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!
How do you determine player value in dynasty leagues? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Biabreakable
- Start date
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I find it interesting and useful what CP and JayMan are talking about in terms of looking at players PPG which simplifies the numbers your dealing with when making long term projections. Then they both have different methods that will modify the current years PPG.
CPs method has a modifier based on the players age that he arrived at from independent study of player performance. He gave an example of a percentage that would be applied to current year PPG based on the players age (mentioned 85% for age 30 for Wr). He then does this for 5 years including the current season.
These numbers are also based on being over free agent player PPG value determined by roster size for the league. So after the PPG for each year is determined he then subtracts the WW value from that total. This PPG value cannot go below zero because if it does that player has no net value in that year and is expected to fall to free agent replacement player value in that year.
So without knowing the percentages applied for each age (hopefully CP will later make this more clear) it may look somthing like this:
WR 26 years old Y1 10 Y2 10 Y3 9.5 Y4 9 Y5 8.5 (-5.5 PPG) = Y1 4.5 Y2 4.5 Y3 4 Y4 3.5 Y5 3 = 19.5
Taking the same player starting at age 31 might look like this (after subtracting WW value):
WR 31 years old Y1 2.5 Y2 2 Y3 1.5 Y4 0 Y5 0 = 6
He mentions discounting the players total value (Sum of all the years?) back to the current season. I am not sure how he does this. If it is an average or what?
At any rate by doing this one can compare 2 Wrs who may have been somewhat close in performance the previous year and have a number a value that you can use to compare thier total/actual values to each other and compared to all other players in the league.
This would be a very usefull tool when trading. You can then compare values of Rbs to Wrs for example and how multi player trades will compare to each other in long term value as well.
I have a number of questions concerning this.
How were the percentages based on age determined?
How do you discount back to the current year?
How usefull is this when the numbers and differences between values are very small? Although I do agree that using PPG does simplify things.
What do people think of this method compared to what you do?
CPs method has a modifier based on the players age that he arrived at from independent study of player performance. He gave an example of a percentage that would be applied to current year PPG based on the players age (mentioned 85% for age 30 for Wr). He then does this for 5 years including the current season.
These numbers are also based on being over free agent player PPG value determined by roster size for the league. So after the PPG for each year is determined he then subtracts the WW value from that total. This PPG value cannot go below zero because if it does that player has no net value in that year and is expected to fall to free agent replacement player value in that year.
So without knowing the percentages applied for each age (hopefully CP will later make this more clear) it may look somthing like this:
WR 26 years old Y1 10 Y2 10 Y3 9.5 Y4 9 Y5 8.5 (-5.5 PPG) = Y1 4.5 Y2 4.5 Y3 4 Y4 3.5 Y5 3 = 19.5
Taking the same player starting at age 31 might look like this (after subtracting WW value):
WR 31 years old Y1 2.5 Y2 2 Y3 1.5 Y4 0 Y5 0 = 6
He mentions discounting the players total value (Sum of all the years?) back to the current season. I am not sure how he does this. If it is an average or what?
At any rate by doing this one can compare 2 Wrs who may have been somewhat close in performance the previous year and have a number a value that you can use to compare thier total/actual values to each other and compared to all other players in the league.
This would be a very usefull tool when trading. You can then compare values of Rbs to Wrs for example and how multi player trades will compare to each other in long term value as well.
I have a number of questions concerning this.
How were the percentages based on age determined?
How do you discount back to the current year?
How usefull is this when the numbers and differences between values are very small? Although I do agree that using PPG does simplify things.
What do people think of this method compared to what you do?
Couch Potato
Footballguy
Biabreakable, I'll see if I can address your questions tomorrow. I should have the time. It's a little after 9 PM here in the west and I'm off to go do other things tonight... 
Warhogs
Footballguy
I don't want to over simplify this but the key in dynasty or any other formats is to accumulate those players that have a chance to be the true "stud" players. I play on a couple of dynasty leagues and have really solid rosters of young players and am a solid but not great team. I can probably stay that way for several years but both teams really need one of those guys to move to the truely elite class if I want to win a title. This may not be so true in leagues with a large amount of teams?
As far as determining player value. The truely elite players are really priceless. After that, I feel the key in getting really good value is to be the best at identifying the best talented players that either have struggled early in their careers or have not been given the opportunity yet.
Another point is that proven veterans are always valuable but if you do not see any way that you will ever be starting them you may as well add a talented young guy that given the opportunity may very well become a great player. Example: teams that had Ladell Betts or MJD did very well in my leagues this year and outperformed expectations by quite a lot.
As far as determining player value. The truely elite players are really priceless. After that, I feel the key in getting really good value is to be the best at identifying the best talented players that either have struggled early in their careers or have not been given the opportunity yet.
Another point is that proven veterans are always valuable but if you do not see any way that you will ever be starting them you may as well add a talented young guy that given the opportunity may very well become a great player. Example: teams that had Ladell Betts or MJD did very well in my leagues this year and outperformed expectations by quite a lot.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I think when trading this is somthing to keep in mind. Thomas Jones for example had a very slow start to his career. There are other players like this especialy at the WR position. You can help your team out greatly by picking up a late bloomer like this for cheap.
Yes this is a big part of why I am asking people how they compare players over several years. Because a backup player like Betts still has a lot of value I think when they get the opportunity to play. This is just one example. There are many players like this. How do you compare these talented players to other players who may not be as good but are in starting situations?I think CP introduced a very good idea that has a baseline for WW player performance. It really doesen't help you to roster a player that is only producing as well as a player who is a free agent in your league. That is unless you expect that player to improve over the free agents at some point.I think this needs to be talked about more.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Slackers 
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I was just thinking about this aspect of player "value" when evaluatiing.I approach this wholisticly every year regardless of the status of my team. I look at where each and every player is by projecting thier worth for the next 3 years. I have not always had time to do it though. I had to skip projecting because of other commitments and I recognise that hurt me. I did much less trading because of this. I then will trade according to my projections/expectations.The situation of your team will definitly change how you trade however. If you think your team is chapionship caliber then you will look to make moves that help you more in the short term. If your team is rebuilding then you might not take a trade that offers value for you if it doesen't fit your rebuilding plan.For example a player like Ahman Green last year. He was more valuable to a team contending last year than he was to a team rebuilding. I do think this can been seen by projecting for the player over the next few years. If a team is working on a 3 year plan for example might place a player like Greens value at close to zero in the 3rd year when he will be 32. A team contending in 2006 would place higher value on him for winning now and him possibly being useful for a couple more years. But that wouldn't have as great a focus for that team as it would a rebuilding team.Part of the problem, IMO, is that there's so many different ways to value players, that there isn't one good answer. Makes for good discussion though. I value players in different leagues differently. Not only because the scoring is different (key BTW), but because I'm probably using different approaches to each league. Different players hold different values to a team contending vs. rebuilding / reloading. In an initial draft, what is your plan? This tends to be overlooked sometimes as people just draft "best player available" with a blind eye to how each player fits their plans. I personally value 2nd and 3rd year players higher than rookies overall, especially in an initial draft. This year for example, if I were to be drafting a new team, the only high profile rookies I'd rank high enough to even have a chance at drafting are Peterson, Lynch and CJ. Most other rookies that will go in the 1st round, tend to go entirely too high. This also goes to the idea of trading later 1st round picks for a young player who has yet to either have his chance (Turner) or has to learn more (Matt Jones, Cutler, Campbell types). Just to illustrate, in one initial draft which included rookies, I didn't draft a rookie until pick #203, where I took Chris Henry. I missed out on a few valuable players, but overall rookies were overvalued. For awhile, I found WRs 28 years or older were really good values. These guys are "unsexy" players, but can fill the core of a successful team. Basically, everyone wants the next big thing and often overlook true value to get it. Doesn't help with your values, but just myI think this oneI was throwing down the gauntlet as it were to challenge people here. I know there are many in the SP who have very good understanding of this as well as having many differing perspectives and ways they approach this animal.Put your
on because this ones going to be good.
ETA: Thankfully, I have yet to go through a complete rebuild, but reloading also changes a player's value.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
^^
geoff8695
Footballguy
Very
It may seem obvious but I think you need to form an overall strategy of how you are going to be able to best acquire players that have a chance to be 'elite'. Jason Stratton wrote a 3-part article (DYNASTY CONTINUES -1, 2, & 3) that can be accessed in the 2003 Articles Archive (Only if you are a paying subscriber though). Jason puts a strong emphasis on acquiring players that have a chance to be studs, and how to best put yourself in a position to do so. It's one of my favorite articles, and any FBG joining a dynasty league for the first time should check it out before drafting.
the_sig
Footballguy
geoff8695 said:VeryIt may seem obvious but I think you need to form an overall strategy of how you are going to be able to best acquire players that have a chance to be 'elite'.
Jason Stratton wrote a 3-part article (DYNASTY CONTINUES -1, 2, & 3) that can be accessed in the 2003 Articles Archive (Only if you are a paying subscriber though). Jason puts a strong emphasis on acquiring players that have a chance to be studs, and how to best put yourself in a position to do so. It's one of my favorite articles, and any FBG joining a dynasty league for the first time should check it out before drafting.
Sounds like an interesting read. I've just joined a new dynasty league after years of redrafting. It appears the archives only go back to 2004 though. Any suggestions on getting this article?
geoff8695
Footballguy
I'm not sure why the 2003 archived articles page isn't as easily accessed as 2004-2006.geoff8695 said:VeryIt may seem obvious but I think you need to form an overall strategy of how you are going to be able to best acquire players that have a chance to be 'elite'.
Jason Stratton wrote a 3-part article (DYNASTY CONTINUES -1, 2, & 3) that can be accessed in the 2003 Articles Archive (Only if you are a paying subscriber though). Jason puts a strong emphasis on acquiring players that have a chance to be studs, and how to best put yourself in a position to do so. It's one of my favorite articles, and any FBG joining a dynasty league for the first time should check it out before drafting.
However, if you go back to the 2004 archived articles page scroll down and you will find the link for 2003 ARCHIVES at the bottom of the page, then you should be able to find the articles pretty easily.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Okay well where is Jason Stratton now?
What were the significant points made in his article about dynasty strategy 4 years ago that can be applied today?
What were the significant points made in his article about dynasty strategy 4 years ago that can be applied today?
wannabee
Footballguy
One thing I do for trying to take advantage of "value" is to try to determine whose value will be going up and whose will go down between now and August. Fot instance, even though Mark Clayton and Joseph Addai have pretty high values now, I see both has having even higher values come August. For Clayton, he really came on late in the year and Mason may want out of town. For Addai, Rhodes is a IFA and will probably be gone. If Addai is the sole ballcarrier come Week 1, his value will be much higher than it is right now.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
In this thread the discussion has been primarily focused on methods of finding players relative value based on thier talent, position strength and age relative to one another. I want to add beto's thread about rookie pick values to this as well:
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=148170
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I would like to see more discussion of methods owners use in determining values of players across the board. So far we have 5 different camps:
1. Win now - places value on players very similarly to redraft value. A players age is only used as a tiebreaker between players that have close value to each other. Weighted projection would be 75/25/5% over 3 years. Recycling talent in following years is done by trading rookie picks for veteran players. Roster space will be allocated to some deep sleeper players that can emerge as starters in following years. But a low value would be placed on players like this.
2. 2 year method- A short term view that uses rankings/projections for the current season and following season. Wieghted projection would be 50/50% split between the current season and the season following. Roster space for developing players would be based on expectations for players in the current/following season.
3. 3 year method- A balanced view that focuses on winning now but still places value on players emerging over the next 2 seasons. Weighted projection could be 33/33/33% or 50/33/17% or other combinations for each season. Roster space for developing players would be based on a 3 year window of expectations. Value for players with only one year of performance diminishing depending on the weighted projection applied
4. 4 year method- A longer view of player performance. I have heard that Bloom and Jeff have been developing a model of ranking based on this. I would be interested to hear more of the details of how it works. *guessing at a weighted projection 25/25/25/25% as one model but it could be somthing more like 35/25/20/20% or 35/25/25/15%. Roster space for developing players would be based on a 4 year window of expectations with a variety of weights that could be assigned over those 4 years.
5. 5 year method- A long view of player performance. Suggested by Couch Potato. Projections are done by applying a curve to current player projections based on age of each specific player. Roster space for developing players would be based on this 5 year curve while applying a waiver wire value on every player that would eliminate players that are below replacement level from being worth rostering.
If anyone wants to elaborate on any of these methods or if they have a different method that they use I will add it to these 5. I'm also curious about elaboration of these 5 methods.
I also think that depending on each specific teams situation that using method 1-5 might be employed moreso than the others. For example a team with a strong roster that is close to a championship but that normaly uses the 3 year model for example might shift to more of a win now model in the short term while trying to win a championship. Then after the season is over they may go back to the 3 year model of developing thier roster. A team that is in rebuilding mode might use a 4 or 5 year model more than the others while in the process of rebuilding. Then once more talent on thier roster is obtained they might change to a 2 year or win now model.
Some observations from peoples comments so far:
Regardless of strategy it seems that all 5 camps place a greater value on QBs than they do in redraft leagues. Everyone seems to be in agreement that QBBC is less effective in dynasty formats and having a elite QB is a priority to long term success.
WRs have more long term value than RBs do. They also take more paitence in developing in thier early years. How does a win now strategy roster WRs that will develop consistently for them? The only way I see is through trade. And this gives the other philosophies an advantage over a win now strategy I think. Although the win now strategy can buy low on older WRs as they are losing value from the longer thinking strategies.
I have a similar discussion on IDP players that mirrors this one here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=299027 I am curious about what strategies people might apply in IDP leagues. Especialy how they compare individual defensive players to skill position players using these various models.
I think the waiver wire replacement value is an important idea that can be applied to each specific league. It is definitly effected somewhat by what model you are using 1-5 as players gain more value the longer you are projecting them out in years.
1. Win now - places value on players very similarly to redraft value. A players age is only used as a tiebreaker between players that have close value to each other. Weighted projection would be 75/25/5% over 3 years. Recycling talent in following years is done by trading rookie picks for veteran players. Roster space will be allocated to some deep sleeper players that can emerge as starters in following years. But a low value would be placed on players like this.
2. 2 year method- A short term view that uses rankings/projections for the current season and following season. Wieghted projection would be 50/50% split between the current season and the season following. Roster space for developing players would be based on expectations for players in the current/following season.
3. 3 year method- A balanced view that focuses on winning now but still places value on players emerging over the next 2 seasons. Weighted projection could be 33/33/33% or 50/33/17% or other combinations for each season. Roster space for developing players would be based on a 3 year window of expectations. Value for players with only one year of performance diminishing depending on the weighted projection applied
4. 4 year method- A longer view of player performance. I have heard that Bloom and Jeff have been developing a model of ranking based on this. I would be interested to hear more of the details of how it works. *guessing at a weighted projection 25/25/25/25% as one model but it could be somthing more like 35/25/20/20% or 35/25/25/15%. Roster space for developing players would be based on a 4 year window of expectations with a variety of weights that could be assigned over those 4 years.
5. 5 year method- A long view of player performance. Suggested by Couch Potato. Projections are done by applying a curve to current player projections based on age of each specific player. Roster space for developing players would be based on this 5 year curve while applying a waiver wire value on every player that would eliminate players that are below replacement level from being worth rostering.
If anyone wants to elaborate on any of these methods or if they have a different method that they use I will add it to these 5. I'm also curious about elaboration of these 5 methods.
I also think that depending on each specific teams situation that using method 1-5 might be employed moreso than the others. For example a team with a strong roster that is close to a championship but that normaly uses the 3 year model for example might shift to more of a win now model in the short term while trying to win a championship. Then after the season is over they may go back to the 3 year model of developing thier roster. A team that is in rebuilding mode might use a 4 or 5 year model more than the others while in the process of rebuilding. Then once more talent on thier roster is obtained they might change to a 2 year or win now model.
Some observations from peoples comments so far:
Regardless of strategy it seems that all 5 camps place a greater value on QBs than they do in redraft leagues. Everyone seems to be in agreement that QBBC is less effective in dynasty formats and having a elite QB is a priority to long term success.
WRs have more long term value than RBs do. They also take more paitence in developing in thier early years. How does a win now strategy roster WRs that will develop consistently for them? The only way I see is through trade. And this gives the other philosophies an advantage over a win now strategy I think. Although the win now strategy can buy low on older WRs as they are losing value from the longer thinking strategies.
I have a similar discussion on IDP players that mirrors this one here: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=299027 I am curious about what strategies people might apply in IDP leagues. Especialy how they compare individual defensive players to skill position players using these various models.
I think the waiver wire replacement value is an important idea that can be applied to each specific league. It is definitly effected somewhat by what model you are using 1-5 as players gain more value the longer you are projecting them out in years.
Just a note about valuation of RBs (compared to other positions). Of course, it depends substantially on the format of the league (# of teams, scoring rules, # of starters, how many RB starters, roster size, etc.). And the value of RBs drops in (1) ppr leagues, (2) leagues that only require 1 RB starter (with various flex arrangements), and (3) other features of leagues that tend to increase the value of other positions and reduce the value of RBs (2 ppr for TEs and 0 ppr for RBs, or leagues that require 2 QB starters).But in most leagues, relative scarcity and demand/supply considerations make RBs the most scarce resource, and featured backs and young RBs are like gold. RBs also have the shortest "life span" of all players. As everyone knows, all of these factors increase the value of RBs over players at other positions.
I posted this in another thread, but I think it's related to valuation of RBs in dynasty leagues. The key issues are (1) high uncertainty and unpredictability of RBs, (2) the small % of drafted RBs (in NFL draft) that become featured backs, and (3) the high "failure rate" of RBs from year to year due to injuries and other factors (failure rate being the opposite of longevity).As noted in earlier posts, player valuation in dynasty leagues should include consideration of both the production curve and life spans of players at each position. I guess I'm arguing that, to be most useful for dynasty purposes, the production curve and career trajectory pattern for RBs need to be pretty sophisticated and should take many of these factors into account.But for a specific RB, the high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability over a 2-year, 3-year or 5-year time horizon leads to low accuracy in projected valuations (for a specific player). IMO, the only way to combat this fact is to rely on larger numbers and hope that some combination of current studs (and solid players) and longshots will provide depth in the RB position over several dynasty years.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Good info Driver in regards to RBs and what realisticly to expect from them in terms of thier longevity and ability to perform at a high level over time. I recognise you used the data dominator for this information. It would be nice to see a full blown study on RBs over the past 2 or 3 decades that would show the exact chance a RB has of lasting 5 years as a starter or longer. And that would also show the exact chance a RB has of being a top 12 performer and for how long. There are only a few players who achieve this and even fewer that can maintain it for as long as even 3 years much less 5 years.
The rest of the RBs are shuffling in and out of top 12 (RB1) seasons and top 24(RB2 seasons) with some bumps in thier careers that drop them out of being starting caliber altogether. Sometimes they return to being productive again sometimes not.
Many of us allready know this intuitivly. EBF for example has been this point for years. It would be great to have a difinitive study on this and make it clear once and for all and that information could then be applied to how we create projections/rankings even better.
Now some comments on specific portions of your post:
I do not think that the limited lifespan as you put it of a RB makes RBs more valuable. It makes them less valuable when you are applying a longer term view of them for example the 3-5 year model as long as those models are taking this into account. The main thing driving the 2 year model is that RBs do not last long. In fact that example given in this thread was RB specific while the user of that model projects further for other postions as they recognise other positions as being more stable.
I am totaly with you in the only way to mitigate ones risk with RBs is to roster many of them. Backup RBs have a lot of value even when they are not producing because of thier chance to quickly become a productive player for you. Some owners focus on handcuffing to try to corner specific teams RBs in order to maintain some continuity from the position. Others will use a mix of starters, members of RBBCs and backups to hopefully be able to always field good production from the position.
The high turnover rate at the RB position forces dynasty owners to be constantly recycling players at the position. Where at other positions they can have some stability for many years in a row without adding many new players to thier roster. The high failure rate and constant recycling leads to using a large chunk of a teams roster and renewable resources (draft picks/trades) just trying to maintain strength at the position.
From a rebuilding strategy it seems most wise to me to focus on other positions that have some continuity before shifting the focus of resources to the RB position.
I wonder if someone will do a conclusive study of the "life span" of RBs? This would be a great tool for everyone and such a study is long overdue I think.
The rest of the RBs are shuffling in and out of top 12 (RB1) seasons and top 24(RB2 seasons) with some bumps in thier careers that drop them out of being starting caliber altogether. Sometimes they return to being productive again sometimes not.
Many of us allready know this intuitivly. EBF for example has been
this point for years. It would be great to have a difinitive study on this and make it clear once and for all and that information could then be applied to how we create projections/rankings even better.Now some comments on specific portions of your post:
I do not think that the limited lifespan as you put it of a RB makes RBs more valuable. It makes them less valuable when you are applying a longer term view of them for example the 3-5 year model as long as those models are taking this into account. The main thing driving the 2 year model is that RBs do not last long. In fact that example given in this thread was RB specific while the user of that model projects further for other postions as they recognise other positions as being more stable.
I am totaly with you in the only way to mitigate ones risk with RBs is to roster many of them. Backup RBs have a lot of value even when they are not producing because of thier chance to quickly become a productive player for you. Some owners focus on handcuffing to try to corner specific teams RBs in order to maintain some continuity from the position. Others will use a mix of starters, members of RBBCs and backups to hopefully be able to always field good production from the position.
The high turnover rate at the RB position forces dynasty owners to be constantly recycling players at the position. Where at other positions they can have some stability for many years in a row without adding many new players to thier roster. The high failure rate and constant recycling leads to using a large chunk of a teams roster and renewable resources (draft picks/trades) just trying to maintain strength at the position.
From a rebuilding strategy it seems most wise to me to focus on other positions that have some continuity before shifting the focus of resources to the RB position.
I wonder if someone will do a conclusive study of the "life span" of RBs? This would be a great tool for everyone and such a study is long overdue I think.
wannabee
Footballguy
Jeff Pasquino has the stats done by an Univesity on career lengths per position, if that helps. Might PM for the length.Good info Driver in regards to RBs and what realisticly to expect from them in terms of thier longevity and ability to perform at a high level over time. I recognise you used the data dominator for this information. It would be nice to see a full blown study on RBs over the past 2 or 3 decades that would show the exact chance a RB has of lasting 5 years as a starter or longer. And that would also show the exact chance a RB has of being a top 12 performer and for how long. There are only a few players who achieve this and even fewer that can maintain it for as long as even 3 years much less 5 years.The rest of the RBs are shuffling in and out of top 12 (RB1) seasons and top 24(RB2 seasons) with some bumps in thier careers that drop them out of being starting caliber altogether. Sometimes they return to being productive again sometimes not.Many of us allready know this intuitivly. EBF for example has beenthis point for years. It would be great to have a difinitive study on this and make it clear once and for all and that information could then be applied to how we create projections/rankings even better.Now some comments on specific portions of your post:I do not think that the limited lifespan as you put it of a RB makes RBs more valuable. It makes them less valuable when you are applying a longer term view of them for example the 3-5 year model as long as those models are taking this into account. The main thing driving the 2 year model is that RBs do not last long. In fact that example given in this thread was RB specific while the user of that model projects further for other postions as they recognise other positions as being more stable.I am totaly with you in the only way to mitigate ones risk with RBs is to roster many of them. Backup RBs have a lot of value even when they are not producing because of thier chance to quickly become a productive player for you. Some owners focus on handcuffing to try to corner specific teams RBs in order to maintain some continuity from the position. Others will use a mix of starters, members of RBBCs and backups to hopefully be able to always field good production from the position.The high turnover rate at the RB position forces dynasty owners to be constantly recycling players at the position. Where at other positions they can have some stability for many years in a row without adding many new players to thier roster. The high failure rate and constant recycling leads to using a large chunk of a teams roster and renewable resources (draft picks/trades) just trying to maintain strength at the position.From a rebuilding strategy it seems most wise to me to focus on other positions that have some continuity before shifting the focus of resources to the RB position.I wonder if someone will do a conclusive study of the "life span" of RBs? This would be a great tool for everyone and such a study is long overdue I think.
Fear & Loathing
Footballguy
I did a study like this about 5 years ago, but I think there is some danger of outdatedness considering the advancements in fitness and health over the past 10-15 years. It was unheard of for RBs to have career years after age 29, and then along come Priest Holmes & Tiki Barber...and I believe Faulk was still putting up elite numbers at age 29.I don't have the study in front of me, but what I found from considering all RBs from 1960 on was that the majority of RBs had their career years from 24-26, which could be somewhat extended to 23-27. Age 28 was definitely the cutoff point for a drop in production. Running backs over 30 were basically useless.Again, most of the RBs in this study played years ago, so I believe you have to adjust for modern medicine and fitness. You can't rule out RBs over 30 anymore, but you should certainly keep in mind the pattern of usage throughout the player's career.One thing I found interesting about the study was the players who were still useful after age 30 (with Walter Payton as an outlier). Before this generation they were all bigger backs, and with the exception of John Riggins, they were mostly used as role players with the bulk of their value being the ability to get in the endzone. Pre-21st century examples would be Marcus Allen, Gerald Riggs & Ottis Anderson. More recently we've seen Lamar Smith in MIA, Emmitt Smith's last year in ARI, Jerome Bettis in PIT, Stephen Davis in CAR and Corey Dillon's last 2 years in NE. If the data is in fact still valid, I think it could tell us a lot about what to expect from Shaun Alexander. I think it would have predicted the dramatic fall-off in the passing game to the point of being virtually useless. It would have also predicted a significant drop-off in YPC, which happened in '06...though there were other factors involved there as well with the foot injury and the O-Line's relative troubles. I think it would also tell us not to expect another season over 1250 yards rushing. But there's no reason whatsoever to believe Alexander will stop putting the ball in the endzone.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
The problem I have with average career length data is that every player is unique and must be evaluated accordingly. Average career length statistics do not apply to LaDainian Tomlinson. He is far more talented than the average RB, he has a perfect build for the position, and his running style does not expose him to very many big hits. Telling me that the average RB has a career length of 4.5 years does nothing to help me predict how long LT will be around.
Great players have great careers. Guys like Harrison, Manning, Faulk, Tomlinson, Gonzalez, and Holt sustain their production because they're great talents whose success is only moderately contingent upon situational factors. If you want a guy with lasting value then your best bet is to take the best player.
That said, I'm reluctant to look beyond 2-3 years for most RBs. I really don't expect guys like Larry Johnson and Steven Jackson to have long careers. They're too big and they take too many hits.
Great players have great careers. Guys like Harrison, Manning, Faulk, Tomlinson, Gonzalez, and Holt sustain their production because they're great talents whose success is only moderately contingent upon situational factors. If you want a guy with lasting value then your best bet is to take the best player.
That said, I'm reluctant to look beyond 2-3 years for most RBs. I really don't expect guys like Larry Johnson and Steven Jackson to have long careers. They're too big and they take too many hits.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
The type of study that I think needs to be done is one that looks at all the RBs and can show the likelyhood by a percentage of a RB to have a top 12 season for Xnumber of years as a reality check.
I am thinking a pyramid here where LT Edge Faulk and Emmit would be outliers at the top of the pyramid and one year wonders would be at the bottom of it. Could extend this out to top 24 seasons or maybe just have a baseline performance of 1100 yards + 6TD season.
Still kicking the idea around. I know the data is out there and this can be done.
I mainly just want to answer the question of what people should realisticly expect when projecting a RBs career over several years moving forward.
I am thinking a pyramid here where LT Edge Faulk and Emmit would be outliers at the top of the pyramid and one year wonders would be at the bottom of it. Could extend this out to top 24 seasons or maybe just have a baseline performance of 1100 yards + 6TD season.
Still kicking the idea around. I know the data is out there and this can be done.
I mainly just want to answer the question of what people should realisticly expect when projecting a RBs career over several years moving forward.
EBF
Footballguy
I think what's helpful is to look at the age where the great players typically show a severe decline. If 95% of the top WRs in the NFL cease being productive after age 35, then I'm going to assume that 35-x (where x = the player's current age) is the best case scenario for his remaining shelf life.
I generally expect a great WR to be productive up until his mid 30s.
I generally expect a great QB to be productive up until his mid 30s.
I generally expect a great RB to be productive up until about age 30-31, although RB is the one position where I also give strong consideration to playing style and build. I don't expect power runners and oversized runners to last as long as the elusive smaller guys.
I generally expect a great WR to be productive up until his mid 30s.
I generally expect a great QB to be productive up until his mid 30s.
I generally expect a great RB to be productive up until about age 30-31, although RB is the one position where I also give strong consideration to playing style and build. I don't expect power runners and oversized runners to last as long as the elusive smaller guys.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I agree that while doing this study and building the pyramid we should track the players age and perhaps also the round the player was drafted in the NFL. Perhaps size is somthing to consider too.Fear and Loathing pointed out in the post above that it was suprisingly bigger RBs that continued having more productive FF seasons later in thier careers due to thier ability to continue scoring TDs even after thier ability to compile a lot of yards diminshed. Using Otis Anderson and Riggins as a couple examples. His study was pre 2000 however I think and we have seen players like Dunn Tiki and Curtis Martin break the 30 year barrier recently since then and they have a different body type and running style than players like Anderson and Riggins.
I think this predictor has a lot of merit when evaluating talent vs opportunity. Guys like Harrison and Owens are starting to hit that level now, where even last year they would be great dynasty selections, depending on team makeup.Will post general thoughts a little later (great thread - have been trying to keep up with this, just haven't had the time to provide a detailed response at this point).
When I first started dynasty, I was probably a mesh of win-now and 3-year plan. I found that worked pretty well in the short-term, and for RBs, but not as well for the WRs and QBs as 1) they took longer to hit peak value and 2) they held peak value for a longer period.At this point, I'd probably say that I'm a mesh of now/3-year for RBs and now/5-year for QB/WR. The biggest evaluating point in all situations though is talent vs opportunity; the better talent will get opportunity at some point in the future, whether from injury/age or changing teams.
In initial drafts, I always draft for talent the first few rounds; I considered Bush to be a top 5 dynasty pick last year (especially in PPR, slightly lower in non-PPR) even though it appeared he would share time with Deuce. Depending on the mix of players after that point, I start looking to fill holes for that particular team. For example, I had one particular dynasty league I drafted for last year (12-teamer) in which I started out Barber/McGahee/Lewis, while other teams went with the younger talent (combined rookie/vet draft). With respect to this, I figured that my window for competing would be shorter, so the WRs I looked at, while not ignoring the tiers of talent, were more along the lines of Hines Ward than Lee Evans. You still look at picking talent though especially as the draft goes on; I did manage to end up with MJD, Brandon Marshall, and Jason Campbell in later rounds, but the crux of the team was built for the next couple of years.
Unless totally rebuilding (ie no chance for the next 3 years or so), winning now should always be looked at when making moves; the goal is still to win championships, you just can't ignore the future aspect as well. Once it looks like the current year is out-of-hand, evaluating worthiness for the next year comes into effect.This is the importance of having extra talent on your bench. It either becomes tradeable to the teams in the lower tier with the aging star that can help you win now, or as replacement players due to injury or retirement. Depending on how the season looks to be breaking, trading these players and picks in future years can send you over the top.
Drafting an elite QB can definitely have its advantages. Taking Manning around the 1st/2nd turn can provide a lot of stability and the option of sloughing QB for quite a while. Again this is due to the longevity of players at the position - even Manning at 30 should have 4-7 highly effective years left. QBBC can work, but you have to hit the right combination (my combo drafted in the league mentioned earlier was Vick/Bledsoe, and a near disaster when the playoffs rolled around).
These are good points; the key in my opinion is to try and roster WRs for each of the levels; having a combination of something like Harrison/Burress/Evans/Mark Clayton/Vincent Jackson after an initial dynasty draft last year can pay off on all levels. The effort always becomes catching the right set (versus say RMoss/Chambers/Matt Jones/Michael Clayton/Drew Carter), and restocking after the initial point.Reloading is always difficult, especially on the fly. If you were looking long-term (and had the foresight to draft the right players) it might make sense to go with a 3-4 year plan, drafting QBs and WRs in the early years and RBs later so that you hit peaks for QBs and WRS at about years 4-7 and RBs years 3-5. The difficulty with this tactic becomes that as the QBs and WRs mature, they drive a team's record closer to low playoff team, preventing you from getting that AD or Lynch level RB. Additionally, trading for that older WR with a couple of years left is always much easier than a corresponding RB; how much did Harrison cost about mid-year versus Barber (ie before the retirement announcement)?
Depending on league scoring, IDPs in my opinion are more replaceable except at the truly elite level. I use tiering for these players, and for the most part will not select them until after building most of my starting lineup and a few backups, unless the tier has been nearly cleaned out. Given a fairly standard lineup of each (and I know that can vary), probably around Round 8-10 in a mixed draft, depending on what is occuring. Personally, I usually can target a couple of LBs that will be good value, and try to draft DL/DB earlier than most. Again, this will vary and depends on the flow of the draft; don't completely ignore a position and get shut out, but don't be afraid to slough one place to get better value at another.
The WW is important for all teams; grabbing that guy that has been a little less noticed before he explodes can help those at the top stay at the top. Think guys like Jerricho Cotchery, Vincent Jackson, and even Mike Furrey (again league specific - I realize there are leagues that are deeper than others). Potential candidates this year might be guys like Brandon Jones, Demetrius Williams, and Brandon Williams. Even if one of the guys you stick on your bench pans out, that's a victory.Anyway, sorry for the length. This is a great topic and I hope there will be more discussion on these points.
EBF
Footballguy
I agree with all your points. IMO, the RB study should include both (1) a model of "survivorship" and (2) a model of "expected production" based on age, # years experience, prior workload, injury history, and other relevant factors.An expected production curve is very important, but I think the issue of survivorship is equally important and usually less emphasized. Every year there are about 150 RBs on NFL teams. Of these, slightly more than 50% are 25 years old or younger. But a 25 year old RB has only a 30% probability of still being active 5 years later at age 30. A 27 year old RB only has a 17% chance of still being active 5 years later at age 32.Some RBs like Holmes and Barber are late bloomers and post a series of solid years in their late 20s and early 30s, but they are definite exceptions. Of the 150 RBs each year, only about 3% are studs, 5% post 1,000 yards rushing, and maybe 12-15% would be considered good RBs to have on your FF roster. Most of these solid RBs are under age 28 and about half are age 25 or younger. In a dynasty format where you're concerned with continued production over several years, the issues of age and survivorship are much more important.For example, I was struck by some of the picks that have been made in the dynasty draft that is being discussed in another thread. Unless you have only a 1-2 year time horizon, I can't imagine taking Alexander at 1.09 when Addai was on the board. Also taking Westbrook at 1.04 when Gore and all RBs except LT, LJ and SJAX are available. I may be off base, but I definitely would have made different selections based on age concerns, injury history, prior workloads, # of productive years left in career, and expected production over a 3-5 year time horizon.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Adding some thoughts from this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...02992&st=50 that is discussing strategy of drafting in initial dynasty leagues. The post that I am responding to is talking about trading down in a start up dynasty league while gaining an additional rookie pick in the following year. This brings up trading value systems of buy low/sell high combined with trading quantity for quality. I think that most people think trading quantity for quality is somthing you should almost always look to do. However I contend that in dynasty leagues that is much less the case when you are taking a longer term view of player values.
For example lets say I have a player who will score like this using 3 year model:
Player A Y1 200pts Y2 210pts Y3 150pts
Now lets say I can trade that player for 2 players who will score like this using 3 year model:
Player B Y1 120pts Y2 160pts Y3 170pts
Player C Y1 70pts Y2 150pts Y3 165pts
In year one player A outscores both player B and C so that is a win for player A right? In year 2 player A still outscores player B and C although combined player B and C outscore player A by 100pts. Some will still prefer to have player A because that player outscores either player B or C although it becomes more questionable which side of the deal is more valuable. In year 3 both players are outscoring player A however so even owners who go strictly by trade quantity for quality will prefer the player B and C side of the deal in year 3.
The way that I play dynasty I consider every player I have to be tradable. So while I may recognise the value of player A in helping me win a championship in Y1 and Y2 I do have to consider the overall value of trading quality for quantity and balance that with how I project the players involved over time. This may lead me to trade quality for quantity when I expect the value of of the 2 players to grow and outpace the quality player I have now.
When making such a evaluation it is important to consider the replacement level value of the players concerned as well however. The owner who is trading 2 players for one will free up a roster slot that can be used to pick up a free agent. So the player value comparison may look somthing more like this:
Player A Y1 200pts Y2 210pts Y3 150pts
Player R Y1 60pts Y2 60pts Y3 60pts
Now lets say I can trade that player for 2 players who will score like this using 3 year model:
Player B Y1 120pts Y2 160pts Y3 170pts
Player C Y1 70pts Y2 150pts Y3 165pts
Now for the discussion in the other thread that is related to this:
Reasoning works like this. Most people will tell you that when trading you want to get the best player in the deal. So trading quantity for quality is a trade you should be looking to do. However in dynasty you can aproach player value based on players gaining value over time like a stock. And high priced players may lose value over time like a stock as well. Sell high/buy low. By making a trade down in picks you can trade a high value pick for 2 or more lower value picks but then use those picks on players that will gain value to possibly match the value of the player/pick you traded them for. You end up ahead with 2 similarly valuable players for one as long as you have some paitence and the players you select with those picks do not end up busting.
You take on some additional risk perhaps but all players have risks. It really just depends on which players you select later and how they develop to determine who ends up winning such a trade. You having 2 picks for one can mitigate the risk of bust/low performance somewhat also because you have slightly better odds of at least one of those 2 players panning out than you have with just one player. Personaly I prefer to diversify my assets. If things do not go well for you in year one then you increase the value of your own rookie picks in 2008 as well while your other player values are maturing.
The key to me with this type of strategy is to draft players that are able to grow. As long as you do that then you increase your chances of the trade eventualy evening out in value with some chance to outgain what you gave up as well.
One other benifit you get by aquiring additional rookie picks is in terms of roster management. You have a limited number of roster slots available based on your league rules. I consider rookie picks to be like additional roster slots for your team. So by having more than your normal ammount of rookie picks increases the total usable assets you have available to you. While some teams may have 40 roster slots + 5 rookie picks on average (or whatever the number may be) you can add value to your total roster by having 40 + 7 rookie picks (or whatever the number may be) and you have more usable resources available than other teams by doing this. This adds more value to your total roster management when you consider that rookie picks are always usable commodities that can be traded and the roster slots free'd up by trading can be filled with other player prospects that you would not be able to roster otherwise.
For example lets say I have a player who will score like this using 3 year model:
Player A Y1 200pts Y2 210pts Y3 150pts
Now lets say I can trade that player for 2 players who will score like this using 3 year model:
Player B Y1 120pts Y2 160pts Y3 170pts
Player C Y1 70pts Y2 150pts Y3 165pts
In year one player A outscores both player B and C so that is a win for player A right? In year 2 player A still outscores player B and C although combined player B and C outscore player A by 100pts. Some will still prefer to have player A because that player outscores either player B or C although it becomes more questionable which side of the deal is more valuable. In year 3 both players are outscoring player A however so even owners who go strictly by trade quantity for quality will prefer the player B and C side of the deal in year 3.
The way that I play dynasty I consider every player I have to be tradable. So while I may recognise the value of player A in helping me win a championship in Y1 and Y2 I do have to consider the overall value of trading quality for quantity and balance that with how I project the players involved over time. This may lead me to trade quality for quantity when I expect the value of of the 2 players to grow and outpace the quality player I have now.
When making such a evaluation it is important to consider the replacement level value of the players concerned as well however. The owner who is trading 2 players for one will free up a roster slot that can be used to pick up a free agent. So the player value comparison may look somthing more like this:
Player A Y1 200pts Y2 210pts Y3 150pts
Player R Y1 60pts Y2 60pts Y3 60pts
Now lets say I can trade that player for 2 players who will score like this using 3 year model:
Player B Y1 120pts Y2 160pts Y3 170pts
Player C Y1 70pts Y2 150pts Y3 165pts
Now for the discussion in the other thread that is related to this:
It is a very workable plan and I do not consider it to be a mistake at all. You netted an extra pick in this trade by gaining an extra 1st round rookie pick in 2008. That pick will not help you in the 2007 season unless you later trade it for a player that helps you in 2007 but that pick still has value. How much value the pick has depends on the number of teams and where that pick ends up being slotted. However I am a proponent of making trades that give me more picks in Dynasty. I discussed this some in the recent FBG 16 team dynasty draft thread.I've been trying to follow this thread since I'm also a newcomer to the dynasty format. Been interested in it for years, but was hesitant to do it on-line, and had no real life opportunities.I'm the "sucker" who made this trade with Johnny, but had surprisingly similar reasoning.
I've had tremendous success in redraft leagues year after year, finishing in the playoffs 90% of the time. Even in the best and most competitive leagues, there's ALWAYS a few players hanging out in the 5-7th rounds that I can't believe are still there and I think will post round 3-4 type numbers. Dropping from mid fourth to mid sixth round is no big deal to me.
Where I am concerned is that I have always avoided rookies, and generally avoided year 2 players, so I've NEVER really tried my hand at evaluating rookie talent.
My thought was to try to parlay my extra first, and my own first, from next years rookie draft to also move up in this years draft, but I am targetting trying to convert round 10-14 picks into round 6-7 picks. I figured if it doesn't work, I still lost little to nothing this year, and get to practice my "rookie evaluations" a little extra next year.
For the dynasty vets out there, is this an unworkable plan or a giant mistake?
Reasoning works like this. Most people will tell you that when trading you want to get the best player in the deal. So trading quantity for quality is a trade you should be looking to do. However in dynasty you can aproach player value based on players gaining value over time like a stock. And high priced players may lose value over time like a stock as well. Sell high/buy low. By making a trade down in picks you can trade a high value pick for 2 or more lower value picks but then use those picks on players that will gain value to possibly match the value of the player/pick you traded them for. You end up ahead with 2 similarly valuable players for one as long as you have some paitence and the players you select with those picks do not end up busting.
You take on some additional risk perhaps but all players have risks. It really just depends on which players you select later and how they develop to determine who ends up winning such a trade. You having 2 picks for one can mitigate the risk of bust/low performance somewhat also because you have slightly better odds of at least one of those 2 players panning out than you have with just one player. Personaly I prefer to diversify my assets. If things do not go well for you in year one then you increase the value of your own rookie picks in 2008 as well while your other player values are maturing.
The key to me with this type of strategy is to draft players that are able to grow. As long as you do that then you increase your chances of the trade eventualy evening out in value with some chance to outgain what you gave up as well.
One other benifit you get by aquiring additional rookie picks is in terms of roster management. You have a limited number of roster slots available based on your league rules. I consider rookie picks to be like additional roster slots for your team. So by having more than your normal ammount of rookie picks increases the total usable assets you have available to you. While some teams may have 40 roster slots + 5 rookie picks on average (or whatever the number may be) you can add value to your total roster by having 40 + 7 rookie picks (or whatever the number may be) and you have more usable resources available than other teams by doing this. This adds more value to your total roster management when you consider that rookie picks are always usable commodities that can be traded and the roster slots free'd up by trading can be filled with other player prospects that you would not be able to roster otherwise.
With respect to longevity and performance of RBs, this was posted in another thread. Below is a list of RBs who were drafted in the 1st round since 1993.
I added RB ranking for each year of career -- Hearst finished RB79 as a rookie, RB23 in 2nd year, RB31 in 3rd year, .... Bettis finished RB2 as rookie, RB13 in 2nd year, etc.
As shown below, this data permits calculation of "success rate" (of 1st round RB picks) by year of career -- the proportion of 1st round RBs who finished in the top-5, top-10, etc.
1993
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 3 Garrison Hearst RB Georgia [79 - 23 - 31 - 17 - 5 - XX - XX - 12 - 20 - 29 - 100]
1 10 Jerome Bettis RB Notre Dame [2 - 13 - 41 - 7 - 4 - 20 - 16 - 19 - 21 - 31 - 26 - 18 - 36]
1 21 Robert Smith RB Ohio State [56 - 81 - 39 - 39 - 11 - 12 - 23 - 7]
1994
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Marshall Faulk RB San Diego State [4 - 6 - 17 - 7 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 14 - 16 - 29 - 53]
1 25 Greg Hill RB Texas A&M [46 - 43 - 32 - 50 - 59 - 43]
1995
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 1 Ki-Jana Carter RB Penn State [34 - 35 - 131 - 117 - XX - 54 - XX - 105]
1 17 Tyrone Wheatley RB Michigan [64 - 54 - 37 - 124 - 13 - 21 - 52 - 51 - 35 - 49]
1 18 Napoleon Kaufman RB Washington [50 - 28 - 5 - 25 - 30 - 43]
1 19 James Stewart RB Tennessee [42 - 16 - 22 - 62 - 12 - 14 - 31 - 22]
1 21 Rashaan Salaam RB Colorado [16 - 45 - 106]
1996
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 6 Lawrence Phillips RB Nebraska [38 - 28 - XX - 72]
1 8 Tim Biakabutuka RB Michigan [92 - 73 - 36 - 26 - 27 - 67]
1 14 Eddie George RB Ohio State [8 - 12 - 11 - 3 - 3 - 19 - 10 - 22 - 41]
1997
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 12 Warrick Dunn RB Florida State [13 - 19 - 21 - 15 - 23 - 19 - 27 - 15 - 12 - 24] ***
1 23 Antowain Smith RB Houston [19 - 16 - 31 - 45 - 9 - 23 - 39 - 38 - 40]
1998
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Curtis Enis RB Penn State [54 - 18 - 87]
1 9 Fred Taylor RB Florida [4 - 28 - 6 - 103 - 11 - 8 - 20 - 33 - 18] ***
1 18 Robert Edwards RB Georgia [8 - XX - XX - XX - 69]
1 29 John Avery RB Mississippi [41 - 132 - XX - XX - XX - 120]
1999
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Edgerrin James RB Miami [1 - 2 - 32 - 24 - 10 - 6 - 5 - 20] ***
1 5 Ricky Williams RB Texas [27 - 18 - 8 - 2 - 9 - XX - 27 - XX] ***
2000
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Jamal Lewis RB Tennessee [16 - XX - 12 - 4 - 25 - 25 - 16] ***
1 7 Thomas Jones RB Virginia [42 - 42 - 45 - 38 - 19 - 9 - 21] ***
1 11 Ron Dayne RB Wisconsin [29 - 27 - 48 - XX - 25 - 35 - 99] ***
1 19 Shaun Alexander RB Alabama [54 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 1 - 1 - 28] ***
1 31 Trung Canidate RB Arizona [142 - 35 - 116 - 42]
2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson RB Texas Christian [7 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 1] ***
1 23 Deuce McAllister RB Mississippi [63 - 6 - 7 - 17 - 54 - 13] ***
1 27 Michael Bennett RB Wisconsin [29 - 17 - 48 - 54 - 39 - 77] ***
2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 16 William Green RB Boston College [27 - 47 - 40 - 107 - XX]
1 18 T.J. Duckett RB Michigan State [42 - 21 - 36 - 37 - 79] ***
2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 23 Willis McGahee RB Miami [XX - 9 - 13 - 26] ***
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State [104 - 26 - 2 - 2] ***
2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 24 Steven Jackson RB Oregon State [38 - 11 - 3] ***
1 26 Chris Perry RB Michigan [149 - 45 - 109] ***
1 30 Kevin Jones RB Virginia Tech [21 - 31 - 23] ***
2005
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn [23 - 25] ***
1 4 Cedric Benson RB Texas [86 - 38] ***
1 5 Carnell Williams RB Auburn [19 - 39] ***
2006
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Reggie Bush RB Southern California [17] ***
1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota [29] ***
1 27 DeAngelo Williams RB Memphis [41] ***
1 30 Joseph Addai RB Louisiana State [11] ***
XX = player was injured and did not play that year.
*** = still active
Summary of results by year of career (for all 1st round draft picks since 1993).
For example, as shown below, 48.8% of all rookie RBs drafted in the 1st round finished in the top-35 of RBs during their rookie season. Of all RBs drafted 1st round, 26.7% of them finished in the top-35 of RBs in their 10th season.
Regarding stud-like productivity, more than a few rookies finished in the top-5 (9.3% of all 1st round rookies). Years 4 and 5 were the best for top-5 performance with 15.2% and 16.1%, respectively.
Overall, the top-24 RB "success rate" was 38.7% for all players and all years combined (113/292) -- considering players that finished among the top-24 RBs in any year of their career.
Top-35:
Rookie - 48.8% [out of universe of 43 rookies]
Year 2 - 66.7% [39 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 52.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 45.5% [33 4th year players]
Year 5 - 61.3% [31 5th year players]
Year 6 - 55.2% [29 6th year players]
Year 7 - 50.0% [26 7th year players]
Year 8 - 42.9% [21 8th year players]
Year 9 - 31.6% [19 9th year players]
Year 10 - 26.7% [15 10th year players]
Top-30:
Rookie - 46.5%
Year 2 - 59.0%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 45.5%
Year 5 - 61.3%
Year 6 - 51.7%
Year 7 - 46.2%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 20.0%
Top-24:
Rookie - 37.2%
Year 2 - 28.2%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 36.4%
Year 5 - 48.4%
Year 6 - 48.3%
Year 7 - 34.6%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 13.3%
Top-20:
Rookie - 32.6%
Year 2 - 38.5%
Year 3 - 33.3%
Year 4 - 33.3%
Year 5 - 45.2%
Year 6 - 41.4%
Year 7 - 26.9%
Year 8 - 28.6%
Year 9 - 21.1%
Year 10 - 6.7%
Top-15:
Rookie - 20.9%
Year 2 - 23.1%
Year 3 - 30.6%
Year 4 - 27.3%
Year 5 - 41.9%
Year 6 - 31.0%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 19.0%
Year 9 - 10.5%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-10:
Rookie - 16.3%
Year 2 - 15.4%
Year 3 - 22.2%
Year 4 - 24.2%
Year 5 - 29.0%
Year 6 - 20.7%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 9.5%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-5:
Rookie - 9.3%
Year 2 - 7.7%
Year 3 - 13.9%
Year 4 - 15.2%
Year 5 - 16.1%
Year 6 - 10.3%
Year 7 - 11.5%
Year 8 - 4.8%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
I added RB ranking for each year of career -- Hearst finished RB79 as a rookie, RB23 in 2nd year, RB31 in 3rd year, .... Bettis finished RB2 as rookie, RB13 in 2nd year, etc.
As shown below, this data permits calculation of "success rate" (of 1st round RB picks) by year of career -- the proportion of 1st round RBs who finished in the top-5, top-10, etc.
1993
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 3 Garrison Hearst RB Georgia [79 - 23 - 31 - 17 - 5 - XX - XX - 12 - 20 - 29 - 100]
1 10 Jerome Bettis RB Notre Dame [2 - 13 - 41 - 7 - 4 - 20 - 16 - 19 - 21 - 31 - 26 - 18 - 36]
1 21 Robert Smith RB Ohio State [56 - 81 - 39 - 39 - 11 - 12 - 23 - 7]
1994
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Marshall Faulk RB San Diego State [4 - 6 - 17 - 7 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 14 - 16 - 29 - 53]
1 25 Greg Hill RB Texas A&M [46 - 43 - 32 - 50 - 59 - 43]
1995
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 1 Ki-Jana Carter RB Penn State [34 - 35 - 131 - 117 - XX - 54 - XX - 105]
1 17 Tyrone Wheatley RB Michigan [64 - 54 - 37 - 124 - 13 - 21 - 52 - 51 - 35 - 49]
1 18 Napoleon Kaufman RB Washington [50 - 28 - 5 - 25 - 30 - 43]
1 19 James Stewart RB Tennessee [42 - 16 - 22 - 62 - 12 - 14 - 31 - 22]
1 21 Rashaan Salaam RB Colorado [16 - 45 - 106]
1996
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 6 Lawrence Phillips RB Nebraska [38 - 28 - XX - 72]
1 8 Tim Biakabutuka RB Michigan [92 - 73 - 36 - 26 - 27 - 67]
1 14 Eddie George RB Ohio State [8 - 12 - 11 - 3 - 3 - 19 - 10 - 22 - 41]
1997
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 12 Warrick Dunn RB Florida State [13 - 19 - 21 - 15 - 23 - 19 - 27 - 15 - 12 - 24] ***
1 23 Antowain Smith RB Houston [19 - 16 - 31 - 45 - 9 - 23 - 39 - 38 - 40]
1998
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Curtis Enis RB Penn State [54 - 18 - 87]
1 9 Fred Taylor RB Florida [4 - 28 - 6 - 103 - 11 - 8 - 20 - 33 - 18] ***
1 18 Robert Edwards RB Georgia [8 - XX - XX - XX - 69]
1 29 John Avery RB Mississippi [41 - 132 - XX - XX - XX - 120]
1999
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 4 Edgerrin James RB Miami [1 - 2 - 32 - 24 - 10 - 6 - 5 - 20] ***
1 5 Ricky Williams RB Texas [27 - 18 - 8 - 2 - 9 - XX - 27 - XX] ***
2000
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 Jamal Lewis RB Tennessee [16 - XX - 12 - 4 - 25 - 25 - 16] ***
1 7 Thomas Jones RB Virginia [42 - 42 - 45 - 38 - 19 - 9 - 21] ***
1 11 Ron Dayne RB Wisconsin [29 - 27 - 48 - XX - 25 - 35 - 99] ***
1 19 Shaun Alexander RB Alabama [54 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 1 - 1 - 28] ***
1 31 Trung Canidate RB Arizona [142 - 35 - 116 - 42]
2001
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 5 LaDainian Tomlinson RB Texas Christian [7 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 1] ***
1 23 Deuce McAllister RB Mississippi [63 - 6 - 7 - 17 - 54 - 13] ***
1 27 Michael Bennett RB Wisconsin [29 - 17 - 48 - 54 - 39 - 77] ***
2002
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 16 William Green RB Boston College [27 - 47 - 40 - 107 - XX]
1 18 T.J. Duckett RB Michigan State [42 - 21 - 36 - 37 - 79] ***
2003
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 23 Willis McGahee RB Miami [XX - 9 - 13 - 26] ***
1 27 Larry Johnson RB Penn State [104 - 26 - 2 - 2] ***
2004
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 24 Steven Jackson RB Oregon State [38 - 11 - 3] ***
1 26 Chris Perry RB Michigan [149 - 45 - 109] ***
1 30 Kevin Jones RB Virginia Tech [21 - 31 - 23] ***
2005
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Ronnie Brown RB Auburn [23 - 25] ***
1 4 Cedric Benson RB Texas [86 - 38] ***
1 5 Carnell Williams RB Auburn [19 - 39] ***
2006
Rd Sel# Player Pos. School
1 2 Reggie Bush RB Southern California [17] ***
1 21 Laurence Maroney RB Minnesota [29] ***
1 27 DeAngelo Williams RB Memphis [41] ***
1 30 Joseph Addai RB Louisiana State [11] ***
XX = player was injured and did not play that year.
*** = still active
Summary of results by year of career (for all 1st round draft picks since 1993).
For example, as shown below, 48.8% of all rookie RBs drafted in the 1st round finished in the top-35 of RBs during their rookie season. Of all RBs drafted 1st round, 26.7% of them finished in the top-35 of RBs in their 10th season.
Regarding stud-like productivity, more than a few rookies finished in the top-5 (9.3% of all 1st round rookies). Years 4 and 5 were the best for top-5 performance with 15.2% and 16.1%, respectively.
Overall, the top-24 RB "success rate" was 38.7% for all players and all years combined (113/292) -- considering players that finished among the top-24 RBs in any year of their career.
Top-35:
Rookie - 48.8% [out of universe of 43 rookies]
Year 2 - 66.7% [39 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 52.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 45.5% [33 4th year players]
Year 5 - 61.3% [31 5th year players]
Year 6 - 55.2% [29 6th year players]
Year 7 - 50.0% [26 7th year players]
Year 8 - 42.9% [21 8th year players]
Year 9 - 31.6% [19 9th year players]
Year 10 - 26.7% [15 10th year players]
Top-30:
Rookie - 46.5%
Year 2 - 59.0%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 45.5%
Year 5 - 61.3%
Year 6 - 51.7%
Year 7 - 46.2%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 20.0%
Top-24:
Rookie - 37.2%
Year 2 - 28.2%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 36.4%
Year 5 - 48.4%
Year 6 - 48.3%
Year 7 - 34.6%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 13.3%
Top-20:
Rookie - 32.6%
Year 2 - 38.5%
Year 3 - 33.3%
Year 4 - 33.3%
Year 5 - 45.2%
Year 6 - 41.4%
Year 7 - 26.9%
Year 8 - 28.6%
Year 9 - 21.1%
Year 10 - 6.7%
Top-15:
Rookie - 20.9%
Year 2 - 23.1%
Year 3 - 30.6%
Year 4 - 27.3%
Year 5 - 41.9%
Year 6 - 31.0%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 19.0%
Year 9 - 10.5%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-10:
Rookie - 16.3%
Year 2 - 15.4%
Year 3 - 22.2%
Year 4 - 24.2%
Year 5 - 29.0%
Year 6 - 20.7%
Year 7 - 15.4%
Year 8 - 9.5%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
Top-5:
Rookie - 9.3%
Year 2 - 7.7%
Year 3 - 13.9%
Year 4 - 15.2%
Year 5 - 16.1%
Year 6 - 10.3%
Year 7 - 11.5%
Year 8 - 4.8%
Year 9 - 0%
Year 10 - 0%
Even considering that the above stats are only for RBs drafted in the 1st round, I'm frankly surprised that the "success rates" are as high as they are. The universe consists of all 1st round RBs drafted from 1993 on -- thus the %'s include all 1st rounders who were busts -- and seasons when players were injured either for part or all of the year.
I also calculated the "average ranking" for each RB's 5 best seasons (of 29 1st rounders drafted from 1993-2001). The players with the best average rankings were:
Uber-studs:
M. Faulk - 2.2
LT - 2.6 (RB7, RB3, RB3, RB3, RB3, RB1)
SA - 3.4
Edge - 4.8 (note that Edge lost 2 of his prime years 3 and 4 with the ACL)
----
Studs:
George - 7.0
Bettis - 8.4
Taylor - 9.4
----
Solid starting RBs with average ranking under top-15:
R. Williams - 12.8
J. Lewis - 14.6
Dunn - 14.8
McAllister - 14.9
[Note - Thomas Jones will join this group if he has 2 more top-15 seasons.]
Thus 11 of the 29 players (38%) were either long-term solid starters, studs or uber-studs. Of the others, about 20% of 1st rounders turn out to be average RBs, with another 20% RBs having mediocre careers (or careers cut short by injury) and another 20% who are total busts.
For players drafted after the first round, the success rates drop off substantially round by round.
I also calculated the "average ranking" for each RB's 5 best seasons (of 29 1st rounders drafted from 1993-2001). The players with the best average rankings were:
Uber-studs:
M. Faulk - 2.2
LT - 2.6 (RB7, RB3, RB3, RB3, RB3, RB1)
SA - 3.4
Edge - 4.8 (note that Edge lost 2 of his prime years 3 and 4 with the ACL)
----
Studs:
George - 7.0
Bettis - 8.4
Taylor - 9.4
----
Solid starting RBs with average ranking under top-15:
R. Williams - 12.8
J. Lewis - 14.6
Dunn - 14.8
McAllister - 14.9
[Note - Thomas Jones will join this group if he has 2 more top-15 seasons.]
Thus 11 of the 29 players (38%) were either long-term solid starters, studs or uber-studs. Of the others, about 20% of 1st rounders turn out to be average RBs, with another 20% RBs having mediocre careers (or careers cut short by injury) and another 20% who are total busts.
For players drafted after the first round, the success rates drop off substantially round by round.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Great work Driver.
I am still chewing on the information.
I could see this being applied by people who are using year 1 projections like CP in figuring out thier 5 year curve.
I am not one of those people. Still looking at how I can make this information work for me.
Curious about what other people think about these numbers.
I am still chewing on the information.
I could see this being applied by people who are using year 1 projections like CP in figuring out thier 5 year curve.
I am not one of those people. Still looking at how I can make this information work for me.
Curious about what other people think about these numbers.
EBF
Footballguy
I wonder what the Bush, Maroney, D-Will, and Addai enthusiasts think of these numbers. History is against all four of them living up to their present billing. The hard part is figuring out which ones are most likely to bust.Great work Driver.I am still chewing on the information.I could see this being applied by people who are using year 1 projections like CP in figuring out thier 5 year curve.I am not one of those people. Still looking at how I can make this information work for me.Curious about what other people think about these numbers.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Actualy what stood out to me was the high percentage of 1st round Rb picks being successful 66.7% in thier 2nd year were RB3s (top 35). That is a pretty high success rate although it does not approach the high level of peoples expectations for the 2nd year 1st round Rbs the numbers say that only one out of these 4 will bust. Keeping in mind that these numbers include injuries as well as other factors.In contrast to this however a very low percentage of these 2nd year 1st round Rbs became RB2s 28.2% in thier 2nd year. This is a dramatic disparity compared to the other years percentages as well.I wonder what the Bush, Maroney, D-Will, and Addai enthusiasts think of these numbers. History is against all four of them living up to their present billing. The hard part is figuring out which ones are most likely to bust.Great work Driver.
I am still chewing on the information.
I could see this being applied by people who are using year 1 projections like CP in figuring out thier 5 year curve.
I am not one of those people. Still looking at how I can make this information work for me.
Curious about what other people think about these numbers.
Top-24:
Rookie - 37.2%
Year 2 - 28.2%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 36.4%
Year 5 - 48.4%
Year 6 - 48.3%
Year 7 - 34.6%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 13.3%
Year 2 is the worst year for a Rb to reach RB2 level until you hit year 9
That trend improves somewhat when looking at top 20 where the 2nd year is 3rd best but then falls off again when looking at top 15 top 10 and top 5.
Top-20:
Rookie - 32.6%
Year 2 - 38.5%
Year 3 - 33.3%
Year 4 - 33.3%
Year 5 - 45.2%
Year 6 - 41.4%
Year 7 - 26.9%
Year 8 - 28.6%
Year 9 - 21.1%
Year 10 - 6.7%
What suprises me perhaps the most is the high success rate in years 5 and 6 for these 1st round Rbs. And that is somthing to perhaps pay attention to when trading.
Like I said still digesting the information but these are some quick tendencies I picked up.
What that means for the 2nd year players you listed is that while most of them should perform as RB 3s and perhaps half of them will perform as RB2s this is not likely to be career years for these Rbs and better seasons for them still are ahead.
ETA- one or 2 of these Rbs is going to bust unless they are all very lucky. Not that they cannot resurface in later years. DeAngelo Williams seems the biggest injury risk. I really like him and think he can be a great Rb but at this point he seems to be the most likely to bust out of these 4 to me. Bush could still be held back by McCallister. Based off these numbers for risk management I would rank them this way:
Addai
Maroney
Bush
DeAngelo Williams
That being said any player can be injured and IIRC both Maroney and Addai missed some time last year also. The bust rate is probobly highly driven by injury moreso than talent or opportunity.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable - This was posted in another thread, but it seems related to the topic of your thread, so I took the liberty of copying it here so you could take a look at it, too. I may be off base of some of this -- I was trying to respond to a point and kind of got carried away.
To sum up, I think the point I was trying to make is that we need good "unbiased" estimates of each player's "expected production" over the next 5 seasons, a la CP, and then weight them somehow. But it's difficult because it is very easy for biases to creep in from a lot of different places -- which results in individual players being significantly overvalued or undervalued. If some players are substantially overvalued, then I think it necessarily means that the remaining players are undervalued -- on average -- and some players are significantly undervalued if they fall under the radar for whatever reason. I apologize if these thoughts seem kind of random -- probably because they are.Driver said:I think Harrison and Alexander are two interesting cases when trying to determine player value in a dynasty format. I personally have them both ranked much lower than their ADP (and substantially below most other rankings).As noted above, "Harrison has finished 5th, 8th & 1st in PPR scoring the past three years." However, although very valuable information, using past performance to determine future value is hazardous -- especially when projecting 3-5 years into the future, as required for dynasty purposes.Stated another way, with established players, I think there’s a serious problem with assigning value according to “actual past performance” rather than “expected future performance.” This includes the “one-year memory problem” but it is broader and more serious than that in a dynasty format. I’m basically referring to established players who are likely to be overvalued in this year’s dynasty drafts.A key example is the older player after their prime, with dynasty owners unwilling to believe that studs or solid players have severely limited future performance and dynasty value. Every year, there are players who had performed at high levels for several years but were definitely past the point where most players at their position lose effectiveness, and their production plunges. There’s a decent chance that this year’s examples will include Edge, Fred Taylor and/or Ahman Green, but may include Shaun Alexander or even Marvin Harrison. And even if these players have a good 2007, what are the chances that they will have a good 2008 or 2009? The odds of continued success drop quickly year by year.If viewed objectively using historical data, there are other categories where “expected future performance” may be significantly less than “actual past performance.” Examples include (1) players coming off a career year, (2) players changing teams where the new team is a worse situation than the old team, (3) players who have lost a good or excellent OC (or having to deal with a new poor OC, or new head coach), (4) 2nd year players who had a decent (or good or excellent) rookie year but may be facing a sophomore slump (for want of a better term), and (5) established QBs who lost a stud WR (or vice versa). Every player in one of these 5 categories will not post lower results next season, but a lot of them will from a probability perspective. ADPs for these types of players are not likely to drop much, but many of these players will be hard-pressed to perform at a high level that will justify their draft position (one definition of a player being overvalued).OTOH, I think many persons overvalue youth and potential for dynasty purposes. If a player is young and has “undemonstrated potential” (no proven track record), his perceived dynasty value (ADP or trade value) is usually substantially above his value for redraft purposes (and also his true dynasty value). Although many of these players will turn out to be successful, the problem consists of the “success rate” for these types of players. If you grouped all of these players together and tracked the group over the next 4-5 years, I’m pretty sure that the group as a whole would not fulfill their ADP or perceived trade value (because there would be so many busts and underperformers compared to the number of studs and solid performers) -- although I don't have any data to back-up that assertion.The other side of the coin is that it is equally important to identify players who tend to be consistently undervalued for dynasty purposes. Anyway, I don’t know how to quantify this so that it can be incorporated into “valuation of players for dynasty purposes.” Or maybe I’m just blowing this factor out of proportion. But I really think many players are substantially “overvalued” and others are “undervalued” (for dynasty purposes), and trying to develop a method for “accurate valuation” means that these types of problems need to be addressed and taken into account.H.K. said:2) For starters, Harrison has finished 5th, 8th & 1st in PPR scoring the past three years and you put him in tier three with Walker?That alone tells me our rankings would be completely different ....
EBF
Footballguy
Good post. The only thing that I really disagree with is this:Biabreakable - This was posted in another thread, but it seems related to the topic of your thread, so I took the liberty of copying it here so you could take a look at it, too. I may be off base of some of this -- I was trying to respond to a point and kind of got carried away.
To sum up, I think the point I was trying to make is that we need good "unbiased" estimates of each player's "expected production" over the next 5 seasons, a la CP, and then weight them somehow. But it's difficult because it is very easy for biases to creep in from a lot of different places -- which results in individual players being significantly overvalued or undervalued. If some players are substantially overvalued, then I think it necessarily means that the remaining players are undervalued -- on average -- and some players are significantly undervalued if they fall under the radar for whatever reason. I apologize if these thoughts seem kind of random -- probably because they are.Driver said:I think Harrison and Alexander are two interesting cases when trying to determine player value in a dynasty format. I personally have them both ranked much lower than their ADP (and substantially below most other rankings).As noted above, "Harrison has finished 5th, 8th & 1st in PPR scoring the past three years." However, although very valuable information, using past performance to determine future value is hazardous -- especially when projecting 3-5 years into the future, as required for dynasty purposes.H.K. said:2) For starters, Harrison has finished 5th, 8th & 1st in PPR scoring the past three years and you put him in tier three with Walker?
Stated another way, with established players, I think there’s a serious problem with assigning value according to “actual past performance” rather than “expected future performance.” This includes the “one-year memory problem” but it is broader and more serious than that in a dynasty format. I’m basically referring to established players who are likely to be overvalued in this year’s dynasty drafts.
A key example is the older player after their prime, with dynasty owners unwilling to believe that studs or solid players have severely limited future performance and dynasty value. Every year, there are players who had performed at high levels for several years but were definitely past the point where most players at their position lose effectiveness, and their production plunges. There’s a decent chance that this year’s examples will include Edge, Fred Taylor and/or Ahman Green, but may include Shaun Alexander or even Marvin Harrison. And even if these players have a good 2007, what are the chances that they will have a good 2008 or 2009? The odds of continued success drop quickly year by year.
If viewed objectively using historical data, there are other categories where “expected future performance” may be significantly less than “actual past performance.” Examples include (1) players coming off a career year, (2) players changing teams where the new team is a worse situation than the old team, (3) players who have lost a good or excellent OC (or having to deal with a new poor OC, or new head coach), (4) 2nd year players who had a decent (or good or excellent) rookie year but may be facing a sophomore slump (for want of a better term), and (5) established QBs who lost a stud WR (or vice versa).
Every player in one of these 5 categories will not post lower results next season, but a lot of them will from a probability perspective. ADPs for these types of players are not likely to drop much, but many of these players will be hard-pressed to perform at a high level that will justify their draft position (one definition of a player being overvalued).
OTOH, I think many persons overvalue youth and potential for dynasty purposes. If a player is young and has “undemonstrated potential” (no proven track record), his perceived dynasty value (ADP or trade value) is usually substantially above his value for redraft purposes (and also his true dynasty value).
Although many of these players will turn out to be successful, the problem consists of the “success rate” for these types of players. If you grouped all of these players together and tracked the group over the next 4-5 years, I’m pretty sure that the group as a whole would not fulfill their ADP or perceived trade value (because there would be so many busts and underperformers compared to the number of studs and solid performers) -- although I don't have any data to back-up that assertion.
The other side of the coin is that it is equally important to identify players who tend to be consistently undervalued for dynasty purposes. Anyway, I don’t know how to quantify this so that it can be incorporated into “valuation of players for dynasty purposes.”
Or maybe I’m just blowing this factor out of proportion. But I really think many players are substantially “overvalued” and others are “undervalued” (for dynasty purposes), and trying to develop a method for “accurate valuation” means that these types of problems need to be addressed and taken into account.
I draw a distinction here. IMO, there are essentially two groups of unproven young players: 1. High Profile - These are the guys that everyone knows about. They're big names and they're typically overrated. This year's examples include Marques Colston, Greg Jennings, Santonio Holmes, Vince Young, Jay Cutler, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Laurence Maroney, Joseph Addai, Maurice Drew, DeAngelo Williams, Jerious Norwood, and Vernon Davis.
Now I'm not saying none of these guys will become stars. In fact, I fully expect several of them to become great players and consistent FF producers. However, it's difficult to get a good price on any of these guys because they're high profile players. Everyone knows who they are and everyone knows they're valuable. As such, there is usually little value upside and lots of value downside at their ADP (basically, these players have little room to improve in trade/draft value, but lots of room to fall).
Then there's the second group.
2. Low Profile - These are the promising young players that get overlooked (usually because they're slow out of the gates). This year's examples include Derek Hagan, Sinorice Moss, Reggie Williams, Troy Williamson, Roddy White, Kellen Clemens, Jason Campbell, Brodie Croyle, Ryan Moats, Vernand Morency, LenDale White (before Henry left), Brian Calhoun, Heath Miller, and Marcedes Lewis.
These players were early draft picks and appear to have decent talent, but are consistently overlooked and underrated. Most of them will probably never amount to anything, but I'd still argue that their actual value is typically higher than their perceived value. The value disparity between the players in group one and group two probably isn't quite as huge as the disparity in their ADP (I think this is especially true for the QBs/WRs/TEs). Group two players usually make nice draft day bargains because they possess a lot of value upside and relatively little value downside.
A guy like Derek Hagan can be had in rounds 12-18 of a 12 team dynasty draft and could conceivably carry round 5-6 value in 2-3 years. He could jump up as many as 10 rounds in value. On the flipside, a guy like Greg Jennings is probably only available the rounds 6-8 range of the same size league despite the fact that his ceiling probably isn't any higher than Hagan's round 5-6 ceiling. He could only jump up 2-3 rounds in value (although I'd argue that a more proven guy like Jennings has a somewhat higher probability of reaching his ceiling).
My attitude is that high profile young players like Matt Leinart and Vernon Davis should probably be avoided at their ADP. It's only after the quality proven talent is all gone that I really recommend stocking up on speculative players. Of course, you always have to be willing to take a gamble on a rare talent. I drafted Reggie Bush at 1.03 in a PPR dynasty draft last season before the NFL draft even took place. Even though he hadn't played an NFL snap and there was seemingly a huge downside that high in the draft order, I think it was the right pick. Every player is a unique event. Your strategy should acknowledge the trends while allowing you to remain fluid in special situations involving special players.
Great points! Compared to a redraft, dynasty seems to overinflate value substantially for the high profile young players (your Group 1 above). The established studs and solid performers (with proven track records) seem to maintain their value and relatively high ADPs. The combination of these two factors means that other players must drop, and some players drop significantly (like your Group 2 above) which can result in extremely good value.
Jeff Pasquino
Footballguy
I haven't had the time to read all the useful stuff in here, but I thought that this post from "Trader Joe's" might be of some help.
Startup Draft Pick Trades
Startup Draft Pick Trades
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Driver I would like to look at 2nd to 4th round Rb picks using the same methods you used in evaluating the 1st round Rbs.
I am assuming you used PFR and FBGs scoring for the EOY ranks?
2nd round Rbs:
1993
Natrone Means [22 - 5 - 31 - 47 - 20 - 24 - 49]
Reggie Brooks [18 - 59 - 148 - 62]
Roosevelt Potts [38 - 47 - 51 - 131 - 67]
1994
Errict Rhett [14 - 11 - 44 - 88 - 88 - 20 - 63]
Chuck Levy [118 - 101 - 91]
David Palmer [109 - 101 - 124 - 80 - 90 -139]
Charlie Garner [49 - 34 - 64 - 38 - 43 - 7 - 9 - 17 - 9 - 31 - 98]
Mario Bates [33 - 19 - 41 - 46 - 53 - 37 - 61]
1995
Ray Zellars [76 - 46 - 33 - 81]
Sherman Williams [82 - 82 - 44 - 68]
Terrell Fletcher [87 - 40 - 64 - 29 - 60 - 32 - 77 - 84]
1996
Leeland McElroy [67- 54]
1997
Tiki Barber [34 - 44 - 32 - 13 - 15 - 7 - 15 - 2 - 4 - 7]
Byron Hanspard [66 - XX - 56]
Corey Dillon [8 - 17 - 11 - 17 - 6 - 16 - 44 - 7 - 16 - 19]***
1998
None
1999
James Johnson [34 - 73 - 128]
Kevin Faulk [65 - 26 - 55 - 38 - 34 - 44 - 68 - 52]***
Joe Montgomery [57 - 119 - 134]
Michael Cloud [104 - 95 - 109 - 78 - 68 - 84 - 129]
Jermaine Fazande [61 - 48 - XX]
2000
None
2001
Anthony Thomas [13 - 33 - 24 - 48 - 107 - 54]***
LaMont Jordan [62 - 49 - 57 - 43 - 8 - 55]***
Travis Henry [28 - 8 - 11 - 73 - 65 - 22]***
2002
DeShaun Foster [XX - 43 - 66 - 24 - 32]***
Clinton Portis [4 - 5 - 11 - 6 - 36]***
Maurice Morris [97 - 78 - 95 - 71 - 53]***
Ladell Betts [56 - 55 - 60 - 58 - 10]***
2003
None
2004
Tatum Bell [47 - 22 - 31] ***
Julius Jones [28 - 21 - 27] ***
2005
JJ Arrington [55 - 110] ***
Eric Shelton [XX - 134] ***
2006
Lendale White [71st] ***
Maurice Jones Drew [8th]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 36.3% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 35.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 31.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 22.2% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 30.4% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 20.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 18.2% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 25.8% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 13.8% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 14.8% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 26.1% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 19.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 13.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.9% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 7.4% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 14.8% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 9.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 9.7% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 3.7% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 7.4% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 5.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 10.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 13.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 3.0% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 6.5% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 0.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 0.0% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 0.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 0.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 5.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 6.7% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 0.0% [15 10th year players]
Note - I am counting all players who could have posted numbers for each year if they would have been able to make a roster in the NFL. There are many players here as you can see who's careers only last 2-4 years. However I think they still must be counted or the percentages would be inflated by not considering them busting.
For example the only Rb from 1999 who is still active is Kevin Faulk. But I still count the other 4 Rbs that were drafted that season and would be eligable for an 8th season of productivity even though those 4 Rbs were no longer in the league by that time.
3 players that were 2nd round picks are the ones giving any productivity beyond 6 years. Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon and Charlie Garner. 9% of total 2nd round picks. So less than one out of 10 with an average of 4 being drafted each year or one long term Rb every 3 years from the 2nd round. It is remarkable however that Dillon and Barber were both drafted in the same year. All of them were remarkably productive even late in thier careers. Barber and Garner were both smaller Rbs and late bloomers.
Side notes - The years that had zero 2nd round rookie Rb picks 2003 2000 and 1998 had 2 5 and 4 1st round picks used on Rbs respectivly. The 2003 Rb class was very poor for instant impact from Rbs with McGahee being injured his 1st year Larry Johnson playing behind Priest Holmes. The 3rd round picks Musa Smith, Chris Brown and Justin Fargas were injury riddled. 4th rounders Suggs, Pinner, Toefield and Griffin had durability issues as well. SOD had charecter issues. Domanic Davis (Williams) had a strong start but his career may now be over due to injury. This entire draft class shows little promise as a whole for high 5th year performances and should be considered one of the weakest groups overall considering that only LJ and McGahee are the only 2 Rbs who look promising still after only 4 years in the league.
5 of these 33 Rbs careers were over after 3 years. 3 more after 4 years. 1 was done after 2 years. So that is 27% or slightly more than one out of 4 (average of 4 2nd round Rbs being drafted each year) who's career will be over within an average of 3 years.
Will add 3rd and 4th rounds when I have time.
I am assuming you used PFR and FBGs scoring for the EOY ranks?
2nd round Rbs:
1993
Natrone Means [22 - 5 - 31 - 47 - 20 - 24 - 49]
Reggie Brooks [18 - 59 - 148 - 62]
Roosevelt Potts [38 - 47 - 51 - 131 - 67]
1994
Errict Rhett [14 - 11 - 44 - 88 - 88 - 20 - 63]
Chuck Levy [118 - 101 - 91]
David Palmer [109 - 101 - 124 - 80 - 90 -139]
Charlie Garner [49 - 34 - 64 - 38 - 43 - 7 - 9 - 17 - 9 - 31 - 98]
Mario Bates [33 - 19 - 41 - 46 - 53 - 37 - 61]
1995
Ray Zellars [76 - 46 - 33 - 81]
Sherman Williams [82 - 82 - 44 - 68]
Terrell Fletcher [87 - 40 - 64 - 29 - 60 - 32 - 77 - 84]
1996
Leeland McElroy [67- 54]
1997
Tiki Barber [34 - 44 - 32 - 13 - 15 - 7 - 15 - 2 - 4 - 7]
Byron Hanspard [66 - XX - 56]
Corey Dillon [8 - 17 - 11 - 17 - 6 - 16 - 44 - 7 - 16 - 19]***
1998
None
1999
James Johnson [34 - 73 - 128]
Kevin Faulk [65 - 26 - 55 - 38 - 34 - 44 - 68 - 52]***
Joe Montgomery [57 - 119 - 134]
Michael Cloud [104 - 95 - 109 - 78 - 68 - 84 - 129]
Jermaine Fazande [61 - 48 - XX]
2000
None
2001
Anthony Thomas [13 - 33 - 24 - 48 - 107 - 54]***
LaMont Jordan [62 - 49 - 57 - 43 - 8 - 55]***
Travis Henry [28 - 8 - 11 - 73 - 65 - 22]***
2002
DeShaun Foster [XX - 43 - 66 - 24 - 32]***
Clinton Portis [4 - 5 - 11 - 6 - 36]***
Maurice Morris [97 - 78 - 95 - 71 - 53]***
Ladell Betts [56 - 55 - 60 - 58 - 10]***
2003
None
2004
Tatum Bell [47 - 22 - 31] ***
Julius Jones [28 - 21 - 27] ***
2005
JJ Arrington [55 - 110] ***
Eric Shelton [XX - 134] ***
2006
Lendale White [71st] ***
Maurice Jones Drew [8th]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 36.3% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 35.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 31.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 22.2% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 30.4% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 20.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 18.2% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 25.8% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 13.8% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 14.8% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 26.1% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 19.4% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 18.5% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 13.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 15.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.9% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 10.4% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 7.4% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 14.8% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 10.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 15.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 20.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 9.1% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 9.7% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 3.7% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 7.4% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 8.7% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 5.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 10.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 13.0% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 13.0% [15 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 3.0% [out of universe of 33 rookies]
Year 2 - 6.5% [31 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 0.0% [29 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 0.0% [27 4th year players]
Year 5 - 0.0% [27 5th year players]
Year 6 - 0.0% [23 6th year players]
Year 7 - 0.0% [20 7th year players]
Year 8 - 5.0% [20 8th year players]
Year 9 - 6.7% [15 9th year players]
Year 10 - 0.0% [15 10th year players]
Note - I am counting all players who could have posted numbers for each year if they would have been able to make a roster in the NFL. There are many players here as you can see who's careers only last 2-4 years. However I think they still must be counted or the percentages would be inflated by not considering them busting.
For example the only Rb from 1999 who is still active is Kevin Faulk. But I still count the other 4 Rbs that were drafted that season and would be eligable for an 8th season of productivity even though those 4 Rbs were no longer in the league by that time.
3 players that were 2nd round picks are the ones giving any productivity beyond 6 years. Tiki Barber, Corey Dillon and Charlie Garner. 9% of total 2nd round picks. So less than one out of 10 with an average of 4 being drafted each year or one long term Rb every 3 years from the 2nd round. It is remarkable however that Dillon and Barber were both drafted in the same year. All of them were remarkably productive even late in thier careers. Barber and Garner were both smaller Rbs and late bloomers.
Side notes - The years that had zero 2nd round rookie Rb picks 2003 2000 and 1998 had 2 5 and 4 1st round picks used on Rbs respectivly. The 2003 Rb class was very poor for instant impact from Rbs with McGahee being injured his 1st year Larry Johnson playing behind Priest Holmes. The 3rd round picks Musa Smith, Chris Brown and Justin Fargas were injury riddled. 4th rounders Suggs, Pinner, Toefield and Griffin had durability issues as well. SOD had charecter issues. Domanic Davis (Williams) had a strong start but his career may now be over due to injury. This entire draft class shows little promise as a whole for high 5th year performances and should be considered one of the weakest groups overall considering that only LJ and McGahee are the only 2 Rbs who look promising still after only 4 years in the league.
5 of these 33 Rbs careers were over after 3 years. 3 more after 4 years. 1 was done after 2 years. So that is 27% or slightly more than one out of 4 (average of 4 2nd round Rbs being drafted each year) who's career will be over within an average of 3 years.
Will add 3rd and 4th rounds when I have time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Biabreakable -- I think that's a great idea to calculate the success rates for the 2nd rounders, etc.Yes, I used PFR as the source of the RB rankings each year (toward the bottom of the player pages) so I assume those are based on non-ppr FF pts. according to FBG's scoring.
The method I used to develop the success rates was very straightforward (and hopefully correct, but I'll gladly stand corrected if someone finds an error or a better way of doing it).
For each year of experience (rookies, 2nd year players, etc.), I added up how many total players there were from 1993 to 2006. For example, there were 43 RBs drafted in the 1st round from 1993 to 2006, so I had 43 "rookie years" (as shown below). There were 4 1st rounders in 2006 so I only had 39 (43-4) "2nd year players" of experience to consider, 36 "2nd year players" (43-4-3), etc. down to 15 "10th year players" that corresponded to the 1st rounders from 1993 to 1997. These numbers equal the "total universe" and formed the denominator for the success rate for each year.
The numerator was simply the number of those players that finished in the top-5, top-10, etc. each year (and the success rate was this number divided by the total universe for that year).
P.S. I've been meaning to go back and check the numbers to make sure that the anomaly you found related to 2nd year players wasn't a mistake, but I haven't had time. I'll try to do that.Since we have a fairly small "universe," some of the results that look like anomalies may just be small sample problems (hopefully not errors that I made). OTOH, they may represent real trends or patterns.
ETA: These success rates are from the perspective of "average success rate of RBs drafted as rookies in a dynasty draft who were drafted in the 1st round of that year's NFL draft" and their expected success rate during each year of their career. Thus, it includes players who were injured and missed part or all of the year, and also players who turned out to be busts and got cut early in their careers.
Another way of computing average success rates would be from the perspective "of all RBs who were still active at the beginning of the 9th (Xth) year of their career," what is their success rate during that season? This would yield significantly higher success rates because it would delete all busts and players who had a career-ending injury (from the denominator) while the numerator would remain the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Updating the 2nd year Rbs and how I would rank thier likelyhood to bust or not based off of the new information regarding Maroney's shoulder injury which I do not consider to be serious.. but still.AddaiActualy what stood out to me was the high percentage of 1st round Rb picks being successful 66.7% in thier 2nd year were RB3s (top 35). That is a pretty high success rate although it does not approach the high level of peoples expectations for the 2nd year 1st round Rbs the numbers say that only one out of these 4 will bust. Keeping in mind that these numbers include injuries as well as other factors.In contrast to this however a very low percentage of these 2nd year 1st round Rbs became RB2s 28.2% in thier 2nd year. This is a dramatic disparity compared to the other years percentages as well.I wonder what the Bush, Maroney, D-Will, and Addai enthusiasts think of these numbers. History is against all four of them living up to their present billing. The hard part is figuring out which ones are most likely to bust.Great work Driver.
I am still chewing on the information.
I could see this being applied by people who are using year 1 projections like CP in figuring out thier 5 year curve.
I am not one of those people. Still looking at how I can make this information work for me.
Curious about what other people think about these numbers.
Top-24:
Rookie - 37.2%
Year 2 - 28.2%
Year 3 - 41.7%
Year 4 - 36.4%
Year 5 - 48.4%
Year 6 - 48.3%
Year 7 - 34.6%
Year 8 - 38.1%
Year 9 - 26.3%
Year 10 - 13.3%
Year 2 is the worst year for a Rb to reach RB2 level until you hit year 9
That trend improves somewhat when looking at top 20 where the 2nd year is 3rd best but then falls off again when looking at top 15 top 10 and top 5.
Top-20:
Rookie - 32.6%
Year 2 - 38.5%
Year 3 - 33.3%
Year 4 - 33.3%
Year 5 - 45.2%
Year 6 - 41.4%
Year 7 - 26.9%
Year 8 - 28.6%
Year 9 - 21.1%
Year 10 - 6.7%
What suprises me perhaps the most is the high success rate in years 5 and 6 for these 1st round Rbs. And that is somthing to perhaps pay attention to when trading.
Like I said still digesting the information but these are some quick tendencies I picked up.
What that means for the 2nd year players you listed is that while most of them should perform as RB 3s and perhaps half of them will perform as RB2s this is not likely to be career years for these Rbs and better seasons for them still are ahead.
ETA- one or 2 of these Rbs is going to bust unless they are all very lucky. Not that they cannot resurface in later years. DeAngelo Williams seems the biggest injury risk. I really like him and think he can be a great Rb but at this point he seems to be the most likely to bust out of these 4 to me. Bush could still be held back by McCallister. Based off these numbers for risk management I would rank them this way:
Addai
Maroney
Bush
DeAngelo Williams
That being said any player can be injured and IIRC both Maroney and Addai missed some time last year also. The bust rate is probobly highly driven by injury moreso than talent or opportunity.
Bush
DeAngelo Williams
Maroney
Great work Biabreakable on the RBs drafted in the 2nd round of the NFL draft (see above). Looks like the success rates for 2nd rounders are substantially less than the 1st rounders -- maybe about 50% lower?
This was posted in another thread and seems relevant to the discussion:
This was posted in another thread and seems relevant to the discussion:
Looks like RBs have lower percentages of busts, compared to QBs and especially WRs. As you've mentioned several times, it would be very interesting to see a comprehensive study (of both busts and success rates) by position, draft round, year of career, etc.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Great find Driver! 
At 1st I was a little suprised at the findings. Only 23% of 1st round Rbs becoming busts. However that is in line with what I was observing from your numbers as well. Thus my ranking bust probobility for the 4 2nd year Rbs from last year and that one will probobly bust.
The success rate for 2nd round Rb picks is smaller. I have not taken the time to look at the numbers in this way yet I just compiled them and rechecked thier accuracy.
I do think it is more useful looking at them from a value perspective and once this has been completed for 1st through 4th round Rbs then a pyramid can be built from those numbers which may serve as another tool to use for projections.
After seeing these numbers I want to do Wrs as well. There are more players to consider and thus a larger sample size with them.
There are also only so many hours in a day.
I wonder if anyone else is finding this interesting and possibly useful?
It may be a bit off track but I think it is related to the question at hand.
At 1st I was a little suprised at the findings. Only 23% of 1st round Rbs becoming busts. However that is in line with what I was observing from your numbers as well. Thus my ranking bust probobility for the 4 2nd year Rbs from last year and that one will probobly bust.
The success rate for 2nd round Rb picks is smaller. I have not taken the time to look at the numbers in this way yet I just compiled them and rechecked thier accuracy.
I do think it is more useful looking at them from a value perspective and once this has been completed for 1st through 4th round Rbs then a pyramid can be built from those numbers which may serve as another tool to use for projections.
After seeing these numbers I want to do Wrs as well. There are more players to consider and thus a larger sample size with them.
There are also only so many hours in a day.
I wonder if anyone else is finding this interesting and possibly useful?
It may be a bit off track but I think it is related to the question at hand.
As usual, I agree with all your comments.Great find Driver!
I think we can use the same data to explore the concept that CP calls QYR (quality years remaining). If I understand it correctly, QYR refers to how many solid years remain in a specified player's career -- given that he is so many years old, has so many years of experience under his belt, his previous production (stud, solid performer, marginal), etc. -- very useful for analyzing what can be expected from him next season (or his projected value during the next 5 seasons for dynasty purposes).I discussed how our data might be useful for looking at this issue (a couple posts above). I think the task is basically calculating "conditional success rates." In other words, given that a player is entering his 6th season and has been a stud (or solid performer) to date, what is his QYR and his expected success rate for each of the remaining years of his career?The conundrum (?) is that it changes each year. If SA has 1.9 QYR this year, then if he has a successful year in 2007, then his QYR is probably like 1.4 before the 2008 season. If SA is injured again or hits the wall in 2007, then his QYR probably drops to less than 1 year before the 2008 season.My time is limited, too. If someone has the time and interest, I'd be happy for them to pick this up and apply the "success rate and QYR methods" to WRs (and QBs, too) -- by round drafted, year of career, performance level (top-5, top-10, etc.) -- and maybe separately for categories like stud, solid performer, marginal performer, and bust (in addition to all players combined).ETA: To calculate the QYR and conditional success rates, I think we would start with "all active players" at each point. So we would be eliminating all players who are no longer playing for whatever reason (career-ending injury, bust, etc.), and our universe would consist of all active players, instead of all players drafted (used to calculate the total success rates).
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
3rd round Rbs:
1993
Russell White [unknown- no significant stats]
Terry Kirby [10 - 58 - 21 - 25 - 31- 52 - 19 - 117 - 110 - 88]
1994
Jeff Cothran [92 - 106 - 103]
Lamar Smith [144 - 88 - 26 - 49 - 34 - 71 - 11 - 14 - 30 - 125]
Calvin Jones [106 - 123 - 142]
LeShon Johnson [82 - 149 - 30 - 119 - 74]
James Bostic [149 - 144]
Bam Morris [20 - 29 - 23 - 30 - 28 - 48]
Gary Downs [114 - 138 - 110 - 150 - 129]
1995
Curtis Martin [2 - 4 - 14 - 7 - 8 - 10 - 5 - 18 - 18 - 4 - 29]
Joe Aska [140 - 74 - 121]
Rodney Thomas [18 - 77 - 53 - 80 - 85 - 76 - 94]
1996
Winslow Oliver [67- 54]
Moe Williams [136 - 105 - 122 - 106 - 106 - 58 - 29 - 13 - 52 - 122]
Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar [9 - 6 - 21 - 47]
Jerald Moore [126 - 52 - 75 - 85]
Reggie Brown [137 - 142 - 147 - 80 - 136]
1997
Sedrick Shaw [146 - 84 - 121]
Troy Davis [79 - 77 - 122]
Jay Graham [63 - 107 - 127 - 141]
Duce Staley [127 - 13 - 10 - 47 - 20 - 15 - 28 - 37 - 91 - 166]***
1998
Skip Hicks [33 - 59 - 91 - 63]
Ahman Green [82 - 112 - 5 - 3 - 13 - 2 - 13 - 69 - 15]***
Rashaan Shehee [111 - 68]
1999
Amos Zereoue [125 - 137 - 51 - 28 - 40 - 39 - 143]
2000
Travis Prentice [28 - 97]
Reuben Droughns [93 - 95 - 92 - 14 - 14 - 34]
Doug Chapman [70 - 114 - 134]
2001
James Jackson [49 - 119 - 46 - 116 - 132]***
Kevan Barlow [30 - 35 - 17 - 27 - 34 - 46]***
Heath Evans [136 - 112 - 128 - 151 - 81 - 85]***
Travis Minor [50 - 74 - 86 - 50 - 145 - 111]***
2002
Brian Westbrook [73 - 20 - 10 - 18 - 6]***
2003
Musa Smith [103 - 124 - 153 - 73]***
Chris Brown [81 - 24 - 20 - 94]***
Justin Fargas [94 - 85 - 135 - 44]***
2004
none
2005
Frank Gore [38 - 4] ***
Vernand Morency[72 - 50] ***
Ryan Moats [64 - 115]***
Maurice Clarett [bUST]
2006
Brian Calhoun [129] ***
Jerious Norwood [43]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 16.6% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 20.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 27.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 27.3% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 12.5% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 15.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 22.2% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.5% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 19.4% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 11.1% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 08.3% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 12.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 07.1% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 07.4.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 04.2% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 08.3% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 05.5% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 06.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 06.3% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 02.4% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 05.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 02.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 02.8% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 00.0% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Some observations on the 3rd round Rbs. There have been a few long term high level performers from this group. Terry Kirby, Curtis Martin, Ahman Green and now Brian Westbrook. Gore may become another one if he stays healthy. Martin and Green have been outstanding. Green did not get a chance to perform until his 3rd year so there is some hope for Morency, Moats, Calhoun and Norwood to do well later on. The highest success rate happens in the 3rd year with a little less coming in the 4th or 5th years. This has been a trend throughout. For a long time there has been talk about Wrs emerging in thier 2nd to 5th years. This seems to be a trend for Rbs as well although Rbs are more likely to have good rookie seasons than Wr 1 out of 10 3rd round picks do.
There are a couple late bloomers, Moe Williams and Lamar Smith which indicates to me that 3rd round picks generaly have a lower talent level than earlier picks and are less likely to get opportunity to start. Some of you may be saying well duh captain obvious but just noting that the numbers bear that out. So if your 3rd round prospect does not get an opportunity by year 3 it becomes very unlikely that they will although it has happened.
Zereoue, Droughns, Barlow and Chris Brown have been given opportunity in recent years but have failed to do well enough for thier teams to have enough confidence in them and maintain it.
Many of these Rbs start off as 3rd down Rbs or COP type Rbs showing some hope that Rbs like this can become feature runners by thier 3rd year.
1993
Russell White [unknown- no significant stats]
Terry Kirby [10 - 58 - 21 - 25 - 31- 52 - 19 - 117 - 110 - 88]
1994
Jeff Cothran [92 - 106 - 103]
Lamar Smith [144 - 88 - 26 - 49 - 34 - 71 - 11 - 14 - 30 - 125]
Calvin Jones [106 - 123 - 142]
LeShon Johnson [82 - 149 - 30 - 119 - 74]
James Bostic [149 - 144]
Bam Morris [20 - 29 - 23 - 30 - 28 - 48]
Gary Downs [114 - 138 - 110 - 150 - 129]
1995
Curtis Martin [2 - 4 - 14 - 7 - 8 - 10 - 5 - 18 - 18 - 4 - 29]
Joe Aska [140 - 74 - 121]
Rodney Thomas [18 - 77 - 53 - 80 - 85 - 76 - 94]
1996
Winslow Oliver [67- 54]
Moe Williams [136 - 105 - 122 - 106 - 106 - 58 - 29 - 13 - 52 - 122]
Abdul-Karim al-Jabbar [9 - 6 - 21 - 47]
Jerald Moore [126 - 52 - 75 - 85]
Reggie Brown [137 - 142 - 147 - 80 - 136]
1997
Sedrick Shaw [146 - 84 - 121]
Troy Davis [79 - 77 - 122]
Jay Graham [63 - 107 - 127 - 141]
Duce Staley [127 - 13 - 10 - 47 - 20 - 15 - 28 - 37 - 91 - 166]***
1998
Skip Hicks [33 - 59 - 91 - 63]
Ahman Green [82 - 112 - 5 - 3 - 13 - 2 - 13 - 69 - 15]***
Rashaan Shehee [111 - 68]
1999
Amos Zereoue [125 - 137 - 51 - 28 - 40 - 39 - 143]
2000
Travis Prentice [28 - 97]
Reuben Droughns [93 - 95 - 92 - 14 - 14 - 34]
Doug Chapman [70 - 114 - 134]
2001
James Jackson [49 - 119 - 46 - 116 - 132]***
Kevan Barlow [30 - 35 - 17 - 27 - 34 - 46]***
Heath Evans [136 - 112 - 128 - 151 - 81 - 85]***
Travis Minor [50 - 74 - 86 - 50 - 145 - 111]***
2002
Brian Westbrook [73 - 20 - 10 - 18 - 6]***
2003
Musa Smith [103 - 124 - 153 - 73]***
Chris Brown [81 - 24 - 20 - 94]***
Justin Fargas [94 - 85 - 135 - 44]***
2004
none
2005
Frank Gore [38 - 4] ***
Vernand Morency[72 - 50] ***
Ryan Moats [64 - 115]***
Maurice Clarett [bUST]
2006
Brian Calhoun [129] ***
Jerious Norwood [43]***
Top-35:
Rookie - 16.6% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 20.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 27.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 22.2% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 27.3% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 12.5% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-24:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 15.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 22.2% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-20:
Rookie - 11.9% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 12.5% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 19.4% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 11.1% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 15.2% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 14.3% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 11.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 08.3% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-15:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 11.1% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 08.3% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 12.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 09.4% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 07.1% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 07.4.1% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 04.2% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-10:
Rookie - 04.8% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 10.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 08.3% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 05.5% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 06.1% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 06.3% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Top-5:
Rookie - 02.4% [out of universe of 42 rookies]
Year 2 - 05.0% [40 2nd year players]
Year 3 - 02.8% [36 3rd year players]
Year 4 - 02.8% [36 4th year players]
Year 5 - 00.0% [33 5th year players]
Year 6 - 03.1% [32 6th year players]
Year 7 - 03.6% [28 7th year players]
Year 8 - 00.0% [27 8th year players]
Year 9 - 00.0% [24 9th year players]
Year 10 - 05.0% [20 10th year players]
Some observations on the 3rd round Rbs. There have been a few long term high level performers from this group. Terry Kirby, Curtis Martin, Ahman Green and now Brian Westbrook. Gore may become another one if he stays healthy. Martin and Green have been outstanding. Green did not get a chance to perform until his 3rd year so there is some hope for Morency, Moats, Calhoun and Norwood to do well later on. The highest success rate happens in the 3rd year with a little less coming in the 4th or 5th years. This has been a trend throughout. For a long time there has been talk about Wrs emerging in thier 2nd to 5th years. This seems to be a trend for Rbs as well although Rbs are more likely to have good rookie seasons than Wr 1 out of 10 3rd round picks do.
There are a couple late bloomers, Moe Williams and Lamar Smith which indicates to me that 3rd round picks generaly have a lower talent level than earlier picks and are less likely to get opportunity to start. Some of you may be saying well duh captain obvious but just noting that the numbers bear that out. So if your 3rd round prospect does not get an opportunity by year 3 it becomes very unlikely that they will although it has happened.
Zereoue, Droughns, Barlow and Chris Brown have been given opportunity in recent years but have failed to do well enough for thier teams to have enough confidence in them and maintain it.
Many of these Rbs start off as 3rd down Rbs or COP type Rbs showing some hope that Rbs like this can become feature runners by thier 3rd year.
Last edited by a moderator:
3nOut
Footballguy
Seems like everyone uses different criteria to base their rankings on. Some project 3 years out, some five, some vary according to position. This to me, makes any rankings posted for dynasty useless to share. One person may rank a QB, for example, at #1 while smepne else may rank them #10, based on different criteria. They would argue who's right and who's wring forever, but both may be right.
Perhaps dynasty ranking should be listed as 3-year dynasty, 5-year dynasty, etc. to clarify their rankings. Otherwise, someone like me, who is in a KEEPER league can better guage what other people think.
Perhaps dynasty ranking should be listed as 3-year dynasty, 5-year dynasty, etc. to clarify their rankings. Otherwise, someone like me, who is in a KEEPER league can better guage what other people think.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Well 1st of all I want to talk about Dynasty leagues in general. They are leagues that are long term that I put a lot of time into. It is important to start off right as far as rules and fellow owners. I think it is important for every owner to take careful consideration of these things before joining a dynasty league. Your going to be playing by these rules and with these owners for a long time so make sure it is the right league for you. Replacement owners can always be found and people will drop out but the less this happens the better the league can maintain its integrity.I notice from spending time on these boards that people seem to be starting new dynasty leagues all the time. This seems kind of strange to me as I know the time commitment involved for just one league so I do not understand how people can keep adding/starting over with new dynasty leagues unless they are droping out of others. If you as a dynasty owner are turning over teams often it makes me wonder what is the point of playing in a dynasty format?
Now on to talking about trading draft picks during the initial start up.
Unless you are playing contract dynasty (which is an entirely different animal imo and needs its own thread) the start up draft is going to be the most significant event in the league the results of which lasts a long time. So I think it is even more important to be careful with your decisions as you will be living with them a long time.
I am a advocate for trading down in dynasty leagues as long as you are gaining picks to do so. I discussed this some in a recent league formed by posters here and perhaps I will add those comments on it to this thread.
The basic concept is that you need to evaluate such trades the same way you would look at trading for players after the draft. In this example the owner is considering trading pick 1.03 for 1.05 personaly that means to me Larry Johnson for Reggie Bush. Now based on how you are looking at the longevity of Johnson compared to Bush will determine how close in value these 2 players are. If you see Johnson not lasting as long as Bush you may actualy have Bush at a higher value than Johnson when taking the expected life of thier careers into account. This will depend on what method of valuation you are using. Longer term views such as 4 or 5 years are more likely to see Bush as more valuable than Johnson than shorter term views will. In fact it is entirely possible depending on what type of method you are using that you may have Bush ranked higher than Johnson but that does not mean you will ignore ADP.
In a trade like this the main question you need to answer is what would I trade Johnson for after the draft. If you would trade Johnson for Bush and Plaxico Burress for example then look at where you have Plax being drafted and ask for the appropriate pick as compensation. Or you can evaluate it based on rookie picks if that is your goal so Johnson for Bush and a 1st round pick in 07 or 08 for example. It is up to you to establish the price and not sell yourself short. The owner may not agree to your demands but that is where negotiation begins. Never expect 2 owners to see eye to eye on anything. Worst case scenario you keep what you have and do not make a trade. Both parties need to be willing to compromise at some point to make a deal happen.
To me moving 2 slots in the 1st round is not that much and I would not require to extract a heavy price to make such a deal. Like I said earlier you may have Bush very close in value to Johnson based on what method you are using. I could see taking this owners 6th round pick for the move down and being happy with it if I have both players very close. If they are not close I may ask for more. The key to me would be to establish a minimum compensation I would accept and I want to gain an extra pick for my trouble even if it is not that high. That is trading quality for quantity and that is the way trading works once the draft is over so it should be while the draft is in swing imho. Some people want to exchange equal numbers of picks for example 1.03 and 5.03 for 1.05 and 7.05 while I could see doing a deal like this as well it is not ushualy how I like to do business and I think it is rare that you see trades like this happen after the draft. You are much more likely to see 1.03 for 1.05 and 6.10 once all is said and done.
There are different strategies one can employ while using trades to execute them. That will have to wait for another post.
