros: requires no special knowledge, only effort to identify other teams' needs and skill to create mutually beneficial trades.

Cons: difficult to build a dominant team without additional luck or special knowledge. Any league member can become a Facilitator, thereby negating the advantage of others.

5. The Car Salesman

The Car Salesman builds a good team by making trades that are lopsided in his favor. Through a combination of persistence, persuasion, and opportunism, he convinces other owners to make trades that are not in their teams' interest.

Pros: no special knowledge required. Can build a very good squad quickly with a few lopsided trades.

Cons: The Salesman requires high league turnover, as longstanding league members will be reluctant to trade with him.

----------------------------------

If you consider yourself an above-average dynasty owner, which profile(s) do you fit? Or do you have some other advantage I didn't mention?

 

[FUBAR]

there's a significant overlap between facilitator and analyst. I'm probably a combination of those two. Frankly, I don't have any information others can't get. I do a decent job of seeing what people want and getting it to them when they need it, without caring too much about whether a trade helps me in a specific way as long as there's value. Maybe that's opportunism, but it's more just being active and not afraid to make an offer.

To make an analogy, it's like being an average looking guy with confidence. You'll get more dates simply by putting yourself out there while objectively more attractive guys miss out. You're not trying to take advantage of naive owners, but owners know you're willing to work with them and they like that.

 

[jsharlan]

I'd say most of the people I come across in dynasty leagues try to be a Used Car Salesman. For some reason alot of ppl want to get something in a trade while trying to give up something of very little value. I don't think too many are actually successful at being the Used Car Salesman.

 

[MAC_32]

Somewhere between the scout and the analyst. More scout than analyst though. Most of the trades I do now involve draft picks; not players. My hit rate on draft picks is much better than my hit rate on player for player swaps. My opponents are more NFL guys, I'm more college, so the more guys play in the NFL the less of an advantage I have as they learn more about them. I'll use players to facilitate trades, but in the end draft picks are usually involved. I try to focus on buying them in season and selling them as the draft approaches.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think most people are either Scouts, Analysts or Facilitators.

Used Car Salesmen only works if the leagues has its share of chumps. And any advantage the Algorithm has gets whittled away pretty quickly as people catch on.

I'm not claiming to be above average, but I'm definitely in the Scout mold and I think you nailed it. Given my sig I obviously just enjoy the process, but I also like that approach because it doesn't really depend on what anyone else does (what you called 'pure') and I almost never pay to acquire a player. I think that style allows you to make more mistakes and gives a larger margin of error.

 

[Bamac]

I'd say most of the people I come across in dynasty leagues try to be a Used Car Salesman. For some reason alot of ppl want to get something in a trade while trying to give up something of very little value. I don't think too many are actually successful at being the Used Car Salesman.

Maybe not many, but I've definitely seen it work.

 

[Concept Coop]

And any advantage the Algorithm has gets whittled away pretty quickly as people catch on.

I'd consider my biggest advantage up to this point to be in this area. I don’t' think the advantage is temporary, however, especially in dynasty formats. Every crop of dynasty assets leaves something to exploit, and our crop is constantly changing.



Perhaps that lands somewhere in-between Algorithm and Analyst.

 

[cstu]

I'm definitely a Scout/Facilitator. As for the rest:

The Analyst is a tough one in a league with good owners since we all all have a good idea of the risk/reward of players.

The Algorithm is valuable in a start up when people don't understand the format, but it doesn't take owners long to catch on.

The Used Car Salesman isn't going to do well over the long-term unless he's also a Scout.

 

[lyon812]

Great synopsis of successful ownership styles. I'd say I'm a Facilitator with a minor in Scout, but in my younger days I tried to be a Used Car Salesman.

It was fun for awhile to always be getting one over on people, but I eventually felt it was disrespectful and a waste of everybody's time. Why not just start from a position of fairness? Making win-win trades is not only more satisfying, but encourages people to trade with you in the future and be more willing to meet in the middle when you can't quite put things together.

Now, it's pretty frustrating when I receive a Salesman offer, because it just seems pathetic.

I'm actually surprised there aren't more Algorithms out there. I see a fair amount of people who seem to forget the league's scoring rules at times when drafting, especially in IDP.

 

[Sabertooth]

I am definitely a Facilitator. I got hammered at our Superflex startup draft. Ended up with a ton of quarterbacks after winning the Rodgers bid early on (he was second player nominated and went for less than Cam, Trent, and several others). So I got to work just making add/drops and incremental roster moves. I moved Gabbert for Starks, and the sold Starks to a Packers homer for Harvin. I moved AJ Jenkins + a 2nd rounder to my brother for Reggie Wayne (he subsequently dropped Jenkins and I added him in Week 15 off waivers),

Made this trade on November 22nd which saw me wave goodbye to Dez but acquire Brandon Marshall and two starters (Bush and Miller that worked out perfectly)

• Forgeting Brandon Marshall gave up Bush, Reggie MIA RB;Miller, Lamar MIA RB;Marshall, Brandon CHI WR;Kendricks, Lance STL TE
• King in the North gave up Ball, Lance DEN RB;Hillman, Ronnie DEN RB;Bryant, Dez DAL WR;Rudolph, Kyle MIN TE

Also did this move which turned out to be huge because I traded Amendola back to Butchers this offseason for Ryan Mathews who I moved for Sam Bradford (then packaged Bradford and David Wilson for Trent Richardson)

• King in the North gave up Romo, Tony DAL QB;Johnson, Stevie BUF WR; Year 2013 Round 1 Draft Pick from Screwbirds
• THE BUTCHERS gave up Newton, Cam CAR QB;Amendola, Danny STL WR

In our startup last season, I began with this roster.

Gabbert, Blaine JAC QB;
Jackson, Tarvaris BUF QB;
Lindley, Ryan ARI QB;
Mallett, Ryan NEP QB;
Moore, Matt MIA QB;
Osweiler, Brock DEN QB;
Rivers, Philip SDC QB;
Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB;
Sanchez, Mark NYJ QB;
Wilson, Russell SEA QB;

Bradshaw, Ahmad NYG RB
Carter, Delone IND RB;
Hillman, Ronnie DEN RB;
Vereen, Shane NEP RB;

Bryant, Dez DAL WR;
Cobb, Randall GBP WR
Jenkins, A.J. SFO WR;
Jones, Marvin CIN WR;
Robinson, Laurent JAC WR;
Wallace, Mike PIT WR;
Welker, Wes NEP WR;

Hernandez, Aaron NEP TE;

Carpenter, Dan MIA PK;

Bills, Buffalo BUF Def

And this is my roster now. I also don't have much for rookie picks this year, my first is at 29 but my team is young anyway with Cam, Miller, Trent, AJ Green, and Harvin. I have some nice lottery tickets in Chris Givens and Chris Ivory. Plus I have extra (Top 5 perhaps) 1st round pick next season.

McElroy, Greg NYJ QB
Newton, Cam CAR QB (P)
Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB(P)

Hillis, Peyton FA RB
Ivory, Christopher NYJ RB
Lynch, Marshawn SEA RB
Miller, Lamar MIA RB
Powell, Bilal NYJ RB
Richardson, Trent CLE RB
Turbin, Robert SEA RB

Givens, Chris STL WR
Green, A.J. CIN WR
Harvin, Percy SEA WR
Henderson, Devery FA* WR
Jenkins, A.J. SFO WR
LaFell, Brandon CAR WR
Marshall, Brandon CHI WR(P)
Wayne, Reggie IND WR
Wright, Kendall TEN WR

Dreessen, Joel DEN TE
Gonzalez, Tony ATL TE
Pitta, Dennis BAL TE

Barth, Connor TBB PK

Broncos, Denver DEN Def

I know, nobody cares about my team but my mentality is to incrementally improve. And if you want player A, don't be afraid to make cascade moves to get him. I've done several roundabout trades like that. I had an owner mention that he liked Sam Bradford. I was able to acquire Bradford, package him with David Wilson and get Trent Richardson. Basically I packaged Danny Amendola and David Wilson for Trent Richardson (but it took me 4 trades to arrive at Trent).

Converse with owners and try to get information on players they like but haven't been able to get. Then see if you have any luck getting those players and trading them to the owner who covets them. It works.

 

[DiStefano]

The leagues I am in tend to be a combination of dynasty and redraft. They are keeper leagues, ranging from 5 to 8 keeper players. So there are elements here which do apply, but other elements apply to redraft.

 

[mlball77]

Good stuff from the OP.

I see characteristics from several of the profiles in my actions. In years long gone, I did take a bit more of a used car salesman approach. Ditched that long ago, and glad I did (so are my leaguemates, I’d guess, haha).

In my one longstanding league, I used to fall somewhat into the Algorithm profile. However, as another poster said, as time passes, the advantages you can gain by having a superior understanding of the nuances of your league, and their impact on scoring, are greatly diminished.

Currently, I’m probably 3 parts Analyst and 1 part Facilitator. Another pointed out that there is often significant overlap in these profiles, and I tend to agree. I see it in other owners, not just me.

Admittedly, The Scout is not my strength, particularly when it comes to analyzing college talent. It’s a valuable tool for the folks that have this skill set, but I feel I make up for my inadequacy on this front with my strengths in other areas.

 

[Steel Curtainrod]

Quick observation from my main dynasty league - 10 team QB/3WR/2RB/TE/K/DT - deep rosters(25-30)

The hardest part of being the Scout is shaking the suspicion that every trade overture is pure Care Salesman-ism. Value-wise, most of my offers are qualatively beneficial to both parties, yet I find it difficult to shake the perception that I'm ripping someone off. I find most of the bias stems from the nature of trade currency acquired through good Scouting; see Cam Newton. Since I usually pick in the bottom third of rookie drafts, most of my assets carry the stigma of being "late picks", or surplus. Before the players develop, non-Scouts dismiss their potential value and refuse to pay what I perceive is a fair price. If a player I've rostered explodes (ie Rodgers, Newton QB), even the Algorithms would rather start Dalton than acknowledge that they probably waited too long to try to deal for him. I've tried to sway league-wide perception by making honest-to-god Facilitator/charity offers to no avail.

 

[Steel Curtainrod]

I'd say most of the people I come across in dynasty leagues try to be a Used Car Salesman. For some reason alot of ppl want to get something in a trade while trying to give up something of very little value. I don't think too many are actually successful at being the Used Car Salesman.

Maybe not many, but I've definitely seen it work.

Agreed. I've seen guys consistently pull this off with the same owners for years.

 

[EBF]

You nailed a few of the big ones. I think there are three basic types:

Captain Obvious - Doesn't take any big risks, but doesn't make any big mistakes either. He will make the safe, conservative move more often than not. He is more likely to trade for a solid veteran in the twilight of his prime than pay over the odds for a flashy next-big-thing prospect. His conservative approach usually sees him with a winning record and solid roster, but he's not a major title contender because he doesn't gamble enough to accumulate a huge edge.

The Scout/Analyst - This owner spends most of his energy evaluating players and trying to identify undervalued/overvalued assets. When this style is working, his ability to decipher the puzzle allows him to be a step ahead of the crowd. He identifies his targets and locks them up before their stock explodes. He also dodges grenades before they explode. He doesn't usually make a lot of moves, but when he does it's with intent.

The Trader - He pays less to get more, gradually accumulating value by winning trades more often than he loses them. He might not draft well or identify value any better than average, but he will exploit owner biases and weaknesses to extract value from their rosters. The risk with this strategy is that he will occasionally make one trade too many, spewing value when he should have stood pat. Owners who have been burned in the past might also become leery of his approaches, making it more difficult for him to operate.

I think the ideal owner has some combination of all three styles. The best owners have a solid basic approach like Captain Obvious, but more willingness to take a chance on a player they believe in before he becomes untouchable. If you can assess value well and draft/trade accordingly, you will do well in the long run.

There is also an "evil twin" for all of these strategies. A Captain Obvious who is too stagnant and too afraid of risk will stand pat with a mediocre roster, passing on all but the most lopsided trade offers and generally never doing anything proactive to rise above his average or below average level. An Analyst/Scout who overrates his own abilities will make disastrous roster moves on the basis of his bad evaluations. An overzealous Trader will constantly turn over his roster, lacking the patience to ride out the highs and lows, and making trades just for the sake of trading.

Personally, I'd say I'm mainly a Scout/Analyst with just a few streaks of the other types.

 

[Shane Falco]

What? No Hawk option?

The guy who always loses because he thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

 

[az_prof]

Need one more, which I think describes me.

1) The Elephant.

The elephant is slow to make moves. He trusts his draft picks and hangs onto players a bit longer than others. He scours the waiver list to find promising players that he has had an eye who get dropped by others. He does not make many trades, but when he does, he has a clear strategy (to shore up a weakness; to try and get good value on a player he thinks is overrated; to acquire a player that others may under value). Mostly he stays pat and trusts in his draft and rarely 'rebuilds" or "blows it up," making big moves only when serious need dictates.

Strengths: He often gets more value from players than others because he sees the long picture. He rarely ends up at the bottom of the league because he is steady---replenishing his team with youth on a regular basis (because he doesn't trade his top picks often)--and because he is not reactionary.

Weaknesses: He sometimes hangs onto players too long. Sometimes he misses out on trade opportunities because of his overly strong faith in his players and his tendency to overrate them compared to others.

 

[Bamac]

Need one more, which I think describes me.1) The Elephant. The elephant is slow to make moves. He trusts his draft picks and hangs onto players a bit longer than others. He scours the waiver list to find promising players that he has had an eye who get dropped by others. He does not make many trades, but when he does, he has a clear strategy (to shore up a weakness; to try and get good value on a player he thinks is overrated; to acquire a player that others may under value). Mostly he stays pat and trusts in his draft and rarely 'rebuilds" or "blows it up," making big moves only when serious need dictates. Strengths: He often gets more value from players than others because he sees the long picture. He rarely ends up at the bottom of the league because he is steady---replenishing his team with youth on a regular basis (because he doesn't trade his top picks often)--and because he is not reactionary.Weaknesses: He sometimes hangs onto players too long. Sometimes he misses out on trade opportunities because of his overly strong faith in his players and his tendency to overrate them compared to others.

What's your advantage over quicker-moving opponents? Are you arguing that the typical owner is systematically biased toward overvaluing the shiny new toy?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.

 

[BrainDeadGenius]

Very interesting. I think it's important to be a scout initially and then develop into a facilitator once your cheap pieces begin to pan out.

 

[BrainDeadGenius]

Need one more, which I think describes me.1) The Elephant. The elephant is slow to make moves. He trusts his draft picks and hangs onto players a bit longer than others. He scours the waiver list to find promising players that he has had an eye who get dropped by others. He does not make many trades, but when he does, he has a clear strategy (to shore up a weakness; to try and get good value on a player he thinks is overrated; to acquire a player that others may under value). Mostly he stays pat and trusts in his draft and rarely 'rebuilds" or "blows it up," making big moves only when serious need dictates. Strengths: He often gets more value from players than others because he sees the long picture. He rarely ends up at the bottom of the league because he is steady---replenishing his team with youth on a regular basis (because he doesn't trade his top picks often)--and because he is not reactionary.Weaknesses: He sometimes hangs onto players too long. Sometimes he misses out on trade opportunities because of his overly strong faith in his players and his tendency to overrate them compared to others.

What's your advantage over quicker-moving opponents? Are you arguing that the typical owner is systematically biased toward overvaluing the shiny new toy?

I always move players early. I remember trading Cam away after his rookie year. He has panned out, but I got FANTASTIC value for him too. Nothing worse than having a player that starts falling off the cliff.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

I think this misses a stereotype: The Economist.

The economist has things in common with the Algorithm and the Facilitator in that he/she works to break down the dynasty system to inherently understand where the value of each asset is and then works to turn those assets by spotting ways to help others, but at the same time increase the overall pool of resources.

They look to collect extra draft picks next year by trading down this year.

They know what a contract year is worth for any position and any tier player. They try to trade positively in this regard instead of looking at specific talent/players

They understand where the best values can be had in terms of player acquisition and try to build their roster using a "moneyball" approach.

They use a rookie draft pick chart system, but know how to tailor it year by year by the perceived strength of the class.

They know how to gain cash advantages in trades and make sure they win those small battles.

They never fall in love with players. They use the love others have for players to increase their own wealth in league assets.

Pros: A GM can build a lasting effort by getting "rich" while others try to win now. Because the team tends to be rich in assets, the GM has the option of spending those pieces to assemble a winning effort most seasons, and then can sustain through continuing the economic improvement philosophy

It can take a while to build a contender, and as such it takes an investment of time and league fees to execute this strategy.

 

[Instinctive]

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think this is a good snapshot of the key traits of successful owners, although I've always broken down the profiles differently. I've always thought about fantasy football as a competition on three different planes. On the first plane, you have what I think of as the "proto" (or first/primary) competition. This competition is all about player valuations. If you can project and anticipate more accurately than your competition, you can create an advantage in this sphere which you can leverage to success- this tracks with your "scout" profile. On the second plane, you have the "meta" (or above/about) competition. This sphere encompasses competition over the rules and regulations, both explicit and implicit, which govern our actions. If you can understand scoring systems or psychology or accurately price risk better than your competition, you can create an advantage which you can leverage to success- this would be your algorithm and analyst. The final plane is what I think of as the "extra" (or outside/beyond) competition. This is a competition over the very meaning and nature of the competition itself- what qualifies as fair competition, where the boundaries are between the spirit and the letter of the law, etc. Anyone who vetoes fair trades just to weaken a rival is engaging in competition on the "extra" dimension. Collusion also falls in this sphere. Slightly less nefariously, many aspects of the used car salesman fall in this realm- taking advantage of ignorance or distraction, refusing to engage in anything but bad trades, etc.

In my hierarchy, I've always viewed myself as a "meta" guy. I'm not a talent scout and don't pretend to be- instead, I developed a bunch of heuristics that I feel can eat away at 90% of their advantage with just 10% of their time and resource expenditure, leaving me with lots of resources to devote to pushing my advantage in other spheres. I find I'm naturally a facilitator, but rather than a separate role, I feel like that's a natural consequence of my analyst mindset. If I believe that I'm above average (I do), and I believe that I will on average realize modest-but-positive gains on each transaction (I do), it's only logical to want to maximize my number of transactions (without sacrificing the quality of each transaction in the process) to both maximize my gains and minimize any risk or volatility. If I gain 5% value on each transaction, and I make 50 transactions, I've just increased my value eleven-fold. Sure, there's a risk of rolling snake eyes on one of those transactions and busting out to zero. There's also a risk of hitting the jackpot and making out like a bandit. In general, the more you iterate, though, the more the huge hits and huge whiffs offset, and the closer your outcomes will conform to your true averages.

As a side note, as a "meta" owner (or an algorithm/analyst, if you'd prefer), I plan on writing some articles this offseason really outlining the playbook- expected value, pricing risk, bias, process-centric thinking, etc. So if anyone else is interested in that sort of thing, hopefully you'll find it useful. And even if you're not interested- even if you're more of a "proto" or "extra" owner (or a scout or salesman), hopefully you'll still find it useful, if for no other reason than to let you know what your competition is thinking.

 

[Bamac]

I think this is a good snapshot of the key traits of successful owners, although I've always broken down the profiles differently. I've always thought about fantasy football as a competition on three different planes. On the first plane, you have what I think of as the "proto" (or first/primary) competition. This competition is all about player valuations. If you can project and anticipate more accurately than your competition, you can create an advantage in this sphere which you can leverage to success- this tracks with your "scout" profile. On the second plane, you have the "meta" (or above/about) competition. This sphere encompasses competition over the rules and regulations, both explicit and implicit, which govern our actions. If you can understand scoring systems or psychology or accurately price risk better than your competition, you can create an advantage which you can leverage to success- this would be your algorithm and analyst. The final plane is what I think of as the "extra" (or outside/beyond) competition. This is a competition over the very meaning and nature of the competition itself- what qualifies as fair competition, where the boundaries are between the spirit and the letter of the law, etc. Anyone who vetoes fair trades just to weaken a rival is engaging in competition on the "extra" dimension. Collusion also falls in this sphere. Slightly less nefariously, many aspects of the used car salesman fall in this realm- taking advantage of ignorance or distraction, refusing to engage in anything but bad trades, etc.In my hierarchy, I've always viewed myself as a "meta" guy. I'm not a talent scout and don't pretend to be- instead, I developed a bunch of heuristics that I feel can eat away at 90% of their advantage with just 10% of their time and resource expenditure, leaving me with lots of resources to devote to pushing my advantage in other spheres. I find I'm naturally a facilitator, but rather than a separate role, I feel like that's a natural consequence of my analyst mindset. If I believe that I'm above average (I do), and I believe that I will on average realize modest-but-positive gains on each transaction (I do), it's only logical to want to maximize my number of transactions (without sacrificing the quality of each transaction in the process) to both maximize my gains and minimize any risk or volatility. If I gain 5% value on each transaction, and I make 50 transactions, I've just increased my value eleven-fold. Sure, there's a risk of rolling snake eyes on one of those transactions and busting out to zero. There's also a risk of hitting the jackpot and making out like a bandit. In general, the more you iterate, though, the more the huge hits and huge whiffs offset, and the closer your outcomes will conform to your true averages.As a side note, as a "meta" owner (or an algorithm/analyst, if you'd prefer), I plan on writing some articles this offseason really outlining the playbook- expected value, pricing risk, bias, process-centric thinking, etc. So if anyone else is interested in that sort of thing, hopefully you'll find it useful. And even if you're not interested- even if you're more of a "proto" or "extra" owner (or a scout or salesman), hopefully you'll still find it useful, if for no other reason than to let you know what your competition is thinking.

I like those dimensions. Particularly the "extra" dimension -- I didn't really think about it in my profiles, but it's certainly part of the game.

I do think we can gain something by breaking down the "meta" dimension a bit. The Facilitator, the Analyst, the Algorithm, and the Car Salesman each have different "meta" advantages.

For example, Facilitator and Analyst are complementary profiles, but they don't have to go together. Especially in a well-established league, but not particularly active league, a pure Facilitator can significantly improve his team by stirring the pot. Some of my best trades have started with an email saying, "you know, ______ doesn't really make sense on your roster right now. How about I give you some young ascending guys for him," or, "you're one piece away from being a serious contender. I think I've got that piece." Making trades like this, one can "win" the trade on vacuum value while still making both teams better.

Conversely, a pure Analyst can be successful even if she doesn't have the time, energy, or skill to be a Facilitator. In fact, the Analyst's advantage is often greatest during the startup draft, and a winning draft puts an owner in the catbird seat for years.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Nicely done.

 

[MAC_32]

Very interesting. I think it's important to be a scout initially and then develop into a facilitator once your cheap pieces begin to pan out.

...or to acquire pieces you liked pre draft, but didn't acquire, and have since been de valued by others based on what's happened since they were drafted.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I think this is a good snapshot of the key traits of successful owners, although I've always broken down the profiles differently. I've always thought about fantasy football as a competition on three different planes. On the first plane, you have what I think of as the "proto" (or first/primary) competition. This competition is all about player valuations. If you can project and anticipate more accurately than your competition, you can create an advantage in this sphere which you can leverage to success- this tracks with your "scout" profile. On the second plane, you have the "meta" (or above/about) competition. This sphere encompasses competition over the rules and regulations, both explicit and implicit, which govern our actions. If you can understand scoring systems or psychology or accurately price risk better than your competition, you can create an advantage which you can leverage to success- this would be your algorithm and analyst. The final plane is what I think of as the "extra" (or outside/beyond) competition. This is a competition over the very meaning and nature of the competition itself- what qualifies as fair competition, where the boundaries are between the spirit and the letter of the law, etc. Anyone who vetoes fair trades just to weaken a rival is engaging in competition on the "extra" dimension. Collusion also falls in this sphere. Slightly less nefariously, many aspects of the used car salesman fall in this realm- taking advantage of ignorance or distraction, refusing to engage in anything but bad trades, etc.In my hierarchy, I've always viewed myself as a "meta" guy. I'm not a talent scout and don't pretend to be- instead, I developed a bunch of heuristics that I feel can eat away at 90% of their advantage with just 10% of their time and resource expenditure, leaving me with lots of resources to devote to pushing my advantage in other spheres. I find I'm naturally a facilitator, but rather than a separate role, I feel like that's a natural consequence of my analyst mindset. If I believe that I'm above average (I do), and I believe that I will on average realize modest-but-positive gains on each transaction (I do), it's only logical to want to maximize my number of transactions (without sacrificing the quality of each transaction in the process) to both maximize my gains and minimize any risk or volatility. If I gain 5% value on each transaction, and I make 50 transactions, I've just increased my value eleven-fold. Sure, there's a risk of rolling snake eyes on one of those transactions and busting out to zero. There's also a risk of hitting the jackpot and making out like a bandit. In general, the more you iterate, though, the more the huge hits and huge whiffs offset, and the closer your outcomes will conform to your true averages.As a side note, as a "meta" owner (or an algorithm/analyst, if you'd prefer), I plan on writing some articles this offseason really outlining the playbook- expected value, pricing risk, bias, process-centric thinking, etc. So if anyone else is interested in that sort of thing, hopefully you'll find it useful. And even if you're not interested- even if you're more of a "proto" or "extra" owner (or a scout or salesman), hopefully you'll still find it useful, if for no other reason than to let you know what your competition is thinking.

I like those dimensions. Particularly the "extra" dimension -- I didn't really think about it in my profiles, but it's certainly part of the game. I do think we can gain something by breaking down the "meta" dimension a bit. The Facilitator, the Analyst, the Algorithm, and the Car Salesman each have different "meta" advantages. For example, Facilitator and Analyst are complementary profiles, but they don't have to go together. Especially in a well-established league, but not particularly active league, a pure Facilitator can significantly improve his team by stirring the pot. Some of my best trades have started with an email saying, "you know, ______ doesn't really make sense on your roster right now. How about I give you some young ascending guys for him," or, "you're one piece away from being a serious contender. I think I've got that piece." Making trades like this, one can "win" the trade on vacuum value while still making both teams better.Conversely, a pure Analyst can be successful even if she doesn't have the time, energy, or skill to be a Facilitator. In fact, the Analyst's advantage is often greatest during the startup draft, and a winning draft puts an owner in the catbird seat for years.

Yeah, my "spheres of competition" leave a lot of room to broken down into sub-profiles. As you pointed out, in the "meta" sphere you can easily differentiate from guys who know the explicit rules of the competition (algorithms) and guys who know the implicit rules, such as the psychology and biases driving decisions (analysts). I'd probably even sub-divide the analysts into the psychology guys (who are inherently better at understanding the competition's mindset) and the statistics guys (who are inherently better at pricing risk and uncertainty). And other categories can be broken down, too. The "proto" sphere is the realm of scouts, but those can be broken down to the college scouts and the pro scouts, and even within those groups you have the guys who focus on scouting perceived studs to try to avoid busts, and the guys who focus on scouting perceived duds to try to find steals. And beyond talent scouting, I imagine the "proto" sphere as also encompassing the guys who understand coaches and schemes- you don't have to know how good Alex Smith really is to know that Andy Reid is good for him, for instance. In fact, in IDP leagues, I'd venture scheme knowledge even trumps player knowledge in importance. The "extra" sphere also breaks down rather neatly. On the far edges, you have the out-and-out cheaters, the colluders, and the commish power-abusers. Out on the other extreme, you have the perfectly benign "extra" players who simply refuse to trade with rivals, or who proactively use waiver picks on players they don't need simply to deny them to competitors (a time-honored and very effective practice), or who refuse to engage in any trade that isn't blatantly in their favor (a reasonable preference). In the middle, you have more ethically grey areas, like veto abuse, adding/dropping players to trigger the waiver timer, position hoarding, and imposing an "ignorance tax".I've never really thought of the idea of a "facilitator" personality type, and I wouldn't know where he would fit. I've always thought of "willingness to trade" as a personal characteristic such as risk tolerance or trash talk that could exist independently of any profile. It's interesting to instead think of it as a self-contained profile unto itself. I still don't know if I can see it as a stand-alone profile. I know you can achieve success strictly through the proto sphere, ignoring the meta and extra and not engaging in trades. I also know you can be successful strictly in meta (although meta identifies market inefficiencies, which I think leads to a natural desire to trade, and it's hard to exploit psychology without engaging in transactions with your leaguemates), and I've definitely seen people succeed strictly on the strength of the "extra" competition. Can someone succeed strictly as a facilitator without incorporating some analyst, algorithm, scout, or car salesman, though? Can facilitator stand on its own as a success profile, or does it need to be paired with another profile to work? My initial reaction is that a facilitator with no other advantages is just churning, not improving, but I could easily be swayed by persuasive arguments to the contrary. As an aside, the fact that we're even having this conversation is pretty conclusive proof that we're both pretty heavy "meta" owners.

 

[beerbarron]

1. The ScoutThe Scout is a "pure" fantasy football star. He wins, quite simply, because he evaluates talent better than his opponents. He is most in his element during draft season, and he builds his team from the ground up. The Scout fares best in leagues with roster spots for developmental players.Pros: because he acquires players cheaply, the Scout can build truly dominant teams.Cons: opponents have access to evaluations of draft experts, fantasy experts, and (indirectly) NFL scouting departments. A successful Scout must be better than the information sources to which his opponents have access.2. The Algorithm The Algorithm's advantage comes from understanding the implications of her league's settings better than her opponents. When her opponents are drafting the most talented players, she's drafting the players who provide the greatest scoring advantage.Pros: because there no outside experts on particular leagues, an Algorithm needn't worry about her opponents' access to fantasy and NFL analysts.Cons: An Algorithm's advantage depends on complicated and unorthodox league settings. And the advantage should dissipate over time, as other league members better understand the nuances of the league.3. The AnalystThe Analyst knows and exploits other owners' systematic biases regarding risk, certain types of players, and other features of the game. He buys and sells rookie picks at precisely the right times. He properly values injury risks. And he understands which features of players' past performance indicate future success (or failure).Pros: over time, the Analyst can build a dominant squad. His tactics apply to every league, and he takes advantage of systematic biases perpetuated by fantasy experts.Cons: advantage comes from other owners' weakness; if they behave rationally, the Analyst is just throwing darts. Also, an owner who believes himself an Analyst may see trends where only coincidence exists.4. The Facilitator Unlike the above owners, the Facilitator has no informational advantage. He gets a leg up by making trades that benefit his team and his trade partner's. Although the benefits are incremental, they eventually add up to make the Facilitator's team one of the best in the league.Pros: requires no special knowledge, only effort to identify other teams' needs and skill to create mutually beneficial trades.Cons: difficult to build a dominant team without additional luck or special knowledge. Any league member can become a Facilitator, thereby negating the advantage of others.5. The Car SalesmanThe Car Salesman builds a good team by making trades that are lopsided in his favor. Through a combination of persistence, persuasion, and opportunism, he convinces other owners to make trades that are not in their teams' interest.Pros: no special knowledge required. Can build a very good squad quickly with a few lopsided trades.Cons: The Salesman requires high league turnover, as longstanding league members will be reluctant to trade with him.----------------------------------If you consider yourself an above-average dynasty owner, which profile(s) do you fit? Or do you have some other advantage I didn't mention?

The most successful owners I have come across in the short term are the traders.. They can take a team from the bottom, to the middle one year and money the next.. The good traders that is... Problem is you cant win every trade but working with all or many of the owners in a league they seem to maximize value and are never afraid to make a trade. They use current players on their team during the offseason as a medium to get the final maximized player value on their roster when the season rolls around..

Also it helps to have a league full of solid owners.. any weak link often gets sharked!!

Best owners are a combination of all of the above...

 

[jp81976]

i think we're missing the most obvious owner type based on this forum alone... THE SHARK!

This owner pounces on opportunity. he gobbles up whatever information he can get. when he smells blood in the water, he strikes. the shark is the first one to snatch up that waiver wire hero, and the one to eat up an unsuspecting owner that just wants to make a move for the sake of moving. the shark is powerful, yet does have his weaknesses. often doesn't see too far down the line, but is too satisfied with a full belly and having lots of options at his disposal.

 

[lyon812]

The "extra" sphere also breaks down rather neatly. On the far edges, you have the out-and-out cheaters, the colluders, and the commish power-abusers. Out on the other extreme, you have the perfectly benign "extra" players who simply refuse to trade with rivals, or who proactively use waiver picks on players they don't need simply to deny them to competitors (a time-honored and very effective practice), or who refuse to engage in any trade that isn't blatantly in their favor (a reasonable preference). In the middle, you have more ethically grey areas, like veto abuse, adding/dropping players to trigger the waiver timer, position hoarding, and imposing an "ignorance tax".I've never really thought of the idea of a "facilitator" personality type, and I wouldn't know where he would fit. I've always thought of "willingness to trade" as a personal characteristic such as risk tolerance or trash talk that could exist independently of any profile. It's interesting to instead think of it as a self-contained profile unto itself. I still don't know if I can see it as a stand-alone profile. I know you can achieve success strictly through the proto sphere, ignoring the meta and extra and not engaging in trades. I also know you can be successful strictly in meta (although meta identifies market inefficiencies, which I think leads to a natural desire to trade, and it's hard to exploit psychology without engaging in transactions with your leaguemates), and I've definitely seen people succeed strictly on the strength of the "extra" competition. Can someone succeed strictly as a facilitator without incorporating some analyst, algorithm, scout, or car salesman, though? Can facilitator stand on its own as a success profile, or does it need to be paired with another profile to work? My initial reaction is that a facilitator with no other advantages is just churning, not improving, but I could easily be swayed by persuasive arguments to the contrary.

Supporting what you’re saying, it might be wiser to consider the Facilitator/Car Salesman as a secondary personality axis. Thus, while people could be considered varying degrees of Scout (talent-focused)/Algorithm (scoring-focused)/Analyst (owner-focused), within each of those classifications are varying levels of Facilitator/Salesman. We all laugh at the Salesman’s seeming disconnect from reality. I don’t think we properly appreciate--in a hobby inherently focused on augmenting your roster and assessing your future needs--the ability to objectively look at another owner’s roster and be willing to propose a mutually beneficial trade. There are plenty of owners that never, ever grasp this, and will continue to roll out the worst trade offers imaginable, because they’re trying to acquire/stash young talent while giving up little (Scout), exploit league scoring rules by trading useful for non- (Algorithm), or take advantage of other owner’s weaknesses (Analyst). However, there are just as many Scouts that trade useful pieces to championship teams willing to mortgage future talent, Algorithmics that are willing to make talent-for-production trades that make both teams happy, and Analysts that know when to strike but don’t try to take overt advantage of their fellow owners. Obviously, your sphere concept demonstrates that things can be broken down even further. However, I don’t think anyone is 100 X and 0 Y and 0 Z. Most of us are a bit of everything; I might be Scout 50, Algorithm 40, and Analyst 60 with a +70 Facilitator rating—or Proto 50, Meta 70, Extra 30—and my leaguemate might be the opposite. It’s not simply that we’re both Scouts, even if we fancy that’s the truth. As an aside, there are few things more enjoyable than finding a compatible league mate. There are some owners I wind up trading with all the time because we always seem to have productive negotiations, and they often work out for both of us.

 

[Bamac]

I've never really thought of the idea of a "facilitator" personality type, and I wouldn't know where he would fit. I've always thought of "willingness to trade" as a personal characteristic such as risk tolerance or trash talk that could exist independently of any profile. It's interesting to instead think of it as a self-contained profile unto itself. I still don't know if I can see it as a stand-alone profile. I know you can achieve success strictly through the proto sphere, ignoring the meta and extra and not engaging in trades. I also know you can be successful strictly in meta (although meta identifies market inefficiencies, which I think leads to a natural desire to trade, and it's hard to exploit psychology without engaging in transactions with your leaguemates), and I've definitely seen people succeed strictly on the strength of the "extra" competition. Can someone succeed strictly as a facilitator without incorporating some analyst, algorithm, scout, or car salesman, though? Can facilitator stand on its own as a success profile, or does it need to be paired with another profile to work? My initial reaction is that a facilitator with no other advantages is just churning, not improving, but I could easily be swayed by persuasive arguments to the contrary.

Consider the (apocryphal) story of the WWII Army chaplain: he served as chaplain for a company stationed in France. On the first of every month, everyone in the company received his food ration for the month: 30 cans of meat, 15 chocolate bars, 4 thermoses of coffee, and 5 loaves of bread. The chaplain, in the course of his duties, visited the various platoons within the company and formed close relationships with many of the soldiers. Some of the soldiers complained to the chaplain about their rations -- some wanted more meat, some didn't like the coffee, and so on. So the chaplain began bringing his ration with him and trading trading with some of his soldiers. Within a week, he had amassed an extra 20 cans of meat, 5 chocolate bars, 6 thermoses of coffee, and 5 loaves of bread. The chaplain didn't have any special information -- he didn't have inside information that the January coffee was particularly weak or that the red-colored meat cans had spoiled. He simply gained by exploiting variation in his soldiers' preferences. The Facilitator does the same. He knows Owner A is overloaded at RB and may sell one for slightly below market value; he knows Owner B has a thing for rookie picks and may pay a little more. So he makes incremental gains by exploiting individual leaguemates' willingness to depart from the "market" price. Now, I'm not positing that a pure Facilitator can build a dominant squad, but he can do enough to be sustainably above average -- and that qualifies as "success" in my book.

As an aside, the fact that we're even having this conversation is pretty conclusive proof that we're both pretty heavy "meta" owners.

I sure think about the "meta" issues. Whether I know enough to gain an advantage is -- as we say in the Midwest -- a whole 'nother question.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I've never really thought of the idea of a "facilitator" personality type, and I wouldn't know where he would fit. I've always thought of "willingness to trade" as a personal characteristic such as risk tolerance or trash talk that could exist independently of any profile. It's interesting to instead think of it as a self-contained profile unto itself. I still don't know if I can see it as a stand-alone profile. I know you can achieve success strictly through the proto sphere, ignoring the meta and extra and not engaging in trades. I also know you can be successful strictly in meta (although meta identifies market inefficiencies, which I think leads to a natural desire to trade, and it's hard to exploit psychology without engaging in transactions with your leaguemates), and I've definitely seen people succeed strictly on the strength of the "extra" competition. Can someone succeed strictly as a facilitator without incorporating some analyst, algorithm, scout, or car salesman, though? Can facilitator stand on its own as a success profile, or does it need to be paired with another profile to work? My initial reaction is that a facilitator with no other advantages is just churning, not improving, but I could easily be swayed by persuasive arguments to the contrary.

Consider the (apocryphal) story of the WWII Army chaplain: he served as chaplain for a company stationed in France. On the first of every month, everyone in the company received his food ration for the month: 30 cans of meat, 15 chocolate bars, 4 thermoses of coffee, and 5 loaves of bread. The chaplain, in the course of his duties, visited the various platoons within the company and formed close relationships with many of the soldiers. Some of the soldiers complained to the chaplain about their rations -- some wanted more meat, some didn't like the coffee, and so on. So the chaplain began bringing his ration with him and trading trading with some of his soldiers. Within a week, he had amassed an extra 20 cans of meat, 5 chocolate bars, 6 thermoses of coffee, and 5 loaves of bread. The chaplain didn't have any special information -- he didn't have inside information that the January coffee was particularly weak or that the red-colored meat cans had spoiled. He simply gained by exploiting variation in his soldiers' preferences. The Facilitator does the same. He knows Owner A is overloaded at RB and may sell one for slightly below market value; he knows Owner B has a thing for rookie picks and may pay a little more. So he makes incremental gains by exploiting individual leaguemates' willingness to depart from the "market" price. Now, I'm not positing that a pure Facilitator can build a dominant squad, but he can do enough to be sustainably above average -- and that qualifies as "success" in my book.

As an aside, the fact that we're even having this conversation is pretty conclusive proof that we're both pretty heavy "meta" owners.

I sure think about the "meta" issues. Whether I know enough to gain an advantage is -- as we say in the Midwest -- a whole 'nother question.

I agree that sustainably above average is a win, especially given that we're talking about a hypothetical owner with literally no other special skills to his name. Definitely an interesting idea, and one that had never really crossed my mind before. I still lean towards Lyon's "secondary personality axis", but you raise an interesting possibility, and I need to give it more thought.

 

[Bamac]

As an aside, there are few things more enjoyable than finding a compatible league mate. There are some owners I wind up trading with all the time because we always seem to have productive negotiations, and they often work out for both of us.

 

[-X-]

Hoarder:

Owner who obtains as much depth as possible at positions with the highest point yields; encourages (or waits for) other owners to deal with him/her when injuries strike their same positions of weakness. Usually gets better than average return on these trades, but generally does not try to screw other teams over (unless the hoarder is dealing with car salesmen or owners in their same division).

 

[Bamac]

Supporting what youre saying, it might be wiser to consider the Facilitator/Car Salesman as a secondary personality axis. Thus, while people could be considered varying degrees of Scout (talent-focused)/Algorithm (scoring-focused)/Analyst (owner-focused), within each of those classifications are varying levels of Facilitator/Salesman.

I'm on board with the idea of separating the knowledge sphere from the trading sphere. But I do think an owner can be perfectly average in the knowledge sphere and still be successful. The "easy" way to do this is the Car Salesman way -- skillfully negotiating trades that are against the other owner's self interest. The other method is the Facilitator's -- skillfully negotiating trades in which the other owner rationally pays above-market value to fill an idiosyncratic need. These trades yield smaller gains, but several such trades each year will turn an average squad into an above-average one.

 

[grateful zed]

5. The Car SalesmanThe Car Salesman builds a good team by making trades that are lopsided in his favor. Through a combination of persistence, persuasion, and opportunism, he convinces other owners to make trades that are not in their teams' interest.Pros: no special knowledge required. Can build a very good squad quickly with a few lopsided trades.Cons: The Salesman requires high league turnover, as longstanding league members will be reluctant to trade with him.

sounds like the defector.

 

[lyon812]

Supporting what youre saying, it might be wiser to consider the Facilitator/Car Salesman as a secondary personality axis. Thus, while people could be considered varying degrees of Scout (talent-focused)/Algorithm (scoring-focused)/Analyst (owner-focused), within each of those classifications are varying levels of Facilitator/Salesman.

I'm on board with the idea of separating the knowledge sphere from the trading sphere. But I do think an owner can be perfectly average in the knowledge sphere and still be successful. The "easy" way to do this is the Car Salesman way -- skillfully negotiating trades that are against the other owner's self interest. The other method is the Facilitator's -- skillfully negotiating trades in which the other owner rationally pays above-market value to fill an idiosyncratic need. These trades yield smaller gains, but several such trades each year will turn an average squad into an above-average one.

Don't get me wrong; I agree you can have average knowledge but be excellent at leveraging what you have. However, to use another metaphor, examine potential vs. kinetic energy. That is, we all possess varying degrees of (knowledge/skill/insight); however, the manner in which we leverage that (knowledge/skill/insight) for personal gain is an entirely different matter. If you're really good at X, how do you make that work for you? Facilitating? Ripping people off? Hoarding players and refusing to trade at all?

 

[Schniz]

Need one more, which I think describes me.1) The Elephant. The elephant is slow to make moves. He trusts his draft picks and hangs onto players a bit longer than others. He scours the waiver list to find promising players that he has had an eye who get dropped by others. He does not make many trades, but when he does, he has a clear strategy (to shore up a weakness; to try and get good value on a player he thinks is overrated; to acquire a player that others may under value). Mostly he stays pat and trusts in his draft and rarely 'rebuilds" or "blows it up," making big moves only when serious need dictates. Strengths: He often gets more value from players than others because he sees the long picture. He rarely ends up at the bottom of the league because he is steady---replenishing his team with youth on a regular basis (because he doesn't trade his top picks often)--and because he is not reactionary.Weaknesses: He sometimes hangs onto players too long. Sometimes he misses out on trade opportunities because of his overly strong faith in his players and his tendency to overrate them compared to others.

What's your advantage over quicker-moving opponents? Are you arguing that the typical owner is systematically biased toward overvaluing the shiny new toy?

This is my style. I am not sure if owners always want the shiny new toy, but they are definitely too impatient to let players develop. And always too quick to move them before they lose value. I started my first dynasty league 12 years ago. My franchise QB was Drew Brees taken in round 4 of our start up draft. I stuck with him when most would not have. I remember an owner looking to trade Dante Culpepper. He was looking for a QB plus in return and specifically said he was not interested in someone the likes of Drew as the QB in return. I was not interested in moving him anyway but thought it was odd that he even mentioned him. My patience has been rewarded with 7 straight play off appearances in large part because of him. Drew is getting ready to play his 13th season for me and I have no desire to move him. I also have Eli as QB2 starting his 10th season on my team and Andy in just his 3rd. there is no need to "dump" players when they get older if you continue to draft their replacements. Also in our start up I drafted TO and D Mason (The most under appreciated consistently top 10 to 20 WR) and both were on my roster to the end. Rookies drafted since and still on my roster : Anquan 10 years, Roddy 8 years, B Marshall 7 years, Collie 4 years (but may be a cut this year) Decker 3 years, G Tate 3 years, Kerley 2years, R Randle 1year. And this year I drafted and will carry on my taxi squad Charles Johnson, Aaron Melette, and Mark Harrison. I expect at least one of these to spend their career with my team.Both QBs and WRs careers last a long time and are dominating the FF scoring as well. If you keep your studs until the wheels fall off you can be patient developing your rookies. Hell even TEs now too. I drafted and still have V Davis 7 years, Pettigrew 4 years, and now Eifort who should be here for years and years. RB's are no different just to a lesser extent due to a shorter shelf life. Defense is no different but you have to prioritize who you hold since you need to always be developing offense. I guess it depends on scoring but I like to develop LB's and DE's and use the waiver wire for DTs and DBs. Too many people want instant production. so not sure if that is always wanting the new big thing or just a lack of patience or a lack of confidence in their draft.......but Steady and consistent has worked for me. Yeah, you don't hit on all your picks but that is what the waiver wire is for. Sometimes trades work out but you always have to give something to get something. I prefer to trade picks but have traded players of depth for players of need. It's just not a priority for me compared to others. I know I may be in the minority here but it works for me.

 

[az_prof]

Need one more, which I think describes me.1) The Elephant. The elephant is slow to make moves. He trusts his draft picks and hangs onto players a bit longer than others. He scours the waiver list to find promising players that he has had an eye who get dropped by others. He does not make many trades, but when he does, he has a clear strategy (to shore up a weakness; to try and get good value on a player he thinks is overrated; to acquire a player that others may under value). Mostly he stays pat and trusts in his draft and rarely 'rebuilds" or "blows it up," making big moves only when serious need dictates. Strengths: He often gets more value from players than others because he sees the long picture. He rarely ends up at the bottom of the league because he is steady---replenishing his team with youth on a regular basis (because he doesn't trade his top picks often)--and because he is not reactionary.Weaknesses: He sometimes hangs onto players too long. Sometimes he misses out on trade opportunities because of his overly strong faith in his players and his tendency to overrate them compared to others.

What's your advantage over quicker-moving opponents? Are you arguing that the typical owner is systematically biased toward overvaluing the shiny new toy?

Yes. Exactly.

 

[az_prof]

Need one more, which I think describes me.1) The Elephant. The elephant is slow to make moves. He trusts his draft picks and hangs onto players a bit longer than others. He scours the waiver list to find promising players that he has had an eye who get dropped by others. He does not make many trades, but when he does, he has a clear strategy (to shore up a weakness; to try and get good value on a player he thinks is overrated; to acquire a player that others may under value). Mostly he stays pat and trusts in his draft and rarely 'rebuilds" or "blows it up," making big moves only when serious need dictates. Strengths: He often gets more value from players than others because he sees the long picture. He rarely ends up at the bottom of the league because he is steady---replenishing his team with youth on a regular basis (because he doesn't trade his top picks often)--and because he is not reactionary.Weaknesses: He sometimes hangs onto players too long. Sometimes he misses out on trade opportunities because of his overly strong faith in his players and his tendency to overrate them compared to others.

What's your advantage over quicker-moving opponents? Are you arguing that the typical owner is systematically biased toward overvaluing the shiny new toy?

This is my style. I am not sure if owners always want the shiny new toy, but they are definitely too impatient to let players develop. And always too quick to move them before they lose value.I started my first dynasty league 12 years ago. My franchise QB was Drew Brees taken in round 4 of our start up draft. I stuck with him when most would not have. I remember an owner looking to trade Dante Culpepper. He was looking for a QB plus in return and specifically said he was not interested in someone the likes of Drew as the QB in return. I was not interested in moving him anyway but thought it was odd that he even mentioned him. My patience has been rewarded with 7 straight play off appearances in large part because of him. Drew is getting ready to play his 13th season for me and I have no desire to move him. I also have Eli as QB2 starting his 10th season on my team and Andy in just his 3rd. there is no need to "dump" players when they get older if you continue to draft their replacements. Also in our start up I drafted TO and D Mason (The most under appreciated consistently top 10 to 20 WR) and both were on my roster to the end. Rookies drafted since and still on my roster : Anquan 10 years, Roddy 8 years, B Marshall 7 years, Collie 4 years (but may be a cut this year) Decker 3 years, G Tate 3 years, Kerley 2years, R Randle 1year. And this year I drafted and will carry on my taxi squad Charles Johnson, Aaron Melette, and Mark Harrison. I expect at least one of these to spend their career with my team.Both QBs and WRs careers last a long time and are dominating the FF scoring as well. If you keep your studs until the wheels fall off you can be patient developing your rookies. Hell even TEs now too. I drafted and still have V Davis 7 years, Pettigrew 4 years, and now Eifort who should be here for years and years. RB's are no different just to a lesser extent due to a shorter shelf life.Defense is no different but you have to prioritize who you hold since you need to always be developing offense. I guess it depends on scoring but I like to develop LB's and DE's and use the waiver wire for DTs and DBs.Too many people want instant production. so not sure if that is always wanting the new big thing or just a lack of patience or a lack of confidence in their draft.......but Steady and consistent has worked for me. Yeah, you don't hit on all your picks but that is what the waiver wire is for. Sometimes trades work out but you always have to give something to get something. I prefer to trade picks but have traded players of depth for players of need. It's just not a priority for me compared to others. I know I may be in the minority here but it works for me.

I drafted Drew Brees in my start up too and hung onto him and have enjoyed two championships and two second place finishes with him! There you go--a couple of elephants...

 

[GregR]

I can't keep up with all these new fangled werewolf roles.

Seriously though, a great owner should be all of the first four. Can also have some lopsided trades in your favor but too many can hurt in the long run.