What's new
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!

Jeff Pasquino's Dynasty rankings (1 Viewer)

NorrisB

Footballguy
Jeff Versus Sig

Matt Jones

Jeffs Rankings = very low -winner

Sig's rankings = medium

Reggie Williams



JP - Very low

Sig - med

Brian Westbrook

JP = High-winner

Sig = Medium

Marion Barber III

JP = High winner

Sig = medium/low

Reggie Bush



JP = Low winner

Sig = High

Who wins Rams #2

JP = Bennett

Sig = Bruce

Brandon Marshall

JP = Medium

Sig = high - winner

Philip Rivers

JP - Very low-winner

Sig - High

Robert Meachem

JP - medium/low prefered sidney rice

Sig - Very high

Alge Crumpler

JP high

Sig low

Vince Young

Sig - very high

JP - med

I might be forgetting some but those are the ones I remember, good job on the rankings so far JP your atleast over .500 against Mr. Bloom this year and thats very difficult to do, against someone of his scouting abilities I know I sure couldnt do it.

Q) on some of the rankings,

Why the low ranking on Turner? Is it because you put a 50% rating on this year?

Q) about the whole StL mess, youve got bruce and Holt ranked relatively high now, you think that situation turns itself around? I dont get the whole situation there myself.

Q) Do you think Roddy White is a phony?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.

 
no need for this norris. jeff usually takes care of the jeff pimpin around these parts... :confused:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
....I might be forgetting some but those are the ones I remember, good job on the rankings so far JP your atleast over .500 against Mr. Bloom this year and thats very difficult to do, against someone of his scouting abilities I know I sure couldnt do it.
:banned:I like contrasting my style vs. Bloom's, but he tends to play in some VERY deep leagues where you have to pan for gold. That's where he excels, really, IMHO - picking the young ones who can come around. I've done reasonably well there myself, but he is more college- and draft-focused than I.As for my style, I do emphasize more "now" than "later". That may seem odd in Dynasty, but given that you play now and can always change your team 2-3 yrs down the road, why not go for now vs. then?Uncertainty is also very high as you go out in time (anyone picture Drew Brees in NO 2 years ago? exactly).
Q) on some of the rankings,Why the low ranking on Turner? Is it because you put a 50% rating on this year?
Pretty sure I've answered this before, but I'll do it once more:Turner could go ANYWHERE next year. That team could be a mess.He also may wind up right back where he is, even though that seems unlikely.Just because he looks good when given chances in SD, doesn't mean he'll excel in a new climate.
Q) about the whole StL mess, youve got bruce and Holt ranked relatively high now, you think that situation turns itself around? I dont get the whole situation there myself.
Bruce might be too high, I've never said my rankings were set in stone. I'll have to take another view at him.Feel free for more feedback.
Q) Do you think Roddy White is a phony?
Yes.
 
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:Year 1: 40%Year 2: 30%Year 3: 20%Year 4: 10%That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
 
no need for this norris. jeff usually takes care of the jeff pimpin around these parts... :hophead:
:banned: :shrug: Just because you're in a league with me doesn't mean you get to take cheap shots there guy :lmao: .BTW, I don't think your sig is quite a full screen yet.
 
What's wrong with Vince high? (Especially with how Brees/McNabb/Bulger have fared)Care to explain?
I'm not much of a fan of VY, at least not to the extent of the Two Texans (Bloom and Faletti) who love him a bit too much for my taste.If he had someone to throw the ball to it would be a different story. Chris Brown is helping some as well, but someone other than VY as the only offensive player would be nice.I'm not putting him over a few more pure passers yet, but he is a fantasy QB1.
 
long way to gobut Jeff has some winners no doubt
:thumbup: Sorry to be so right about Rivers this year, man. Just saw the writing on the wall with that situation for this year. Long term he's not bad - but not a QB1 for fantasy IMHO - at least not yet. Put him in Romo's situation and he's a different fantasy QB entirely.
 
Just so we're clear here, we're talking DYNASTY rankings.

Please use the "CROWN" to tag your threads and mention it next time so we're all clear.

Carry on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What's wrong with Vince high? (Especially with how Brees/McNabb/Bulger have fared)Care to explain?
I'm not much of a fan of VY, at least not to the extent of the Two Texans (Bloom and Faletti) who love him a bit too much for my taste.If he had someone to throw the ball to it would be a different story. Chris Brown is helping some as well, but someone other than VY as the only offensive player would be nice.I'm not putting him over a few more pure passers yet, but he is a fantasy QB1.
I don't get it.Don't you think the Titans will attempt to get him some support in the future? In some ways the situation, if not the player exactly, looks like McNabb's 2000 Eagles. He had noone on his team, it took awhile, but eventually they learned he needed some help. Granted, TO didn't work perfectly long term, but the attempt was made, and again with Stallworth, then with Curtis. IMO, the Titans organization will be quicker to get playmakers. If you agree that he's a QB1 in his 2nd year, with no other offensive playmakers. Shouldn't you be higher for the future, even if you weigh next year and 2009 more than the far future? Some of us do have a "mancrush" on VY :thumbup: so maybe you're just trying to make the staff appear objective?
 
What's wrong with Vince high? (Especially with how Brees/McNabb/Bulger have fared)Care to explain?
I'm not much of a fan of VY, at least not to the extent of the Two Texans (Bloom and Faletti) who love him a bit too much for my taste.If he had someone to throw the ball to it would be a different story. Chris Brown is helping some as well, but someone other than VY as the only offensive player would be nice.I'm not putting him over a few more pure passers yet, but he is a fantasy QB1.
I don't get it.Don't you think the Titans will attempt to get him some support in the future? In some ways the situation, if not the player exactly, looks like McNabb's 2000 Eagles. He had noone on his team, it took awhile, but eventually they learned he needed some help. Granted, TO didn't work perfectly long term, but the attempt was made, and again with Stallworth, then with Curtis. IMO, the Titans organization will be quicker to get playmakers. If you agree that he's a QB1 in his 2nd year, with no other offensive playmakers. Shouldn't you be higher for the future, even if you weigh next year and 2009 more than the far future? Some of us do have a "mancrush" on VY :kicksrock: so maybe you're just trying to make the staff appear objective?
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:Year 1: 40%Year 2: 30%Year 3: 20%Year 4: 10%That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
Sorry to quote myself, but let's look at Tennessee....WRs are a mess. They have two choices - draft or free agents.If they draft, that will take 2-3 years as you know that most rookie WRs are worthless.If they get some in FA, will they fit in? Will they be in their prime?Also, keep in mind I deal in real estate every day. There is "opportunity cost" of having someone on your roster and if you're waiting for him to perform....but this really doesn't apply to VY. I have him as a QB1 - so the argument is really why I don't have him higher than Player A or Player B. That's a bigger debate.I think the players I have higher than VY will outperform VY, overall, for the next 3-4 years.
 
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:Year 1: 40%Year 2: 30%Year 3: 20%Year 4: 10%That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
Hey, I think Biabreakable got the 50/33/17 from me! No worries, I'm just pleased that someone found that guideline useful.
 
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:Year 1: 40%Year 2: 30%Year 3: 20%Year 4: 10%That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
Hey, I think Biabreakable got the 50/33/17 from me! No worries, I'm just pleased that someone found that guideline useful.
No worries - I just remember his thread (and him dragging anyone he could to it). :angry:The nice thing about 40-30-20-10 is that you can omit the "10" if you just want 3 years of view. About the same deal.
 
What are your thoughts on Reggie Brown, and Stallworth going forward I see your pretty optimistic about those guys.

 
What are your thoughts on Reggie Brown, and Stallworth going forward I see your pretty optimistic about those guys.
Stallworth went from one Pro Bowl QB to the next. Pretty ideal situation for him. If he can ever stay healthy.Reggie Brown needs to do two things. (A) Lighten up and play, not worrying about being a #1, and (B) learn to beat press coverage.Both have pass-first offenses and good QBs.
 
What's wrong with Vince high? (Especially with how Brees/McNabb/Bulger have fared)Care to explain?
I'm not much of a fan of VY, at least not to the extent of the Two Texans (Bloom and Faletti) who love him a bit too much for my taste.If he had someone to throw the ball to it would be a different story. Chris Brown is helping some as well, but someone other than VY as the only offensive player would be nice.I'm not putting him over a few more pure passers yet, but he is a fantasy QB1.
I don't get it.Don't you think the Titans will attempt to get him some support in the future? In some ways the situation, if not the player exactly, looks like McNabb's 2000 Eagles. He had noone on his team, it took awhile, but eventually they learned he needed some help. Granted, TO didn't work perfectly long term, but the attempt was made, and again with Stallworth, then with Curtis. IMO, the Titans organization will be quicker to get playmakers. If you agree that he's a QB1 in his 2nd year, with no other offensive playmakers. Shouldn't you be higher for the future, even if you weigh next year and 2009 more than the far future? Some of us do have a "mancrush" on VY :wub: so maybe you're just trying to make the staff appear objective?
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:Year 1: 40%Year 2: 30%Year 3: 20%Year 4: 10%That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
Sorry to quote myself, but let's look at Tennessee....WRs are a mess. They have two choices - draft or free agents.If they draft, that will take 2-3 years as you know that most rookie WRs are worthless.If they get some in FA, will they fit in? Will they be in their prime?Also, keep in mind I deal in real estate every day. There is "opportunity cost" of having someone on your roster and if you're waiting for him to perform....but this really doesn't apply to VY. I have him as a QB1 - so the argument is really why I don't have him higher than Player A or Player B. That's a bigger debate.I think the players I have higher than VY will outperform VY, overall, for the next 3-4 years.
I assume year 1 is this year? I don't know if you agree or not, but Drinen and Dodds have him as QB7 for the rest of this year.You have VY ranked below Matt Leinart right now in dynasty, despite ML playing poor enough to become a quasi-QBBC with Warner. I can understand if you think Leinart will improve, but if 40% of his ranking comes in QBBC, while VY has almost doubled his production on a per game basis, I just don't get it. :mellow:
 
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.

As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:

Year 1: 40%

Year 2: 30%

Year 3: 20%

Year 4: 10%

That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).

Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
Hey, I think Biabreakable got the 50/33/17 from me! No worries, I'm just pleased that someone found that guideline useful.
This is true gheemony's moneys comments on the percentage ratio for projecting players for Dynasty are what spawned this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=296123&hl= which at the quarter turn of the season I think is worth revisiting. Also still waiting for some comments from people that said they would put their 2 pennys in there...That being said my philosophy has been basicly the same as gheemony's ratio for quite some time.. even back to some of the drugrunner minimal WR theory debates and before that... based on what I have learned playing dynasty since 1990.

I do not look beyond 3 years because

1. Injury to a player can change everything.

2. Injury to supporting cast of a player can change everything.

3. Contracts cause the players situation to change more often than not within 3 years.

4 Holding a player that is unstartable longer than 3 years is not cost effective roster/resource management.

5. I trade often enough that a player who has potential outside of a 3 year window could easily end up back on my team as a buy low when their window of opportunity is closer.

I play in deep leagues also like bloom and others. Even so I find my philosophy balancing situation and talent to be better management than basis too heavily on talent alone. Although the talent does win out sometimes it is not as much the creme rising to the top as its proponents may think. That is one of the main divergences in philosophy for dynansty. Talent vs. Situation.

The other main argument is long term vs short term roster management. I try to be balanced. However I find myself leaning more and more towards the short term as time goes on. Bloom, EBF and Couch Potato tend to have a longer view than I do while my impression has been Jeff having a shorter view than me although his percentage ratio does not reflect that...

The subject of replacement value (by roster size) introduced by CP is another strong factor that I think needs be looked at more closely regardless of what league your in and what your short vs long term and talent vs situation philosophy may be. Roster size should definitly impact your view point on these 2 primary arguments.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That being said my philosophy has been basicly the same as gheemony's ratio for quite some time.. even back to some of the drugrunner minimal WR theory debates and before that... based on what I have learned playing dynasty since 1990.I do not look beyond 3 years because1. Injury to a player can change everything.2. Injury to supporting cast of a player can change everything.3. Contracts cause the players situation to change more often than not within 3 years.4 Holding a player that is unstartable longer than 3 years is not cost effective roster/resource management.5. I trade often enough that a player who has potential outside of a 3 year window could easily end up back on my team as a buy low when their window of opportunity is closer.I play in deep leagues also like bloom and others. Even so I find my philosophy balancing situation and talent to be better management than basis too heavily on talent alone. Although the talent does win out sometimes it is not as much the creme rising to the top as its proponents may think. That is one of the main divergences in philosophy for dynansty. Talent vs. Situation.
Bia, do you have a different philosophy for rookies?I do. Rookies bust enough regardless of natural talent or situation, but I'd say that on the whole, talented rookies will be the elite. Just as a case in point, if you look at the top 250 forward, most of the top 20 were high picks. The others excel for other reasons, but even with many of those, you wouldn't have seen the situation their rookie year. Would anyone have taken Tom Brady, Westbrook, Gore, Romo, Kitna, or even Favre as a rookie due to their situation? I don't use my draft expecting to start any of my picks immediately, so I don't mind having a "bad situation". Or, if you're always only looking 1-3 years down the road, do you always trade your picks away? :thumbup:But with veteran players, I do expect to play them, I want a good player now, so I can certainly agree with your valuation.
 
I play in deep leagues also like bloom and others. Even so I find my philosophy balancing situation and talent to be better management than basis too heavily on talent alone. Although the talent does win out sometimes it is not as much the creme rising to the top as its proponents may think. That is one of the main divergences in philosophy for dynansty. Talent vs. Situation.The other main argument is long term vs short term roster management. I try to be balanced. However I find myself leaning more and more towards the short term as time goes on. Bloom, EBF and Couch Potato tend to have a longer view than I do while my impression has been Jeff having a shorter view than me although his percentage ratio does not reflect that...The subject of replacement value (by roster size) introduced by CP is another strong factor that I think needs be looked at more closely regardless of what league your in and what your short vs long term and talent vs situation philosophy may be. Roster size should definitly impact your view point on these 2 primary arguments.
That being said my philosophy has been basicly the same as gheemony's ratio for quite some time.. even back to some of the drugrunner minimal WR theory debates and before that... based on what I have learned playing dynasty since 1990.I do not look beyond 3 years because1. Injury to a player can change everything.2. Injury to supporting cast of a player can change everything.3. Contracts cause the players situation to change more often than not within 3 years.4 Holding a player that is unstartable longer than 3 years is not cost effective roster/resource management.5. I trade often enough that a player who has potential outside of a 3 year window could easily end up back on my team as a buy low when their window of opportunity is closer.I play in deep leagues also like bloom and others. Even so I find my philosophy balancing situation and talent to be better management than basis too heavily on talent alone. Although the talent does win out sometimes it is not as much the creme rising to the top as its proponents may think. That is one of the main divergences in philosophy for dynansty. Talent vs. Situation.
Bia, do you have a different philosophy for rookies?I do. Rookies bust enough regardless of natural talent or situation, but I'd say that on the whole, talented rookies will be the elite. Just as a case in point, if you look at the top 250 forward, most of the top 20 were high picks. The others excel for other reasons, but even with many of those, you wouldn't have seen the situation their rookie year. Would anyone have taken Tom Brady, Westbrook, Gore, Romo, Kitna, or even Favre as a rookie due to their situation? I don't use my draft expecting to start any of my picks immediately, so I don't mind having a "bad situation". Or, if you're always only looking 1-3 years down the road, do you always trade your picks away? :own3d: But with veteran players, I do expect to play them, I want a good player now, so I can certainly agree with your valuation.
This is really the reason I went after developing the Dynasty Rookie Pick Calculator.If you play in a 16 team, 45 man roster league (a la Zealots, for example) then you have ample time to let a rookie develop and exist on your roster.If you play with 12 teams and 24 man rosters (like Hyper Active, for example), then you have to squeeze out room for rookie picks.The more room you have on your roster, the longer you can let a player develop. Also if you have a league where a ton of players are rostered and off the market, you HAVE to let rookies develop else you'll never have new talented players.You'll see it most anywhere - when you have big rosters, 2nd, 3rd and even 4th round picks have more value than in shallower leagues. That's reflected in the calculator as well. There's more written in the article on it too.I'm also leaning more towards trading picks for players over the long run as well - I'll have to think about that.
 
That being said my philosophy has been basicly the same as gheemony's ratio for quite some time.. even back to some of the drugrunner minimal WR theory debates and before that... based on what I have learned playing dynasty since 1990.I do not look beyond 3 years because1. Injury to a player can change everything.2. Injury to supporting cast of a player can change everything.3. Contracts cause the players situation to change more often than not within 3 years.4 Holding a player that is unstartable longer than 3 years is not cost effective roster/resource management.5. I trade often enough that a player who has potential outside of a 3 year window could easily end up back on my team as a buy low when their window of opportunity is closer.I play in deep leagues also like bloom and others. Even so I find my philosophy balancing situation and talent to be better management than basis too heavily on talent alone. Although the talent does win out sometimes it is not as much the creme rising to the top as its proponents may think. That is one of the main divergences in philosophy for dynansty. Talent vs. Situation.
Bia, do you have a different philosophy for rookies?I do. Rookies bust enough regardless of natural talent or situation, but I'd say that on the whole, talented rookies will be the elite. Just as a case in point, if you look at the top 250 forward, most of the top 20 were high picks. The others excel for other reasons, but even with many of those, you wouldn't have seen the situation their rookie year. Would anyone have taken Tom Brady, Westbrook, Gore, Romo, Kitna, or even Favre as a rookie due to their situation? I don't use my draft expecting to start any of my picks immediately, so I don't mind having a "bad situation". Or, if you're always only looking 1-3 years down the road, do you always trade your picks away? :own3d:But with veteran players, I do expect to play them, I want a good player now, so I can certainly agree with your valuation.
For rookie players I would not say I have a different philosophy in regards to them compared to other players. If you read the linked thread towards the end Driver and I are studying the bust rate of RBs over thier careers based on what round they are drafted in the NFL as rookies. There is a high bust rate but that evaluation can be applied to veteran players as well depending on what point in thier career they are at when you draft or for allready established league roster management.Some examples of what I mean:Thomas Jones - I did not have him highly ranked because of his situation in AZ. He showed glimmers of his talent at times while there but I never valued him as high as other RBs with similar talent and pedegree because of his situation. When he moved on to Tampa my perspective of his value changed and was ultimatly validated when he moved on to the Bears.Steven Jackson - I had him ranked pretty low as a rookie because of his situation of having to share with Marshall Faulk and uncertainty of when he would surpass him. I did have Jackson performing well by his 3rd year in the league but because of my 3 year window Jackson was not ranked very high by me as a rookie. I am not sure if that thread where DR and I are discussing that still exists or not.I dont draft rookies expecting them to start for me right away either.. but I do draft them with the expectation that they will be worth starting sooner rather than later. Otherwise I will draft someone else. Talent does trump situation in some cases but I don't think it does as often as people might want it to. To be blind of bad situation is not using all of the information available to you IMHO and likewise players in good situations need be considered over other players with more talent even though I do not always do so.A good example of this would be Addai vs Bush, DeAngleo and Maroney.As rookies I had those 4 ranked:DeAngelo WilliamsMaroneyAddaiBushIf I were to rank them now it would beAddaiMaroneyBushWilliamsIf I ranked them based purely on talent (and ability to produce for fantasy) they would beBushWilliamsMaroney AddaiAs rookies I went with what I thought was the best combination of talent + opportunity. That is why I had Williams 1st. And how the rest followed. And this was looking at the same 3 year window. Situations and circumstances did not evolve how I expected them to. I did not expect Foster to hang on this long. I did not think Addai had as much talent as he does. Bush and Maroney have gone kind of how I expected although Bush could still live up to peoples expectations of him.As far as my value for rookie picks I see those picks as additional roster slots and they carry high value for me independent of my expectations on the performance of rookie players. I tend to trade for rather than trade rookie picks away.. recently I have been trading rookie picks away for players to secure championships. But that is after several years of stockpiling rookie players and developing a team that is not only strong but young. The rookie pick value is a topic in itself but I will say that the potential of a rookie pick and the value of a young player is almost always higher than that players actual value except for a select few. Those select few are valuable enough to keep the potential persepctive higher than it should be.From a cost benifit analysis I have beeen taking a loss trading away specificly targeted rookie picks over the last 2 seasons. But I have done so because my teams are in a 3 year window capable of winning it all without players on my roster losing value because of age. So I feel the sacrifice is justified even though I realize that my team would have even more overall value if I kept the rookie picks traded for and secured instead.
 
I might be forgetting some but those are the ones I remember, good job on the rankings so far JP your atleast over .500 against Mr. Bloom this year and thats very difficult to do, against someone of his scouting abilities I know I sure couldnt do it.
The flaw with this is is that Jeff should often look better in the year of the rankings, because he is making his ranking with a focus on this year. Bloom is looking longer term, so he will almost always be behind Jeff 4 games into a season. Certainly Jeff should get credit on Jeff King, Brian Leonard and Matt Jones- but it is very premature to pick a dynasty winner/loser on Meachem, Bush or even Westbrook. We won't know those answers for a while. I do think many dynasty owners, myself included, too heavily weight future potential over current production- and Jeff has a good counterposition to consider.
 
I might be forgetting some but those are the ones I remember, good job on the rankings so far JP your atleast over .500 against Mr. Bloom this year and thats very difficult to do, against someone of his scouting abilities I know I sure couldnt do it.
The flaw with this is is that Jeff should often look better in the year of the rankings, because he is making his ranking with a focus on this year. Bloom is looking longer term, so he will almost always be behind Jeff 4 games into a season. Certainly Jeff should get credit on Jeff King, Brian Leonard and Matt Jones- but it is very premature to pick a dynasty winner/loser on Meachem, Bush or even Westbrook. We won't know those answers for a while. I do think many dynasty owners, myself included, too heavily weight future potential over current production- and Jeff has a good counterposition to consider.
:goodposting: All good points. I think the classic "Dynasty" view of the world, including FF, is hard to do anymore. Players change teams and scenarios to often.However, the long term viewpoint is valuable even to someone who looks medium-to-short term like myself. I still drafted ADP with one of my early first picks in one league and he's not going anywhere.In the end both views help and compliment each other - leading to better thoughts and decisions.
 
JP congrats on another win over Bloom w. Donte Stallworth who you had rated high and Bloom low.

Couple questions, your a guy that seems to have a win now approach for the most part. I dont get Dwayne Bowe behind Sidney Rice, the situation looks quite a bit better in KC then Minnesota. The situation in Minnesota seems pretty bad, I would expect you to give Rice a mid 40s ranking based on that but you dont. I really dont get why Marshall is so low you had him higher in your preseason rankings. Dont you think its time to give up on Darrell Jackson? What do you think about the situation in StL as far as your Bruce ranking? Why the LenDale and Alexander hate? Alge Crumpler?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JP congrats on another win over Bloom w. Donte Stallworth who you had rated high and Bloom low. Couple questions, your a guy that seems to have a win now approach for the most part. I dont get Dwayne Bowe behind Sidney Rice, the situation looks quite a bit better in KC then Minnesota. The situation in Minnesota seems pretty bad, I would expect you to give Rice a mid 40s ranking based on that but you dont. I really dont get why Marshall is so low you had him higher in your preseason rankings. Dont you think its time to give up on Darrell Jackson? What do you think about the situation in StL as far as your Bruce ranking? Why the LenDale and Alexander hate? Alge Crumpler?
Dynasty Rankings aren't up to par this week... started on them today, but need to update them.Check back Monday/Tues.
 
JP congrats on another win over Bloom w. Donte Stallworth who you had rated high and Bloom low.
Sorry, but we are not competing with each other when we do rankings. There are no wins and losses between staff members. We all get some right and get some wrong.
 
As for my style, I do emphasize more "now" than "later". That may seem odd in Dynasty, but given that you play now and can always change your team 2-3 yrs down the road, why not go for now vs. then?
:unsure: I'll seldom look more than 2-3 years down the road, and my dynasty team changes quite a bit during that span. I try not to focus too far in the future because it only gets more cloudy.
 
long way to gobut Jeff has some winners no doubt
:thumbup: Sorry to be so right about Rivers this year, man. Just saw the writing on the wall with that situation for this year. Long term he's not bad - but not a QB1 for fantasy IMHO - at least not yet. Put him in Romo's situation and he's a different fantasy QB entirely.
contrary to most bolt homers, I dont like rivers, and I really dont like him as a FFL QB.
 
With numerous posts in this thread going at this topic from a theoretical standpoint, I would think this would be another one that is pinned.

 
I think Pasquino tends to have a win now style rankings, while Bloom puts more emphasis on potential and youth. I only play Dynasty so I prefer Bloom, but it is nice to have the contrast of all the rankings.
I tend to work with what I know, which is the near-term. Unless I have first hand knowledge of a player and his abilities (see Jeff King and Brian Leonard as I watch VT and RU a lot), I try and focus on the known rather than the unknown.Players' abilities, teams, contracts, coaches, and other situations are known this year. Things change pretty fast, and that tends to favor disorder rather than order.

As a rough guide (but NOT a rule) I look at:

Year 1: 40%

Year 2: 30%

Year 3: 20%

Year 4: 10%

That's similar to Biabreakable's version of 50/33/17 (3 year horizon).

Given that most contracts are about 3-4 years as are NFL lifetimes, that seems to work OK.
Pay attention to both Jeff's and Bloom's rankings and use them in tandem. They're good for slightly different things. Jeff doesn't tend to fall for flashes in the pan, and can identify solid, safe dynasty value. That is a very valuable tool when you're assessing trades of veteran players, or you're in a startup dynasty draft.

Bloom - and this is no coincidence because he goes to the rookie combines/workouts/senior bowls - is very good for identifying emerging young players, guys who don't have the resume but who might break out big.

These aren't absolutes - Jeff is on the lookout for emerging players too, and Bloom of course knows the value of a good veteran player when he sees one, but I think they do indeed emphasize different things (unconsciously?) when ranking players.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top