Reggie Wayne was top 8 this year at the age of 34. Not saying I'd put Roddy at #4 but he is top 10 for me still.
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!
Garda's Dynasty WR Rankings? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter IHEARTFF
- Start date
Carl Eller's Dead Liver
Footballguy
Sure Roddy might be top 10, but he most certainly won't be top 4 even this coming season.....let alone 3 years from now! I'll take anyone up on that bet....please PM message me and name your price.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you, it's just that you said you don't see a WR at 34 being top 10, but I don't think it's nearly as unlikely as you do. I think Roddy's too high on the rankings but you may be selling him a bit short for the next few years.
Carl Eller's Dead Liver
Footballguy
In a PPR league Roddy was the #10 WR this season. I think he'll be similar the next two seasons, #8-12.....altough it's possible he'll be top 10 in 2015...it's more likely his numbers will take a dip. Again, I don't want to argue top 10 that much. I think I have him about #12-14 for the next 3 years combined, but certainly not top 4...even for the 2013 season. So, even for redraft I would not have in in my top 5. Top 10 yes.
As a rookie he was WR #29. So a WR drafted in the top 10 of the NFL draft who ended up in the top 30 his rookie year ranks #44. It makes no sense but to each their own.
What is worse is that he has Cecil Shorts at #84 (?). Perhaps worried about the concussions but still a headscratcher.Garda tweeted recently that he is in three Dynasty leagues. OK, but obviously not real active leagues and it appears that he has never once looked at the Dynasty Off Season Trade or Dynasty Start Up threads as the rankings don't conform to the reality of how people are actually valuing players.I won't quibble with his Top 40 (Demaryius Thomas at #19 seems laughable, but maybe he sees something I don't). The problem I have is with the players after #50, which have the flavor of somebody who had to meet a deadline and just cut-and-pasted an old ranking without thinking about actual current value.For instance he has Darrius Heyward-Bey at #64 three days after the Raiders cut him. Yet Rod Streater, who outplayed DHB at the end of the season and made him expendable is not listed at all (a lot of people don't take Streater seriously but I would imagine that he should still be valued above DHB, if one is to rank DHB at all).Getting back to Cecil Shorts (an offseason SP Dynasty darling) here are some of the players listed above him: Santana Moss #50, Randy Moss #52, David Nelson #61, Malcom Floyd #72, Steve Smith (STL) #78, Steve Breaston #81 - all of these are borderline waiver wire fodder and some are on the waiver wire in a few of my leagues. If I were to approach the Shorts owner and offer a straight up trade for any of these guys (or even a combo) it would be considered insulting or a joke.I will wait until the next update, hoping the rankings will a better reflection of Dynasty reality. If not, then I will just have to exclude them from that point on as an outlier.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
While I'm not defending the ranking itself (Shorts at #84) - because frnakly it's not defensible, no matter how one would psin it - but I'm not sure his rankings have to reflect the bolded necessarily.It depends on what you were looking for from "expert" rankings - do you want them to reflect their player evaluations and opinions on future production or simply market value? I don't think a ranking that just shows market value is all that uselful as we have other tools for that.
With that said I agree with your general idea that ranking Shorts behind guys like DHB, Steve Smith (StL), Malcolm Floyd, David Nelson and Randy Moss is simply showing a lack of effort after a certain point in the rankings. There really could be no justifiable reason that one could say that any of those guys are more valuable - even if you did have fears about future concussions.
When you guys say 'indefensible' and 'not possible to defend' there is no point in explaining myself because I can tell you aren't going to listen to a word I say.The rankings need to be fixed post free agency, they will be. I feel like I've given a pretty good explanation for the first wave but for most of you it's not enough.
I'll do what I can to explain rankings the next sweep through, but frankly, I don't know it's worth the time. I might as well just try to catch up on the comments themselves within the rankings and go from there.
FWIW - I am active in my dynasty leagues, thanks for asking, and put a lot of effort into the rankings. I don't think I'd have bothered to respond to this thread were it otherwise. That they don't match up with whatever you think is fine and hell, maybe they're off. But to say they're lazy is an insult and, frankly, foolish.
I have some big deadlines for my full time writing job to hit this week and sick kids - hoping to revamp my rankings for post free agency stuff late this week.
was he a 29 by me? If not, the movement isn't really relevant is it?
cstu
Footballguy
You really would prefer the rest of Moss' career (if there is any) to that of Stephen Hill or Rueben Randle?
Um, no, he finished #29 in fantasy points for the 2012 season according to this site. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2012/12ytdpprstats17.php
One would think that if a rookie WR finished in the top 30, then it might be relevant to a rankings discussion as a point of reference, but I guess not.
Also, I did find one of your other comments interesting:
For some reason I was under the impression that you are actually paid something to do these rankings. Not your full time writing gig as you mentioned, but one would assume there is some remuneration involved (if you are doing this gratis, then I apologize as maybe you don't owe anyone here an explanation for what you write). However, if you are paid something for this, you shouldn't act like you are doing us a big favor by coming into this forum and responding to questions about your rankings or taking umbrage that someone has the audacity to criticize them. I would have thought that was part of your job description, but from your tone that appears not to be the case.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Comedian
Footballguy
Strange as it may seem, you are paid for your fantasy analysis. The money you are paid comes from subscribers, who are buying a product. You are the product.You don't need to "convince" us to believe your rankings over another guy's rankings. You don't need to just throw up rankings that are similar to the consensus, but when you are way off from the analysis of other paid experts, there really three only three explanations:1) You have some kind of unique perspective on some players that others don't have.2) You haven't put a great deal of thought into what you're producing.3) You suck at this.I think it's very reasonable for subscribers of the product you're putting out there to try and figure out which of these three is going on here. I doubt you're paid to post on the message board, so there's no reason you have to come here and explain, but putting some of these rankings out there without any explanation just ruins your credibility, and thus chips away some at the credibility of the overall product.I'm not going to call your rankings "indefensible," I don't think that makes sense. Hitler was indefensible. This is fantasy football. But I would be very interested in knowing why you think Cecil Shorts is less valuable than Steve Smith (the lesser of the Steve Smith's), or Robert Meachem is more valuable than Pierre Garcon or Danny Amendola, or Randy Moss is over Stephen Hill, etc., etc.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Having fun buddy? I told you when you started...
That's an important piece of info doncha think? The way it was phrased, it sounded like a Dynasty ranking - especially since that's what we're talking about here.Given THAT, sure I can see your point. But I was wondering who had him ranked that high preseason. So... much different right?As for the rest of the thread, a couple of points.On,e I apologize if I was grouchy last night - I have a sick kid and was exhausted. I shouldn't have responded at all if that was the case.As far as I know, I'm getting paid for this but here's the thing—even if I did this free, I still owe you, the customer (and in some ways, boss) an explanation for a ranking or opinion you don't understand.I'm not complaining about that. HOWEVER, when posts say things like 'indefensible' or 'impossible' or things like that, I have to wonder whether it's worth putting time and effort into being in the thread for discussion. Because those words don't tell me you might be interested in hearing what I have to say. They tell me that you're mind is not open to the possibility that my POV is a valid one.In which case all I'm doing is spitting into the wind.Is that worth it?I think really, with a few hours sleep, it probably is as we know there are plenty of people who lurk in this forum who don't speak up. If you don't want to listen (and I mean the general you not any of you specifically), someone else might.It's not about convincing you I'm right either - it's about maybe making you think. But when you come in with what appears to be a closed mind, well, it's difficult to carve extra time out of my day and prioritize writing an explanation nobody is going to 'hear'.FWIW, Cecil Shorts is too low. Even prior to free agency, the ranking is too low. Now I have concerns.Yes, he rated highly last year - however that was with a rookie receiver in Blackmon who didn't come on until late in the year and without Jones-Drew for most of the season. With MJD back, the Jags will run more - a lot more. Which will lower the overall pass yards and between Blackmon and that, knock Shorts' numbers down a bit. I don't expect the Jags to throw just under 600 times next season.On the flip side? They'll probably be playing from behind. The Jags D will be better but how much better than 30th is debatable and I don't think the answer is 'a lot'.So they will throw plenty, but not as much as next year.I really hate what Blaine Gabbert will offer as a quarterback. I'm pretty confident the team will grab a QB in the draft but if it's not Geno Smith, I'm not confident about how much difference it will make—this isn't a QB class which engenders hope really.Even Smith—we can debate if he's going to turn things around quickly and in another draft class he'd probably be a lot lower. If they get Nassib, Barkley, Glennon, Wilson—well I feel less optimistic.But I can't rank based on 'they might have a new quarterback' anymore than I could before free agency (which is when these last rankings were done).Again, I think you guys are right and he;s low - but I don't know that I will rank him high enough to satisfy any of you anyway.As for Comedian's question as to the relative value of Amendola vs Meachem and so on - before the free agency? Unsure where Amendola was to go and where he'd play (will it be the Rams, Jets, Oakland or Packers?), I liked Meachem. Now that he's in New England's offense in the Welker role? I love Amendola.So again, the rankings are old and pre-free agency so if you look at them based on how things stand right now, they will definitely seem off and there are likely to be changes - some big - based on where guys landed.So that's that. Again, sorry if I sounded defensive, and as you said, it's my role to answer questions. However, as always, I ask anyone who posts to keep an open mind—that way we can have a dialogue vs just talking at each other.One is incredibly valuable for both sides, while the other is really, really frustrating for everyone.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I'll listen.
I want to address this specifically. I am not 'doing you a big favor' coming in here answering questions. I don't care you criticize them at all and that's not what I was getting at, Criticize away.HOWEVER - and this is important - if you are going to start a conversation by saying things cannot be defended or explained, you're telling me you are not going to listen but rather you have a fixed point of view. Before I even explain, you've already decided that what we're about to talk about is impossible.In which case I might as well just do the comments attached to the rankings.I think if we both keep an open mind, there is a much better and more informative conversation to be had.That's really all I meant.
I appreciate that - and as I wrote above, while those actively participating on the board are the impetus for a convo, there are plenty of people who might read who aren't active members—and that's as valuable as any reason to respond anyway.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
So in some ways we were right to say it's indefensible - even you are admitting that now. I apologize as I didn't mean it to be as harsh as the word sounds but imo there really is no justifiable reason that he can be ranked behind:Santana Moss #50 - 34 year old WR who's role has greatly diminished Randy Moss #52 - 35-36 year old WR, who did nothing last season and is in obvious declineDavid Nelson #61 - a player that has accomplished virtually nothing in his few years in the league and has no buzz. Malcom Floyd #72 - perhaps this one is justifiable, but I'd have a difficult time buying itSteve Smith (STL) #78 - hasn't been relevant in years after what looks to be a career hampering (if not quite ending) injurySteve Breaston #81 - hasn't sniffed relevance in years and has a knee injury that is keeping any potential suitors awayI think if you were completely honest with us and yourself, you'd be able to admit that ranking any of those guys over Cecel Shorts (even if you liked him way less than the masses, which actually would be defensible) is "indefensible".ETA: That was all I meant by indefensible - not that I wouldn't be willing to listen. For the record I'm not nealry as high on Shorts as most seem to be, so I agree with some of your thoughts on him above. However if I'd trade ALL of those guys together if I owned them for Shorts in a second.
Last edited by a moderator:
See but I disagree here - saying 'yeah he's low' and agreeing with the concept that it's indefensible are two very different things. I think it's defensible to have him lower than others feel he should be. I can say he's too low without feeling what I did and the ranking were indefensible. I suppose what you mean is 'in contrast to the other players it's indefensible' in which case for some I guess sure, and others I disagree.Again though, free agency changes a lot so, it's hard to really 'defend' rankings that aren't relevant post-free agency.I'll keep an eye on the thread and we can all keep talking until I get the time to fire up the rankings machine and go at it again.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
This is all I meant - I edited my post above to say I actually would tend to agree with you if you did rank Shorts lower than most - just that there's no way he can be ranked behind guys that are likely on the waiver wire in many leagues.
Yeah we're on the same page now.The language in some of these posts set me on edge. It shouldn't have but it does because, as we all do, there are only so many hours in the day. Demanding an explanation but making it sound like regardless of what I say, I'm already wrong makes it hard to take the time out of my day to respond.But we're on the same page now, so, I can stop being douchey.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I empathize with the rankers. For dynasty in particular, it's hard to be "right". If you just throw out the consensus all the itme, the rankings themselves aren't worth much. And if you go too far against the grain, people start calling you out very quickly. Then if you try to respond or explain in a public forum, it often devolves into personal attacks or name-calling. It's a rough gig.
All that said here's a summary of the situation:
[*]The site and the rankings are a paid service, ostensibly providing expertise on this subject matter.
[*]At least SOME of your rankings have fairly recent UPDATED on dates. To the public, it seems fair to assume that these rankings are exactly your best analysis as of that date.
[*]You and other analysts have professed to appreciate feedback on the rankings themselves.
Given that, when you have some rankings that are REALLY far afield, I don't see why it would hurt to do an extra thorough review of the rankings as a whole. If you've already done that, then a few notes of explanation would probably help. It seems like you've spent more time explaining why you can't explain a ranking on certain players than it would have taken to actually explain them. Several obvious examples have been explicitly asked about, but the specifics are ignored in favor of the generalizations. I don't mean that to sound snarky, and I do get that sometimes it's hard to just respond if the tone of the question stinks.
Why not just give the reason you have Randy Moss, as of 3/15 of this year in front of all of the following guys on a DYNASTY ranking:
WR Stephen Hill, NYJ
WR Rueben Randle, NYG
WR Darrius Heyward-Bey, OAK
WR Brian Quick, STL
WR Mohamed Sanu, CIN
WR Danario Alexander, SD
WR Chris Givens, STL
WR Brian Hartline, MIA
Granted, not all of those guys are going to turn into studs this year. But they are all fairly young, and SOME of them have actually produced fairly well recently. 35 year old Randy Moss on the hand has not produced anything fantasy significant over the last three years. If you truly believe that is going to change going forward for some reason, making him a better dynasty option than all of those guys, it seems like you might have a good reason for that opinion, and sharing that reason would really help us understand the rankings.
All that said here's a summary of the situation:
[*]The site and the rankings are a paid service, ostensibly providing expertise on this subject matter.
[*]At least SOME of your rankings have fairly recent UPDATED on dates. To the public, it seems fair to assume that these rankings are exactly your best analysis as of that date.
[*]You and other analysts have professed to appreciate feedback on the rankings themselves.
Given that, when you have some rankings that are REALLY far afield, I don't see why it would hurt to do an extra thorough review of the rankings as a whole. If you've already done that, then a few notes of explanation would probably help. It seems like you've spent more time explaining why you can't explain a ranking on certain players than it would have taken to actually explain them. Several obvious examples have been explicitly asked about, but the specifics are ignored in favor of the generalizations. I don't mean that to sound snarky, and I do get that sometimes it's hard to just respond if the tone of the question stinks.
Why not just give the reason you have Randy Moss, as of 3/15 of this year in front of all of the following guys on a DYNASTY ranking:
WR Stephen Hill, NYJ
WR Rueben Randle, NYG
WR Darrius Heyward-Bey, OAK
WR Brian Quick, STL
WR Mohamed Sanu, CIN
WR Danario Alexander, SD
WR Chris Givens, STL
WR Brian Hartline, MIA
Granted, not all of those guys are going to turn into studs this year. But they are all fairly young, and SOME of them have actually produced fairly well recently. 35 year old Randy Moss on the hand has not produced anything fantasy significant over the last three years. If you truly believe that is going to change going forward for some reason, making him a better dynasty option than all of those guys, it seems like you might have a good reason for that opinion, and sharing that reason would really help us understand the rankings.
Last edited by a moderator:
JamesTheScot
Footballguy
I think something to keep in mind is that the difference between #80 and #51 isn't the same as the difference in #30 and #1. There could be maybe a dimes worth of difference and no more at the bottom end of the rankings.When we get so deep in the rankings, few of us really think these guys are going to be anything other than an emergency bye week fill-in anyway. We're just swinging for the upside fence hoping to hit on a long shot and then brag about how we mine for value in the late rounds. So opting for someone who has had buzz and not realized it (like Breaston) or was a very productive player (like Moss) isn't as outrageous as one thinks.When we get this deep in the rankings in dynasty, we have to realize that we have already seen the high water mark for many of the younger guys listed, not just the older guys, and they won't ever produce more per season than they already have. Just go back a few years and see where guys like Jerry Porter and Mike Sims-Walker were being ranked. Were there not older WR's ranked below them that have out performed them over the ensuing years? How many aging WR's have outproduced DHB over his career thus far? The interesting thing is that I'm wondering if your complaint isn't really that Shorts is ranked too low, it's that these other guys are ranked too high. And yes, those really are two different complaints. You implicitly admit that Shorts could be ranked behind all the players you didn't list. So apparently you aren't that offended that Garda decided to rank the guy at 51 higher than Shorts. Or the guys at 53 through 60. Or the guys at 62 through 71. If you thought Shorts was ranked too low because of the players you listed, it would mean that Shorts should be 6 spots higher. A difference of 6 spots outside of the top 30 or 40 starts to be a whole lot of "so what" in my book. I'm just scratching my head over the raging controversy of shorting Shorts 6 spots at this range in the rankings. It just seems a bit nit-picky to me.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Yeah, the too high vs too low are slightly different (related of course, but different). For me, it's a LOT more "defensible" (to use everyone's favorite term) to rank a guy you thinks sucks very low, than it is to rank a guy who clearly has no real future too high (ala Moss).
We are talking about dynasty rankings, not redraft rankings. I know some folks only look a few years out (which is big mistake IMO), but even at a few years out, it's real stretch to think that Moss is going to produce. It would be possible to construct an argument that he is going to be become relevant again, but it would be hard.
So my point is that to place him over a bunch of young guys, some of who have only been in the league one year, and some of whom are ALREADY soundly beating the former star, "requires" some foundation that I am not seeing.
The same arguments apply to other guys too, but Moss is the most obvious to me (actually, the other Moss is a good example also). I want my dynasty rankings to be dynasty rankings - even allowing for some guys focusing on the short term more than others.
We are talking about dynasty rankings, not redraft rankings. I know some folks only look a few years out (which is big mistake IMO), but even at a few years out, it's real stretch to think that Moss is going to produce. It would be possible to construct an argument that he is going to be become relevant again, but it would be hard.
So my point is that to place him over a bunch of young guys, some of who have only been in the league one year, and some of whom are ALREADY soundly beating the former star, "requires" some foundation that I am not seeing.
The same arguments apply to other guys too, but Moss is the most obvious to me (actually, the other Moss is a good example also). I want my dynasty rankings to be dynasty rankings - even allowing for some guys focusing on the short term more than others.
Carl Eller's Dead Liver
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Originally I was just responding to another member's post - actually defending Garda a bit - which specifically stated that Shorts was ranked at #84 and specifically listed those players ranked above him. My "complaint" wasn't that Shorts deserved to only be moved up the six slots over just those guys - those were just the "bizzare" examples provided by the member I responded to. You really though that was the point? I'm not outraged at all - in fact I don't even look at the rankings, I do my own - I was merely expanding my thoughts in my response (about whether an "expert" should consider the market in their rankings) which included that in no way should Shorts be ranked behind the dreck that were specifically mentioned. I wasn't implicitedly implying that those were the only six guys that Shorts should be behind (I didn't even look at the rankings list), those were just the specific examples provided in the post I was responding to.
I do agree that after a certain point, the rankings for WR are all over the place and it's tough to slot players in that range (50-80) with any "accuracy" at all. However a young WR that just produced a very good season shouldn't be ranked behind waiver wire fodder - the part I bolded of your post would certainly imply that you agree with that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Qbs, RBs & WRs are up. TEs tomorrow, overall (probably) Friday.
Wrs took a while. I went through them with all the above concerns in mind, as well as free agency moves and adjustments I had already been looking at.
I'm sure not everyone will be happy, but largely I believe a lot of concerns were addressed.
Next week I will launch into comments for the players - meanwhile, fire away here.
Wrs took a while. I went through them with all the above concerns in mind, as well as free agency moves and adjustments I had already been looking at.
I'm sure not everyone will be happy, but largely I believe a lot of concerns were addressed.
Next week I will launch into comments for the players - meanwhile, fire away here.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Way more in line with what I would expect in a real dynasty league. R Moss is completely gone as he should be, and several of the other older guys have dropped considerably. Wayne dropped like a rock, again as should be expected. That said, they really shouldn't have been that high to begin with. That the problem with old guys. One year they have value and the next they are just gone. That's why IMO they should be getting dinged GRADUALLY all along from a true dynasty perspective. A guy really shouldn't really be worth a top 5 slot one year and then around 40 the next.
I still think many of the journeymen are way too high for most of the leagues I'm in, but that does depend heavily on how deep your league's roster and starting requirements are.
For example, Malcom Floyd is 31. He has never broken 60 receptions, 900 yards or 7 TDs in any single season. Meanwhile, D Alexander, 8 spots lower, is 24 and just put up 7 TDs in the span of 8 games. Yes, he has a HUGE injury history. His knee could fold in half tomorrow (God forbid, LOVE the kid's spirit). But his upside DWARFs Floyd's over the long haul. That low in the rankings, why would you not take a shot on a young guy with starter's potential over an old guy who is EVEN NOW barely worth considering as a bye week fill-in?
For a redraft, sure Floyd might be useful as a late in the draft pickup next year. In dynasty, he's a throw in at best. In leagues with tight rosters, he's possibly on the wire.
Lance Moore and Nate Washington are other guys that fit in that category to some degree. And I know S Moss is the last guy on your list, but are there really NO young dudes with the potential to put up similar stats THIS year and the potential to do ANYTHING for the next 10 years you could find to replace him? He hasn't put up more than 600 yards in a couple of years, and at 33 (34 shortly), that's not going to change. In fact, he could be out of the league at any given time. Find some 2012 4th round pick you like as a long shot and put him in there.
Regardless, I am nitpicking at this point. I don't see much in the "totally outrageous" (from my perspective) category anymore that make you want to say "I have no idea what he was thinking on that". You are also no worse in any of the things I personally have issues with than many of your peers. Moss is still on most of their rankings too, above guys like Rod Streater of Oakland. So in hopes of not sounding condescending: excellent work, but wish you had gone farther, and wish you had taken some of your boys with you.
I still think many of the journeymen are way too high for most of the leagues I'm in, but that does depend heavily on how deep your league's roster and starting requirements are.
For example, Malcom Floyd is 31. He has never broken 60 receptions, 900 yards or 7 TDs in any single season. Meanwhile, D Alexander, 8 spots lower, is 24 and just put up 7 TDs in the span of 8 games. Yes, he has a HUGE injury history. His knee could fold in half tomorrow (God forbid, LOVE the kid's spirit). But his upside DWARFs Floyd's over the long haul. That low in the rankings, why would you not take a shot on a young guy with starter's potential over an old guy who is EVEN NOW barely worth considering as a bye week fill-in?
For a redraft, sure Floyd might be useful as a late in the draft pickup next year. In dynasty, he's a throw in at best. In leagues with tight rosters, he's possibly on the wire.
Lance Moore and Nate Washington are other guys that fit in that category to some degree. And I know S Moss is the last guy on your list, but are there really NO young dudes with the potential to put up similar stats THIS year and the potential to do ANYTHING for the next 10 years you could find to replace him? He hasn't put up more than 600 yards in a couple of years, and at 33 (34 shortly), that's not going to change. In fact, he could be out of the league at any given time. Find some 2012 4th round pick you like as a long shot and put him in there.
Regardless, I am nitpicking at this point. I don't see much in the "totally outrageous" (from my perspective) category anymore that make you want to say "I have no idea what he was thinking on that". You are also no worse in any of the things I personally have issues with than many of your peers. Moss is still on most of their rankings too, above guys like Rod Streater of Oakland. So in hopes of not sounding condescending: excellent work, but wish you had gone farther, and wish you had taken some of your boys with you.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
No problems with any of the rankings and I can see where you're coming from with them.
No to the bolded. Lance Moore is the most underrated receiver in fantasy football. In his last 4 reasonably full seasons, he's finished WR13, WR27, WR34 (missed 2 games), and WR20 (missed 1 game). He's a credible WR2, and an elite WR3. There is no possible scoring system or league format (short of leagues that only start 20 WRs a week, on average) where Lance Moore should be on waivers. I would argue that he's criminally undervalued at WR50.Way more in line with what I would expect in a real dynasty league. R Moss is completely gone as he should be, and several of the other older guys have dropped considerably. Wayne dropped like a rock, again as should be expected. That said, they really shouldn't have been that high to begin with. That the problem with old guys. One year they have value and the next they are just gone. That's why IMO they should be getting dinged GRADUALLY all along from a true dynasty perspective. A guy really shouldn't really be worth a top 5 slot one year and then around 40 the next.
I still think many of the journeymen are way too high for most of the leagues I'm in, but that does depend heavily on how deep your league's roster and starting requirements are.
For example, Malcom Floyd is 31. He has never broken 60 receptions, 900 yards or 7 TDs in any single season. Meanwhile, D Alexander, 8 spots lower, is 24 and just put up 7 TDs in the span of 8 games. Yes, he has a HUGE injury history. His knee could fold in half tomorrow (God forbid, LOVE the kid's spirit). But his upside DWARFs Floyd's over the long haul. That low in the rankings, why would you not take a shot on a young guy with starter's potential over an old guy who is EVEN NOW barely worth considering as a bye week fill-in?
For a redraft, sure Floyd might be useful as a late in the draft pickup next year. In dynasty, he's a throw in at best. In leagues with tight rosters, he's possibly on the wire.
Lance Moore and Nate Washington are other guys that fit in that category to some degree. And I know S Moss is the last guy on your list, but are there really NO young dudes with the potential to put up similar stats THIS year and the potential to do ANYTHING for the next 10 years you could find to replace him? He hasn't put up more than 600 yards in a couple of years, and at 33 (34 shortly), that's not going to change. In fact, he could be out of the league at any given time. Find some 2012 4th round pick you like as a long shot and put him in there.
Regardless, I am nitpicking at this point. I don't see much in the "totally outrageous" (from my perspective) category anymore that make you want to say "I have no idea what he was thinking on that". You are also no worse in any of the things I personally have issues with than many of your peers. Moss is still on most of their rankings too, above guys like Rod Streater of Oakland. So in hopes of not sounding condescending: excellent work, but wish you had gone farther, and wish you had taken some of your boys with you.
actually I explained a lot of stuff in this thread. people didn't agree. it kept going.And getting up in arms about someone using the word "indefensible" when it turns out that's exactly what the ranking turned out to be.
read the moist recent posts - I've debated a lot.
But whatever, I've made a ton of changes post free agency, so carry on.
Concept Coop
Footballguy
Have to disagree with you here. He's valued lower than his production because said production was largely a product of his situation, rather than talent. He was on the field less and less towards the end of the year, as Graham got healthier, and relied on TDs to keep him floating. That’s not something I want to count on in my starting lineup, as he’s easily replaceable to his NFL team, and worth much less away from it.
If I went into a season with Moore as my WR3, I certainly wouldn’t feel confident, let alone that I have an advantage. I have no problem with anyone suggesting he isn’t a top 40 dynasty WR.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
He's 29. Last year was probably his peak, because other options weren't there, and he was #20. He's not useless, just not that exciting.SSOG said:
I'd rather have a guy like Hill, Randle, Bey, Quick, Alexander, Givens, etc. Maybe even Toon from his own team. But that all depends on the league. In some leagues, I might be a little happier with Moore than in others. Just depends. 50 might not be crazy, but give me Givens over him any day, who is listed 30 spots down. He's 23, very possibly the teams #1 option, with plenty of physical talent and room to fill out his game. In 13 games of sporadic use in a rookie season, he produced as much yardage as most years in Moore's career, and he could develop into something Lance Moore never will. That's even WITH the assumption that Moore plays out the rest of his contract with the Saints, which is not a given (and anywhere else, I suspect he's not a blip on the radar).
In 1 or 2 or 3 years, Givens could be a top 10 receiver. In those same 3 years, Moore could be out of the league and I'd give REALLY good odds he'll never crack the top 10 in his career. I'd give pretty good odds he'll never crack the top 15 again (if he didn't last year, he's not going to), and at least even odds he'll never see the top 25.
Just my thoughts.
This is the exact same thought process that led to Kennison and Driver and Ward and the Smiths being under drafted for so many years. Sure, Lance Moore doesn't have the sexy top10 upside of some of the flavors of the month... but upside is not a rare commodity. There are dozens of players dripping with it every year, and most of them flame out. What Moore offers is a much rarer commodity than upside- he offers production.
I don't buy the idea that New Orleans will move away from Moore. Brees loves him. His TDs are not a fluke- he's been consistent with them for half a decade. You could do a lot worse than the third receiver on the most prolific passing offense in the league. As I said, he's a very strong wr3 and even a passable wr2 in a pinch. Not bad for a guy available for mere fractions of a penny.
I don't buy the idea that New Orleans will move away from Moore. Brees loves him. His TDs are not a fluke- he's been consistent with them for half a decade. You could do a lot worse than the third receiver on the most prolific passing offense in the league. As I said, he's a very strong wr3 and even a passable wr2 in a pinch. Not bad for a guy available for mere fractions of a penny.
Tau837
Footballguy
I'm with Coop and Schneikes on Moore. In non-PPR, his ppg the past 3 years has placed him as WR26 (2010), WR31 (2011), and WR25 (2012). On top of that, in 2010 and 2011, his production was skewed by a few big games. He was more consistent in 2012, but that was arguably situational and won't be repeated.
To say he is a credible WR2 is a stretch IMO, unless you play in very large leagues. I would say he is a solid WR3, but I wouldn't feel great about having to start him regularly. I've owned him in multiple leagues and traded him away.
To say he is a credible WR2 is a stretch IMO, unless you play in very large leagues. I would say he is a solid WR3, but I wouldn't feel great about having to start him regularly. I've owned him in multiple leagues and traded him away.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I hear you. If he had two or three years of solid production and he was 25, I might feel differently. But at 29, he has both lack of upside AND age working against him in my book, which drops him in my rankings considerably. You are absolutely right, the young nobodies are as likely to flame out as they are to develop into #1s - maybe more so. But in most leagues, I'd still rather take that chance.
By the way, Driver, Ward, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith all had at least 3 top 10 finishes - something Moore has not sniffed once in his career. They were all the #1 on their teams, and none of them was a 5'9" slot receiver. Not great comparisons for Moore. In fact, in preferring some of the younger (dare I say bigger?) guys, the NEXT Ward/Driver/Smith is exactly what I am looking for.
But again, some of this does depend on the league. In deeper leagues, where you have a lot of teams, big rosters, and heavy starting requirements, a guy like Moore (who will be starting regularly) is probably worth considerably more than in other leagues. That's one of the reasons I have pushed for the laying out of some assumptions/guidelines to go along with these rankings.
I am in a 32 team league (2 copies of each player) that starts 3 WR and 2 flex. In that league, I'd really like to have Lance Moore. But in most of my 12/14 teamers with more typical starting requirements, I'd go for the potential.
The "few big games" argument isn't a great one. First off, everyone outside of the top 12 scorers is inconsistent. Second off, no one is consistently more inconsistent than anyone else. You pointed it out with Moore yourself- he was inconsistent, and then he wasn't. Consistency shows little to no correlation from one year to the next. Finally, those big games are very valuable- I remember seeing someone (I forget who, maybe ZWK?) run a study. The gist of it was that they looked at every game had been played in their league that season, and created two imaginary players, both of whom scored the exact same number of points. The first guy scored 1/16th of his points in every game like clockwork- the definition of consistency. The other guy scored half his points in 4 games, and the other half of his points in the other 12 games. He then reran the season for each team, replacing their 3rd WR with the "steady eddie" and the "boom/bust benny" and seeing what sort of impact it had on each team's win totals. After that, he came up with how much each player type was "worth", and he found that in order for a boom/bust receiver to be worth as much as a steady eddie who scored 180 points the boom/bust receiver would have to score... 182 points. That's how valuable consistency is- perfect consistency over a season is worth about two points more than wild inconsistency. Now, bear in mind, I'm paraphrasing the methodology and results and I might be borking it pretty badly, but the result was very clear- consistency quite simply does not translate into more wins than inconsistency (provided you're faithfully starting the inconsistent guy, which admittedly is sometimes a problem).
Also, I'd say WR25 and WR26 in PPG are credible WR2s. Not the greatest WR2 ever, but that's not what credible means. Sure, maybe 24 players scored more per game than Moore did last season, but how many of those 24 played in 8 or fewer games? Checking the Data Dominator, I see Lance Moore was WR24 in points per game last year. Some of the names he was behind include Donte Stallworth (1 game played), Percy Harvin (9 games played), Danario Alexander (10 games played), and Jordy Nelson (12 games played). Is Jordy Nelson's extra 0.37 ppg worth more than Lance Moore's extra 3 games played? Maybe, but I don't think so. I would say that Harvin and Alexander were both more valuable than Moore, but only one of them was ahead of Moore at any given time (Harvin only played the first half of the season, Alexander only played the last half). Strip out Stallworth, Nelson, and combine Harvin/Alexander into one (since only one of them was ahead of Moore at any given time) and suddenly Lance Moore is the 21st best WR in points per game. He's not lighting the world on fire, but that is absolutely a credible WR2. And we have reason to think his boost in consistency is not a mirage- Meachem left, Bush left, Henderson got phased out, and Moore himself got much, much healthier (outside of his one missed game, he only appeared on the report once, as probable). Moreover, Moore was very EFFECTIVE in his role last year- he rated 5th in DYAR and 5th in DVOA. He underperformed in the TD department despite Brees having an amazing year, TD-wise. He's 30, but 30 is still plenty young for a WR. He's signed for 3 more years at extremely reasonable rates.
Lance Moore is not a sexy name. He doesn't have top-10 upside, but he has very reasonable top-20 upside. He'll likely serve another 3 years as a very high-end fantasy WR3 or even a low-end WR2. I'm not saying he deserves to be rated in the top 30 just because he'll be finishing there regularly- youth, upside, and trade value all carry value in dynasty leagues and need to be considered. What I am saying, though, is that WR50 is way too low for a guy who will be a quality start for several more years to come. He's basically Eli Manning at WR, and as much as I love to bash Eli Manning and talk about how he should never sniff anyone's top-12 QBs, I've never argued that he should be outside the top 20 QBs entirely. Youth, upside, and "buzz" have value, but unsexy, reliable, consistent production has value, too. That kind of production won't win you leagues, but you'd be hard to find teams who win leagues who don't have that kind of production sprinkled through their roster.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Totally agree on the big games comment. That's way over-used in this community. The only receivers who AREN'T inconsistent are blazing fast, 6'5" yardage monsters who can't be stopped by double or triple coverage (aka Calvin Johnson). Everybody else has bad days now and then. Mostly agree on the second bit as well, Moore was LAST YEAR a credible WR2/3. Not a great 2, but a solid 3. Also agree that he is effective at what he does. Although I will mention that while DVOA has it's uses, the #2 guy from last year (Brandon Stokely - coincidentally? a reasonably effective slot receiver catching passes from a great QB) just got S-canned in favor of a younger, better guy. A high DVOA may or may not mean irreplaceable. What I don't necessary agree with is the notion that last year is going to be the norm going forward and that there is no risk of him being released or shuffled down the priority list. Several of his biggest games last year came when Graham was out or playing (obviously) hurt. If Graham stays healthy, he's going to re-assert himself as the go-to-guy. Payton will be back, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see production from Moore closer to 2011 numbers vs 2012 numbers. You have to wonder a little bit about Preston Parker too. He's probably just depth, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him seeing some action in the slot as well. Moore's salary is not prohibitive, but it's also not dirt cheap in the last couple of years. He's scheduled to make almost 4M in 2014. That might be a tempting number for the Saints at that point with most of the signing bonus already accounted for, and likely some decent talent talent available a lot cheaper. Every year, there are guys like Moore - journeymen, slot receivers, solid complementary guys - who just drop off the radar. He's had a nice career, but there is NO guarantee it will keep up for three more years (let along any further than that, which matters to me too). There is no guarantee he will even be viable WR2/3 NEXT year. He'll probably be serviceable in 2013, but that's as far as I'd likely go. What's that worth? Depends on the league.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
Your 4/3 updated rankings are much more reasonable and are a moreactually I explained a lot of stuff in this thread. people didn't agree. it kept going.And getting up in arms about someone using the word "indefensible" when it turns out that's exactly what the ranking turned out to be.
read the moist recent posts - I've debated a lot.
But whatever, I've made a ton of changes post free agency, so carry on.
realistic than your previous rankings.
Tau837
Footballguy
Good post, SSOG, but you don't have to explain consistency to me. The issue with him is what you added parenthetically that I quoted above. I was wrong earlier about his ranking in 2010; in non-PPR ppg, he was ranked #40. In 2010, he had 8 of 16 games with 5.3 points or fewer. He opened the season with 2.3 points and 0 points in the first two games. How many people started him in week 3 for his 26.9 point game? The rest of that season, he averaged 7.2 ppg. In 2011, he ranked #30 in non-PPR ppg and had 8 of 14 games with 5.3 points or less. I doubt many owners felt good about starting him that season. I know I didn't. (Yes, I'm sure someone will say 5.3 points is an arbitrary cutoff; based on his game scores, it was an easy cutoff to group the poor games vs. the games that were acceptable or better.) Last season, he was quite a bit better. He only had 3 games with less than 5 points. The question is whether or not that will be sustained, and for how long. That will dictate whether he remains a quality start for any future season, much less for several years to come. You've made it clear that you think he will be; I disagree.SSOG said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Brandon Stokley was the oldest receiver in the entire NFL. He was going to be 37 this year. Only 12 guys in history have topped 500 receiving yards at age 37 or older, and 5 of them were named Jerry Rice (also: Joiner x2, Owens, Monk, Fryar, Brown, Maynard... a LOT of Hall of Famers on that list). Denver moving on from Stokley is not a huge indictment of Moore's chances of playing another 3 years. In fact, Stokley playing such a big role at 36 is arguably a good sign for Moore's chances of playing another 3 years. Stokley proved that if you have a crafty slot guy catching passes from a first ballot HoFer who absolutely loves him, he can be very effective for a good long time.Holy Schneikes said:
Sounds like we just have a disagreement on Moore's value to the Saints. You see him as a replaceable cog and value him accordingly. I see him as Drew Brees's binky and value him accordingly. Probably just one of those "agree to disagree" moments. I will say, though, that in a world where Brian Hartline is worth $6 mil a year, $3-4 mil for Lance Moore's a pretty good bargain. I doubt the Saints would be able to find a better/cheaper player on the open market, so the only real threat (in my opinion) comes from within the organization or from the draft.
I can see starting Moore being a problem earlier in his career- a lot of people were hesitant to do so, so a lot of people missed his big games (although a lot of people caught on quickly that Moore's production spiked when Bush was out and dropped when Bush was in, which made start/sit decisions easier and made people much more likely to benefit from his big games prior to the last two years). That was back when we didn't really know what Lance Moore was, though. At this point, we know what Lance Moore is- he's a very low-end WR2 or very solid WR3. At this point, I don't think start/sit decisions are very agonizing anymore. Since we all know what Lance Moore is, it's very easy to decide whether to start him or sit him. If you have better options, you sit him. If you don't, you start him. If you've got 3 quality WRs, then Moore is strong depth or a bye-week filler (and one of the best in the league at that, I'll add). If you don't have 3 quality WRs, then Moore is a starter. Even if he has some bad games, that doesn't change the fact that we know what he is and would be likely to keep starting him, anyway. His value has been so cheap for so long that at this point most of his owners are going to be guys who wanted him and understand what he is (i.e. he'll be relatively well sorted), which means I don't think there's really all that much risk of people yo-yoing him in and out of their lineup and missing out on the big games. Especially because all of the other options who will score comparably to Moore are going to be every bit as inconsistent. If you have a more consistent WR than Moore, it's because he's a better/more valuable WR than Moore, and you should be starting him over Moore, anyway.Good post, SSOG, but you don't have to explain consistency to me. The issue with him is what you added parenthetically that I quoted above. I was wrong earlier about his ranking in 2010; in non-PPR ppg, he was ranked #40. In 2010, he had 8 of 16 games with 5.3 points or fewer. He opened the season with 2.3 points and 0 points in the first two games. How many people started him in week 3 for his 26.9 point game? The rest of that season, he averaged 7.2 ppg. In 2011, he ranked #30 in non-PPR ppg and had 8 of 14 games with 5.3 points or less. I doubt many owners felt good about starting him that season. I know I didn't. (Yes, I'm sure someone will say 5.3 points is an arbitrary cutoff; based on his game scores, it was an easy cutoff to group the poor games vs. the games that were acceptable or better.) Last season, he was quite a bit better. He only had 3 games with less than 5 points. The question is whether or not that will be sustained, and for how long. That will dictate whether he remains a quality start for any future season, much less for several years to come. You've made it clear that you think he will be; I disagree.SSOG said:
At the same time, I am absolutely open to the idea that just because *I* feel this way about Moore doesn't mean all his owners feel this way about Moore. Perhaps I'm underrating the degree to which his owners have him on a short leash and are likely to yo-yo him chasing last week's points. Even if I am, though, I think that's more an ownership problem and I wouldn't factor that into my rankings. I wouldn't rank a guy lower just because I didn't think his owners could be trusted to start him consistently.
To add some more context to this Lance Moore discussion... I'm obviously a Lance Moore owner. He used to be my most commonly owned player (maybe tied with Cobb?), although I traded him in a couple of leagues this last season. In my main dynasty (one of the leagues I traded him), he was actually my WR5 (Harvin, Fitzgerald, Cobb, Austin). There was no chance of him seeing the field for me, but I still held on to him, because WR50 valuations were outrageous and I wasn't going to sell him well below market just to sell him. In my estimation, it was more valuable to hold on to an asset that was practically useless to me because I figured the market valuation was so off that it was more likely to rise than fall. And I was right- eventually the market warmed once some WR-needy teams saw what a consistent producer he was, and I was able to trade him for an asset that fit in better with the rest of my squad.
I think there's some of that at play right now, too. Even if you don't want Moore, don't need Moore, or don't trust Moore... I'd say the smart play would be to buy him at WR50 prices and hold him until the midpoint of the season. If he's putting up low-end WR2 numbers again, odds are you can get a lot more for him than what you had to pay for him today. If he's not... well, you could still at least recoup your investment or appreciate the quality depth. In the offseason, people underrate guys like Moore, but once they're faced with the task of actually fielding a starting lineup every week, his points start looking a lot more valuable and the guys who laughed at your Lance Moore for Stephen Hill trade offers start rethinking their positions.
I think there's some of that at play right now, too. Even if you don't want Moore, don't need Moore, or don't trust Moore... I'd say the smart play would be to buy him at WR50 prices and hold him until the midpoint of the season. If he's putting up low-end WR2 numbers again, odds are you can get a lot more for him than what you had to pay for him today. If he's not... well, you could still at least recoup your investment or appreciate the quality depth. In the offseason, people underrate guys like Moore, but once they're faced with the task of actually fielding a starting lineup every week, his points start looking a lot more valuable and the guys who laughed at your Lance Moore for Stephen Hill trade offers start rethinking their positions.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Drew Brees's binky. Love it.
I wasn't really saying Stokely was the same kind of player at the same place in his career. That comparison was really more about the stats. That football outsiders stuff is really cool, but even they admit that it is VERY hard to separate WR performance from QB performance in the metrics. A great QB can make a WR's metrics look great, but that doesn't mean another guy couldn't fill that role and put up great metrics too.
I think you nailed exactly where we differ. I think that if some other reasonably talented slot receiver stepped in for Moore, we'd see about the same level of production. You think either Moore is "special" or the connection he has with Brees is special. I think Brees is special, and he'd find a way to have a good connection with most guys. And in a pinch, when pressed into service when other guys get injured, they could push 1k yards too.
As for the salary, it's not totally outrageous, but it's not insignificant either. You can compare him to Hartline I guess, but Hartline isn't a slot receiver. There is generally a HUGE difference between an outside receiver's deal and a slot guy. Outside guys (good ones anyway) are just more valuable. They are more sought after, they get bigger paychecks, and they are drafted higher. The bottom line reason for that is that they are harder to replace. So Moore's 4M in 2014 might be very reasonable for an outside guy, but for a slot receiver, and the #3 option on the team (Colston, Graham), it's something I really think will be looked at for a guy going into the season at 31.
Yeah, FO is great, but their stats are rubbish for WRs. I brought up Moore's FO stats not to say that Moore was great shakes, but to point out that who he is, in that role, in that offense, is extremely effective and efficient. Lots of other guys might be able to do just as well, but the point is that when you have something as effective as Brees-to-Moore, you're usually not in a hurry to change it. It's working really well, so I expect New Orleans to keep going with it. I don't think the word "special" applies to any aspect of Lance Moore. He's not a special talent, he's not in a special situation. That's not important, though, because anyone with the adjective "special" attached to them will be long gone by the time you get to the latter half of the 30s in the WR rankings. At that point, adjectives like "reliable" and "dependable" start carrying a lot of weight for me. Upside is nice, too, but honestly... by the wr36-40 range, upside is a hell of a lot more common than reliability. I always say that young WRs with upside are the most overrated asset in dynasty. They're so cheap, they're so plentiful, and the majority of them never do anything. There is a much smaller supply of Lance Moores than there is of Stephen Hills or Reuben Randles.Holy Schneikes said:
Similar threads
