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!

New England wr to benefit the most from the TE debacle? (1 Viewer)

bumping Ridley and Edelman up the charts..

Edelman has injury issues from time to time,but he can play..if/when Amendola goes down, Edelman

will be a nice fill-in ( that is ,if he can stay healthy)

Ridley figures to see a lot more action this season, NE just doesn't have the WR/TE firepower

anymore..

 
(and yes, I am in the camp that says Gronk will be out at least 4-6 weeks).
Just curious, what does this camp base this on?
The fact that he has had 4 surgeries this offseason. If there are any complications to his recovery, he's going to miss time. If he gets injured again, he'll miss time. I think people are just kind of expecting him to miss some of the season in general because he's had so much work done.

 
(and yes, I am in the camp that says Gronk will be out at least 4-6 weeks).
Just curious, what does this camp base this on?
The fact that he has had 4 surgeries this offseason. If there are any complications to his recovery, he's going to miss time. If he gets injured again, he'll miss time. I think people are just kind of expecting him to miss some of the season in general because he's had so much work done.
I don't see how the arm and arm infection surgeries have any baring on anything. The only relevant surgery is the back one. I don't really know of any reason to expect a setback in that one. It's the same operation he had coming out of college I believe, a keyhole surgery. I can see him needing 1-2 of the regular season games to get back into game shape, but more than that would require something unexpected.

 
Look, it isn't personal to everyone else like it is to you. I have Gronk in one league and I am hoping for the best but covering my back end as well by drafting Eifert and probably rostering a mid level guy like Keller for those spot starts.

Any time you do surgery there is the risk of infection. This isn't Madden. This is a human person who is having his body sedated and cut into over and over and over again. I hope he's ok, love the kid really. He's everything Hernandez should have been. Just loving life. But he's human. And these repeated surgeries just aren't a good sign no matter how you look at it.

 
Look, it isn't personal to everyone else like it is to you. I have Gronk in one league and I am hoping for the best but covering my back end as well by drafting Eifert and probably rostering a mid level guy like Keller for those spot starts.

Any time you do surgery there is the risk of infection. This isn't Madden. This is a human person who is having his body sedated and cut into over and over and over again. I hope he's ok, love the kid really. He's everything Hernandez should have been. Just loving life. But he's human. And these repeated surgeries just aren't a good sign no matter how you look at it.
Just get the Dr from Dark Knight Rises, that guy punched batman in the back and he was ready to roll in a week

 
I can't answer the OP, and I don't think anyone can right now.

What I can tell you is ill be watching this situation closely this August. With Brady throwing to any random player 140 times it's a value pick waiting to happen.

I think Dobbs will be the X and the guy who will way out produce his ADP, but that's just a guess at this point.

 
PatsWillWin said:
Sabertooth said:
PatsWillWin said:
az_prof said:
(and yes, I am in the camp that says Gronk will be out at least 4-6 weeks).
Just curious, what does this camp base this on?
The fact that he has had 4 surgeries this offseason. If there are any complications to his recovery, he's going to miss time. If he gets injured again, he'll miss time. I think people are just kind of expecting him to miss some of the season in general because he's had so much work done.
I don't see how the arm and arm infection surgeries have any baring on anything. The only relevant surgery is the back one. I don't really know of any reason to expect a setback in that one. It's the same operation he had coming out of college I believe, a keyhole surgery. I can see him needing 1-2 of the regular season games to get back into game shape, but more than that would require something unexpected.
Thats what is going to be hard about this is that we don't (and won't) really know the real extent of it. He is only 24 years old and he has already had 2 back surgeries. To me, that very well could mean that he has a chronic issue that will be prone to recur. The problem is, especially with the pats, we'll never know. The reports seem to confirm that it was just a microdiscectomy, but I couldn't find much more than that. Was it the same level as his college procedure, or is this at different level? Has he been relatively inactive while trying to recover from his arm issues (I haven't been able to find anything on that)? If so, can we really use these "optimistic" time tables for his recovery from a second back surgery?

 
Lavelle Hawkins has been in the FBG email a couple times lately for his ST ability....

I wanted to say he is a uniquely weird player. He's got some kangaroo in him or played too many video games growing up or Berman's sound effects or something. He hops quickly sideways. The Titans never used him all too much IMO. However, he would be possibly the most annoying WR ever to DBs if he just ran little short routes over the middle.

I always thought, go forward! because it was like nice move, then he'd be nailed by another DB. I've always wondered if he could actually be coached into having some nice YAC with that odd ability.

I totally expect him to be cut, but I'm glad my curiousity gets a great coach like BB to have a go at that lateral move he does.

The shark move here for dynasty is probably Kenbrell Thompkins. According to articles, it seems he's received time with the 1s over and over. There have been absences and all that pushed him into the starting unit, but he did and he did well. In camp, if these journeymen struggle, I gotta figure BB says let's see Kenbrell again. A chance, a glimmer, a miniscule possibility, but a fun pick for dynasty leagues to sit and watch if anything happens.

For the salary cap folks, Moe I think got the most $ of all the undrafted players-it wasn't (relatively) much, but sometimes people judge the $ as being an indicator.

 
Lavelle Hawkins has been in the FBG email a couple times lately for his ST ability....

I wanted to say he is a uniquely weird player. He's got some kangaroo in him or played too many video games growing up or Berman's sound effects or something. He hops quickly sideways. The Titans never used him all too much IMO. However, he would be possibly the most annoying WR ever to DBs if he just ran little short routes over the middle.

I always thought, go forward! because it was like nice move, then he'd be nailed by another DB. I've always wondered if he could actually be coached into having some nice YAC with that odd ability.

I totally expect him to be cut, but I'm glad my curiousity gets a great coach like BB to have a go at that lateral move he does.

The shark move here for dynasty is probably Kenbrell Thompkins. According to articles, it seems he's received time with the 1s over and over. There have been absences and all that pushed him into the starting unit, but he did and he did well. In camp, if these journeymen struggle, I gotta figure BB says let's see Kenbrell again. A chance, a glimmer, a miniscule possibility, but a fun pick for dynasty leagues to sit and watch if anything happens.

For the salary cap folks, Moe I think got the most $ of all the undrafted players-it wasn't (relatively) much, but sometimes people judge the $ as being an indicator.
Moe was put on IR about a month ago.

 
I wouldn't get my hopes up for Vereen. He's closer to Kevin Faulk than he is to Reggie Bush or Darren Sproles. The fact that New England lost a few pass catchers doesn't change that. 40-60 catches is his upside. Add in modest rushing totals and he doesn't figure to be much more than a flex play or bye week filler. He won't beat out Ridley for #1 RB duties and he's not dynamic enough to be a slash type of player like Sproles.

Amendola is the guy you want in redraft leagues. If you want a sleeper pick Boyce is more likely to explode in the passing game than Vereen. Much more accomplished pass catcher with a much better athletic tool kit. I think he will vanquish these other pretenders once he's healthy and up to speed with the playbook.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't get my hopes up for Vereen. He's closer to Kevin Faulk than he is to Reggie Bush or Darren Sproles. The fact that New England lost a few pass catchers doesn't change that. 40-60 catches is his upside. Add in modest rushing totals and he doesn't figure to be much more than a flex play or bye week filler. He won't beat out Ridley for #1 RB duties and he's not dynamic enough to be a slash type of player like Sproles.

Amendola is the guy you want in redraft leagues. If you want a sleeper pick Boyce is more likely to explode in the passing game than Vereen. Much more accomplished pass catcher with a much better athletic tool kit. I think he will vanquish these other pretenders once he's healthy and up to speed with the playbook.
For some reason I give more value to Chris Wesseling's opinion than yours. :hophead:

And Rotoworld had this to say about Vereen:

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6445/shane-vereen/1

During Patriots spring practices, "there were times" Shane Vereen lined up as an outside receiver and got matched up with a linebacker.

Patriots Football Weekly's Paul Perillo compares the formation to the one out of which Vereen caught a 33-yard TD pass against Houston in the Divisional Round of the playoffs, beating coverage with a double move. Calling him a "versatile running back with wide receiver skills," Perillo believes Vereen will essentially be New England's No. 2 receiver behind Danny Amendola this year. Jul 5 - 5:16 PM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wesseling has always been more of reporter than a prognosticator. Even his memorable calls (like touting Chris Johnson) were just based off buzz from training camp. There's nothing wrong with that, but the New England WR situation is too far away from being settled for the buzz to mean anything yet. Two of the biggest variables in this situation (Dobson and Boyce) have barely practiced. Thus all of the reporter buzz and "insider scoop" about what's happening in New England should be stamped with a big red "INCOMPLETE" label.

That's a big weakness of reactive analysis vs. predictive analysis. Reactive analysis waits for things to happen and then reports on what's happening. With that approach you are prone dismissing a guy like Dobson or Boyce because you're focusing only on what's already happening and not on what's going to happen. Most FF pundits practice a lot of reactive analysis and minimal predictive analysis. So naturally when guys like Thompkins and Vereen are practicing while guys like Boyce and Dobson are stuck on the sidelines nursing injuries, these pundits are going to get a bit of tunnel vision and forget that they're looking at an incomplete picture.

I think it's better to try to consider all of the variables and account for alternative outcomes instead of just staring at the one that's right in front of you. New England's WR situation likely won't be resolved until they get all these players under one roof and have a chance to look at all of them. I don't see Vereen emerging from that battle as a legitimate #2 WR. He offers some ability in space as a short range target, but that's where his receiving skills begin and end. He's Kevin Faulk. Not Reggie Bush. He doesn't have the sheer speed to consistently make plays downfield. He has no jump ball ability to speak of. The idea that he's going to be a dynamic receiving threat doesn't really jive with me. It's a bad guess based on incomplete information. He might catch a lot of dumpoffs, but he's not going to turn into Wes Welker overnight.

Dobson is faster and taller. He brings a lot more jump ball/red zone potential. Boyce is possibly the most well-rounded and dynamic talent in New England's whole WR corps. He has the strength and size to play outside, the quickness to work out of the slot, the speed to stretch the field, and a pretty good track record of production (especially compared to the likes of Thompkins, Vereen, and Harrison). I think he's a strong contender for a prominent role here right out of the box. We've seen many rookie receivers make a reasonable impact in rookie years and I think the pundits would be well served to remember that when they're handicapping this situation.

Just last year we saw the 92nd pick (TY Hilton) and the 96th pick (Chris Givens) come in and produce right away for teams that had WR need. I expect something similar from this year's 102nd pick (Josh Boyce). There are lot of parallels as all of these guys were productive collegiate WRs with special physical tools to help them make a fairly seamless transition to contributing roles in the NFL.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wesseling has always been more of reporter than a prognosticator.
Always? I think most people here remember his dynasty rankings and threads and would regard him more as a prognosticator. He was hired by Rotoworld more for his rankings rather than any ability as a reporter (since he had done virtually nothing in that capacity pre-Rotoworld). In recent years he has been more of a journalist, particularly now with NFL site, but to say he always has been more of a reporter is incorrect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wesseling has always been more of reporter than a prognosticator.
Always? I think most people here remember his dynasty rankings and threads and would regard him more as a prognosticator. He was hired by Rotoworld more for his rankings rather than any ability as a reporter (since he had done virtually nothing in that capacity pre-Rotoworld). In recent years he has been more of a journalist, particularly now with NFL site, but to say he always has been more of a reporter is incorrect IMO.
Yeah no kidding.

It's pretty much the opposite.

 
I still don't see Vereen doing much more than Woodhead ever did . . .
Vereen certainly wouldn't be the first rb to line up at wr in the patriot offense. But he also wouldn't be the first guy to successfully change positions to fill a team need. If the wide receivers and tight ends don't produce, and vereen does, it wouldn't be shocking at all to see him get 80+ receptions. He's an interesting rb prospect for 2013 because he could put up wr numbers, which is great in ppr. But if you're drafting him thinking he's a lock for 50+ receptions, you're probably overpaying. There's a lot of wiggle room on any early projection for patriots receiving targets, so if vereens stock starts to climb too high, be wary. For now, I think he's a decent value play with reggie bush potential.
 
I still don't see Vereen doing much more than Woodhead ever did . . .
Vereen certainly wouldn't be the first rb to line up at wr in the patriot offense. But he also wouldn't be the first guy to successfully change positions to fill a team need. If the wide receivers and tight ends don't produce, and vereen does, it wouldn't be shocking at all to see him get 80+ receptions. He's an interesting rb prospect for 2013 because he could put up wr numbers, which is great in ppr. But if you're drafting him thinking he's a lock for 50+ receptions, you're probably overpaying. There's a lot of wiggle room on any early projection for patriots receiving targets, so if vereens stock starts to climb too high, be wary. For now, I think he's a decent value play with reggie bush potential.
Woodhead's best year was basically 925/6. I think Vereen could get a combined line in that vicinity, in some manner of speaking in total yards. That's what I was referring to earlier when I said he could put up a great line for a TE . . . but as a RB that won't rank anywhere near as high. So it's conceivable he could be third on the team in receiving yards but not a fantasy starting RB at the same time. He could see 250 rushing yards, 700 receiving yards, and 5-6 TDs. IMO, that makes him a fantasy RB flex or RB3. Maybe a really low end RB2 in PPR leagues.

 
It is also conceivable that Vereen logs 1200 total yards while chopping in about 70 catches. I mean we really don't know. He is worth a lottery ticket. He could very well put up Sproles stats while bringing different skills to the table.

It's all about utilization at this point and somebody is going to get the ball besides Gronk. I think Vereen is a solid bet to have a top 30 season.

 
Ebf, what kind of veteran wr would you trade straight up for dobson right now?
I don't really like Dobson much, tbh. I have him valued at about a mid 3rd round rookie pick.

I have Boyce valued as an early-mid 2nd and I think he's a good dynasty investment if you can get him for a 2nd or 3rd round rookie pick.

Having said that, a monster rookie season would surprise me. Something like 600-800 yards seems more likely. Roughly on par with Givens/Hilton.

 
I don't have high expectations for Vereen. I just see the high upside. It seems very likely that somebody on the Patriots will be a value pick. Could it be Vereen? Sure. I can see him picking up all of Woodhead's role and a little of Ridley's, but if the New England rushing attempts regress as expected, that doesn't make him a bargain. What you're really hoping for is that he's asked to pick up some of the slack from Welker, Hernandez, and Lloyd (and Woodhead, but we're already building that into the projection). And the main reason he would be able to pick up that slack is not his own talent, but the other guys on the field. If Gronk is healthy, and Amendola, Edelman, Dobson and Boyce are all studly from day one, then you'd be foolish to bank on Vereen putting up big numbers, and Anarchy's projections would be a good guess at his upside. If the receiving corps starts out slow - maybe some combination of Gronk on the PUP list, Edelman not making the team, Amendola getting hurt, and/or the rookies failing to impress - then he could be a league winning value play in PPR.

I would rather invest a later pick in Vereen putting up Sproles numbers than an earlier pick on Sproles putting up Sproles numbers. PPR RBs are a dangerous business if you have to pick a starting lineup because they bring nothing to the table if they're not catching passes, and you can always get porked by a guy like McFadden getting double digit receptions week one and then never coming close to it the rest of the year. I can't imagine that anyone drafting Vereen is drafting him as a week 1 starter, and I can't imagine that anyone drafting Sproles isn't.

 
Ebf, what kind of veteran wr would you trade straight up for dobson right now?
I don't really like Dobson much, tbh. I have him valued at about a mid 3rd round rookie pick.

I have Boyce valued as an early-mid 2nd and I think he's a good dynasty investment if you can get him for a 2nd or 3rd round rookie pick.

Having said that, a monster rookie season would surprise me. Something like 600-800 yards seems more likely. Roughly on par with Givens/Hilton.
OK, then Boyce. What kind of veteran WR - and by veteran, I mean Nate Washington, Colston, Wayne - guys who are productive now but nearing the end - would you give up for your NEP rookie WR of choice?

 
It is also conceivable that Vereen logs 1200 total yards while chopping in about 70 catches. I mean we really don't know. He is worth a lottery ticket. He could very well put up Sproles stats while bringing different skills to the table.
I think some of these assessments of Vereen are a little too rosy.

70 is a lot of receptions for a RB. Tomlinson only did that twice in his career.

To get that many catches, you either need to be on the field for almost every down and/or you need to be such a special talent that the coach will go above and beyond to get you the ball. With Ridley (and Blount and Bolden) around, we can probably rule out the possibility of Vereen becoming an every down back. That leaves only the second possibility: him being so dynamic and explosive that the coaches will find a way to get him the ball. Does he really have that much talent?

I don't personally rate him on par with the likes of Maurice Drew, Reggie Bush, and Darren Sproles. I think those guys always had more talent in the receiving and return game. They're faster, more explosive, and more dangerous in space. Vereen did have a pair of great receiving games last year and that provides some evidence that he might have something to offer in the facet of the game. I don't think it will be enough to make him more than a fringe option in FF though and I don't see his rushing numbers jumping up much from last year.

I'd look for 35-60 catches for Vereen. Probably not enough to make him more than a depth/bye week play without the rushing or TD numbers to support the receptions.

The idea that he's going to keep WRs on the bench doesn't ring true for me. He's too limited as a WR, with no real ability on intermediate/deep routes and no possession game. A mismatch against linebackers, but not a guy you want to split out wide and ask to beat the other team's CB with regularity.

 
Ebf, what kind of veteran wr would you trade straight up for dobson right now?
I don't really like Dobson much, tbh. I have him valued at about a mid 3rd round rookie pick.

I have Boyce valued as an early-mid 2nd and I think he's a good dynasty investment if you can get him for a 2nd or 3rd round rookie pick.

Having said that, a monster rookie season would surprise me. Something like 600-800 yards seems more likely. Roughly on par with Givens/Hilton.
OK, then Boyce. What kind of veteran WR - and by veteran, I mean Nate Washington, Colston, Wayne - guys who are productive now but nearing the end - would you give up for your NEP rookie WR of choice?
I tentatively have Boyce rated in the WR35-WR45 range. Around guys like Welker, Holmes, and James Jones.

Based on what we know about him, I think he's highly likely to become a viable NFL contributor. He has some special physical qualities and enough football skill to make the transition. The main question is upside. He's only 5'11" and while he was a good college player, he was never a monster stat machine.

Again, I think a Givens or Hilton comparison is apt. Good players who might not necessarily have the special something to jump up into Demaryius/Calvin/Fitz territory. Probably more comparable to someone like Antonio Brown, Jeremy Maclin, or Pierre Garcon in terms of what he can become.

That's all subject to change depending on what he shows the next few years. His height/weight/speed combo is pretty bonkers and his stats might have been limited by a conservative TCU offense. I'm higher than most on him, but I might even be selling him short. In this offense it's possible that he could be a top 20-30 FF WR in time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tentatively have Boyce rated in the WR35-WR45 range. Around guys like Welker, Holmes, and James Jones.
I don't think there is a Welker owner in a dynasty league on this planet that would consider Boyce anywhere close to being in the same tier or equal value. And if you don't believe that, since you own Boyce in multiple leagues, send out a query to the Welker owners about a straight up trade for Boyce and report back to us what the responses are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tentatively have Boyce rated in the WR35-WR45 range. Around guys like Welker, Holmes, and James Jones.
I don't think there is a Welker owner in a dynasty league on this planet that would consider Boyce anywhere close to being in the same tier or equal value. And if you don't believe that, since you own Boyce in multiple leagues, send out a query to the Welker owners about a straight up trade for Boyce and report back to us what the responses are.
Where did he say that he thought he could get Welker for Boyce?

 
I tentatively have Boyce rated in the WR35-WR45 range. Around guys like Welker, Holmes, and James Jones.
I don't think there is a Welker owner in a dynasty league on this planet that would consider Boyce anywhere close to being in the same tier or equal value. And if you don't believe that, since you own Boyce in multiple leagues, send out a query to the Welker owners about a straight up trade for Boyce and report back to us what the responses are.
Where did he say that he thought he could get Welker for Boyce?
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team need. If the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here that he should) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and have the same value in dynasty leagues. EBF can rank Boyce in the top 10 if he wants to, but that doesn't reflect actual current value or trade value.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tentatively have Boyce rated in the WR35-WR45 range. Around guys like Welker, Holmes, and James Jones.
I don't think there is a Welker owner in a dynasty league on this planet that would consider Boyce anywhere close to being in the same tier or equal value. And if you don't believe that, since you own Boyce in multiple leagues, send out a query to the Welker owners about a straight up trade for Boyce and report back to us what the responses are.
Where did he say that he thought he could get Welker for Boyce?
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team needs, if the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and the same value in dynasty leagues.
That's cool, you don't have to. He was just answering the question of where he personally ranked him. Personal rankings don't always have to equal (or be close to) consensus rankings. Part of what makes FF so fun IMHO.

 
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team need. If the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here that he should) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and have the same value in dynasty leagues. EBF can rank Boyce in the top 10 if he wants to, but that doesn't reflect actual current value or trade value.
The question was about where I would rank the players, not about their trade value.

 
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team need. If the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here that he should) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and have the same value in dynasty leagues. EBF can rank Boyce in the top 10 if he wants to, but that doesn't reflect actual current value or trade value.
The question was about where I would rank the players, not about their trade value.
Great! Good to know you don't consider current trade value, future trade value or exit trade value in your rankings. I will keep that in mind for future reference.

 
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team need. If the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here that he should) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and have the same value in dynasty leagues. EBF can rank Boyce in the top 10 if he wants to, but that doesn't reflect actual current value or trade value.
The question was about where I would rank the players, not about their trade value.
Great! Good to know you don't consider current trade value, future trade value or exit trade value in your rankings. I will keep that in mind for future reference.
This whole tangent probably belongs in another thread, but why would you consider trade value when creating personal rankings? Wouldn't this lead to some serious groupthink? :shrug:

 
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team need. If the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here that he should) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and have the same value in dynasty leagues. EBF can rank Boyce in the top 10 if he wants to, but that doesn't reflect actual current value or trade value.
The question was about where I would rank the players, not about their trade value.
Great! Good to know you don't consider current trade value, future trade value or exit trade value in your rankings. I will keep that in mind for future reference.
Market value isn't what drives my personal rankings. Nor should it be. Market value is what I weigh my personal rankings against to identify players to buy/sell based on the disparity in how I value them and how others value them. If I rate Boyce at WR40 and I know that most people rate him at WR80, it tells me that I can pick him up for far less than I think he's actually worth.

There's no real utility in dynasty rankings that just mirror consensus value. That's what ADP is for.

I absolutely do consider future trade value and exit value in my rankings. If someone ranked Brandon Marshall as WR5 prior to his rookie season when he was viewed as a longshot proposition, does the fact that they ranked him that highly somehow imply that they disregarded all future and exit value considerations? No, of course not.

A big part of the reason why I rate Boyce above Welker is because of exit value and future value. He's less likely to be useful, but if he hits there's a far bigger potential payoff since he's so much younger. The fact that market value favors Welker at this exact moment in time has very little bearing on this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He has them ranked equally in the same tier. Equal value should equal a straight up trade depending on team need. If the Welker owner can get the same value (as suggested here that he should) for player a decade younger, then why wouldn't they do it? I am sorry but I can't buy that these players are in the same tier and have the same value in dynasty leagues. EBF can rank Boyce in the top 10 if he wants to, but that doesn't reflect actual current value or trade value.
The question was about where I would rank the players, not about their trade value.
Great! Good to know you don't consider current trade value, future trade value or exit trade value in your rankings. I will keep that in mind for future reference.
Market value isn't what drives my personal rankings. Nor should it be. Market value is what I weigh my personal rankings against to identify players to buy/sell based on the disparity in how I value them and how others value them. If I rate Boyce at WR40 and I know that most people rate him at WR80, it tells me that I can pick him up for far less than I think he's actually worth.

There's no real utility in dynasty rankings that just mirror consensus value. That's what ADP is for.

I absolutely do consider future trade value and exit value in my rankings. If someone ranked Brandon Marshall as WR5 prior to his rookie season when he was viewed as a longshot proposition, does the fact that they ranked him that highly somehow imply that they disregarded all future and exit value considerations? No, of course not.

A big part of the reason why I rate Boyce above Welker is because of exit value and future value. He's less likely to be useful, but if he hits there's a far bigger potential payoff since he's so much younger. The fact that market value favors Welker at this exact moment in time has very little bearing on this.
OK then, can you honestly say that you would advise someone in a startup dynasty league to take Boyce over Welker? It would seem that you would - after all, the exit value and future value are much greater in your opinion for Boyce, so it would seem that a newbie to a dynasty league should follow your advice and pass on Welker and take Boyce (who you have in the same tier) no?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK then, can you honestly say that you would advise someone in a startup dynasty league to take Boyce over Welker? It would seem that you would - after all, the exit value and future value are much greater in your opinion for Boyce, so it would seem that a newbie to a dynasty league should follow your advice and pass on Welker and take Boyce (who you have in the same tier) no?
When I put out rankings, it's meant to show where I personally value players. That doesn't mean it's a draft cheatsheet.

There is no reason to draft Boyce ahead of Welker when you can get him many, many rounds later.

My advice to a newbie would be to pass on Welker at his ADP and grab Boyce slightly ahead of his ADP.

 
I still don't see Vereen doing much more than Woodhead ever did . . .
Vereen certainly wouldn't be the first rb to line up at wr in the patriot offense. But he also wouldn't be the first guy to successfully change positions to fill a team need. If the wide receivers and tight ends don't produce, and vereen does, it wouldn't be shocking at all to see him get 80+ receptions. He's an interesting rb prospect for 2013 because he could put up wr numbers, which is great in ppr. But if you're drafting him thinking he's a lock for 50+ receptions, you're probably overpaying. There's a lot of wiggle room on any early projection for patriots receiving targets, so if vereens stock starts to climb too high, be wary. For now, I think he's a decent value play with reggie bush potential.
So we are basically saying vereen will have a sproles like season?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK then, can you honestly say that you would advise someone in a startup dynasty league to take Boyce over Welker? It would seem that you would - after all, the exit value and future value are much greater in your opinion for Boyce, so it would seem that a newbie to a dynasty league should follow your advice and pass on Welker and take Boyce (who you have in the same tier) no?
When I put out rankings, it's meant to show where I personally value players. That doesn't mean it's a draft cheatsheet.

There is no reason to draft Boyce ahead of Welker when you can get him many, many rounds later.

My advice to a newbie would be to pass on Welker at his ADP and grab Boyce slightly ahead of his ADP.
Your answer is correct, but you are dodging the question.

Here's a hypothetical for you. You are making a trade in your dynasty league, and it is the last trade that can ever be made in this league (some crazy rule change). Your trade partner offers you a throw-in of either Welker or Boyce. Who do you choose?

 
OK then, can you honestly say that you would advise someone in a startup dynasty league to take Boyce over Welker? It would seem that you would - after all, the exit value and future value are much greater in your opinion for Boyce, so it would seem that a newbie to a dynasty league should follow your advice and pass on Welker and take Boyce (who you have in the same tier) no?
When I put out rankings, it's meant to show where I personally value players. That doesn't mean it's a draft cheatsheet.

There is no reason to draft Boyce ahead of Welker when you can get him many, many rounds later.

My advice to a newbie would be to pass on Welker at his ADP and grab Boyce slightly ahead of his ADP.
Your answer is correct, but you are dodging the question.

Here's a hypothetical for you. You are making a trade in your dynasty league, and it is the last trade that can ever be made in this league (some crazy rule change). Your trade partner offers you a throw-in of either Welker or Boyce. Who do you choose?
I don't understand how this is relevant when we are talking about player evaluation. If you have people using trade value as a component of player evaluation, you run into some serious groupthink.

In terms of startups, look at this interesting thing Dodds does blending ADP and his ranks:

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/draftlist.php

"By David Dodds. Last updated: June 22

Using this ADP data and our top 300 player rankings, I have constructed a Top 300 Draft List that merges the player rankings and ADP according to these rules:

  • If I have a player at 30 and ADP has him at 50, I assign a list_rank value of 40 (30+50)/2
  • If I have a player at 50, and ADP has him at 40, I assign a list_rank value of 50 (my value)
  • I then sort all the list_rank numbers and renumber.
The logic is to never take a player before where you like him. If ADP is way off my liking, the goal is to take the player as late as possible to maximize value."

Yes, you need to consider your own evaluation and also ADP - suggesting otherwise is just a strawman.

ETA: @Kutta, originally didn't see your hypothetical with it being the last trade. My apologies, I should read more closely - still I don't think that was a question he was dodging - I would be interested in hearing EBF's response, but can only imagine the answer is Boyce (i.e. I am not seeing the Q being dodged rather the previous response being a version of what Dodds does above). Start-up response more applicable to squistion's comment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK then, can you honestly say that you would advise someone in a startup dynasty league to take Boyce over Welker? It would seem that you would - after all, the exit value and future value are much greater in your opinion for Boyce, so it would seem that a newbie to a dynasty league should follow your advice and pass on Welker and take Boyce (who you have in the same tier) no?
When I put out rankings, it's meant to show where I personally value players. That doesn't mean it's a draft cheatsheet.

There is no reason to draft Boyce ahead of Welker when you can get him many, many rounds later.

My advice to a newbie would be to pass on Welker at his ADP and grab Boyce slightly ahead of his ADP.
Your answer is correct, but you are dodging the question.

Here's a hypothetical for you. You are making a trade in your dynasty league, and it is the last trade that can ever be made in this league (some crazy rule change). Your trade partner offers you a throw-in of either Welker or Boyce. Who do you choose?
I have Boyce rated two spots higher on my most recent list. Independent of other factors, I'd take him.

I think Welker is overrated from a dynasty standpoint. He's 32 years old, so the prospect of exit value is nonexistent. He was reliant on an extremely high number of targets in New England, getting 140-170 looks most years (170+ the last two seasons). With Thomas and Decker around, I expect that figure to drop. It may also take him a while to adjust to his new team, as many players have struggled to immediately replicate their success when switching jerseys. Add in the prospect of a possible sharp decline at any moment (due to old age) and you might only be looking at 1-2 years of WR2-WR3 production.

Boyce might be lucky to ever match that output, but at just 22 years old the potential reward is far greater if he does pan out. I've already listed numerous reasons why I think he might. Great athlete with a good track record of production going to a team with a desperate need for pass catchers. I think he's an appreciating asset with a high probability to rise in value over the next 12-24 months. I think Welker is the opposite. He was already the 4th oldest top 30 WR in FF last year behind Wayne, Boldin, and Steve Smith. His value will decline steadily over the next couple seasons and all you'll have to show for him is whatever points he scored during that time.

 
OK then, can you honestly say that you would advise someone in a startup dynasty league to take Boyce over Welker? It would seem that you would - after all, the exit value and future value are much greater in your opinion for Boyce, so it would seem that a newbie to a dynasty league should follow your advice and pass on Welker and take Boyce (who you have in the same tier) no?
When I put out rankings, it's meant to show where I personally value players. That doesn't mean it's a draft cheatsheet.

There is no reason to draft Boyce ahead of Welker when you can get him many, many rounds later.

My advice to a newbie would be to pass on Welker at his ADP and grab Boyce slightly ahead of his ADP.
Your answer is correct, but you are dodging the question.

Here's a hypothetical for you. You are making a trade in your dynasty league, and it is the last trade that can ever be made in this league (some crazy rule change). Your trade partner offers you a throw-in of either Welker or Boyce. Who do you choose?
I have Boyce rated two spots higher on my most recent list. Independent of other factors, I'd take him.

I think Welker is overrated from a dynasty standpoint. He's 32 years old, so the prospect of exit value is nonexistent. He was reliant on an extremely high number of targets in New England, getting 140-170 looks most years (170+ the last two seasons). With Thomas and Decker around, I expect that figure to drop. It may also take him a while to adjust to his new team, as many players have struggled to immediately replicate their success when switching jerseys. Add in the prospect of a possible sharp decline at any moment (due to old age) and you might only be looking at 1-2 years of WR2-WR3 production.

Boyce might be lucky to ever match that output, but at just 22 years old the potential reward is far greater if he does pan out. I've already listed numerous reasons why I think he might. Great athlete with a good track record of production going to a team with a desperate need for pass catchers. I think he's an appreciating asset with a high probability to rise in value over the next 12-24 months. I think Welker is the opposite. He was already the 4th oldest top 30 WR in FF last year behind Wayne, Boldin, and Steve Smith. His value will decline steadily over the next couple seasons and all you'll have to show for him is whatever points he scored during that time.
Cool. And actually, I am close to agreeing with you.

 
That makes sense to me, EBF. I think my problem is that I don't have the patience for rookie WRs. I prefer to trade my picks for veterans, or draft rookie RBs who are likely to play right away. I'm still learning the dynasty game though, so I'm really interested in other perspectives.

I struggle with the rookie WR lovefest that happens this time each year. If Boyce doesn't touch the field much this year - and that's a very real possibility - then will you still value him as highly? It's not just a matter of devoting the roster space to him, but also your commitment to keeping him long enough for him to produce. Will you trade him after year two? Year three? If I trade a pick to get a guy like Welker, it's easy to know when to dump him. You either ride him to the sunset or you churn him. I may even be able to trade him away in the midseason to a contender for the same or better draft pick that it cost me to get him right now.

Another part of the problem is that I have much less faith in my ability to scout rookie talent as opposed to good opportunities. Which is why I strongly prefer Montee Ball to Christine Michael and Marcus Lattimore. Y our eyes might tell you that one or both of the other guys is more talented, but I'm certain that the Denver RB produces well, and they're talking about him like he's Terrell Davis 2.0 (or 5.0 if you count Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson and Clinton Portis). Plus, I've watched Montee Ball highlights where he used his spin move, juke moves, jump move, changed direction, dove for a touchdown, and pretty much used every button on the Madden controller. So when someone says they see something "special" in one of the other guys, but not in Ball, I don't know who to trust. My own eyes? Yours? The NFL talent evaluators that didn't think any of these guys were "special" enough to take in the first round?

The same thing's true with receivers. Deonte Thompson was undrafted last year. He's a 6 footer with sub 4.3 speed and a decent bench press, and the team says that he's very good at route running, too. How did that guy go undrafted by the NFL and by every dynasty league around? Yet now there's a reasonable chance he'll be a starting WR on a team that loves to throw the ball deep and has a crappy route runner at WR1. And he's on dynasty waiver wires right now. Why should I spend a draft pick to get Boyce, when I could get a veteran WR for the interim, then use my lottery ticket roster spots on guys like Thompson or some unnamed WR who catches 6 balls for 102 yards in week 5?

And the answer is, you feel strongly about your talent evaluation. I don't. If I somehow got "stuck" drafting Boyce, I'd look to trade him for a veteran wideout as quickly as possible to capture the hype value while it was still there. That's why I wanted a comparable veteran player. And Welker's an interesting choice. With Welker, I don't know if I have a bird in the hand. He may never put up 100 receptions - or even 80 or 90 - again. You're taking a risk that he'll produce one or two or three more starting caliber seasons. I can totally understand giving up (for example) a 60% chance at three good seasons, for a 20% chance at 10 good seasons. That makes good sense to me.

Interesting discussion. Thanks for taking the time EBF.

 
I still don't see Vereen doing much more than Woodhead ever did . . .
Hmmm. NE averaged around 33 carries a game last season (2nd highest in the league), so there is a time share here as Ridley will not be getting close to 30 carries per game. They were 65/35 in the playoffs FWIW. Take away Hernandez, Welker, Lloyd and Woodhead and opportunities are piling up for a RB that is going to get alot of PT. Ridley is not a receiving threat, so would it be a surprise to see the Patriots operate in a 2 back set? As you know, it's been done before w/ Belichick (and look for it in 2013).

If your view is that roster fillers Bolden and Blount will get PT, that's another discussion. If you see NE going towards more of a passing offense w/ the unknown talent, I'll take the other option.

 
I still don't see Vereen doing much more than Woodhead ever did . . .
Hmmm. NE averaged around 33 carries a game last season (2nd highest in the league), so there is a time share here as Ridley will not be getting close to 30 carries per game. They were 65/35 in the playoffs FWIW. Take away Hernandez, Welker, Lloyd and Woodhead and opportunities are piling up for a RB that is going to get alot of PT. Ridley is not a receiving threat, so would it be a surprise to see the Patriots operate in a 2 back set? As you know, it's been done before w/ Belichick (and look for it in 2013).

If your view is that roster fillers Bolden and Blount will get PT, that's another discussion. If you see NE going towards more of a passing offense w/ the unknown talent, I'll take the other option.
Let's break this down some. Here were the total number of plays on offense for the Pats since BB came to town . . .

2012 - 1191

2011 - 1082

2010 - 986

2009 - 1076

2008 - 1095

2007 - 1058

2006 - 1055

2005 - 1031

2004 - 1035

2003 - 1042

2002 - 1031

2001 - 1001

2000 - 1037

The Pats went into hyper accelerated mode on offense last year when the offense was clicking, at times running a no huddle as far as possible. They may choose to try that again this year, but the offense would need to be clicking.

So I take two things away from that. One, that they could go back to a more regular paced offense (cause running hurry up and not moving the ball would take no time off the clock and put the so-so defense back on the field. Or two, the offense is clicking and that means several players are making consistent contributions.

In those two scenarios, one would result in a lot fewer offensive plays. It's possible that the Pats could run 100-125 fewer plays this year (maybe even 150). IMO, the much larger majority of plays lost would be runs. NE is not going to take the ball out of their best players hands and have him hand off way more than pass.

In the second scenario, that approaches an offense that we've seen the past few years. I don't think the passing game will be only Amendola, Gronkowski, (and according to some) Vereen. There are many other receiving options on the roster.

I think some folks have played fantasy football so long they forget that in real football having 4 guys with 500 yards of offense is just as good as two players with 1,000 yards each.

We may see some of the roster depth start to chisel away into the void left by all the exiting players. Some of these guys could get 15-20 catches or 30-40 carries. When you get enough of those types of outcomes, you end up with decent team totals (but maybe not as many fantasy studs).

I think too many people are looking at Vereen and hoping / wanting / begging for him to put up huge numbers just so they can say they grabbed him as a fantasy sleeper. The Pats have had several guys line up all over the field before. Hernandez, Welker, Edelman, Woodhead, Vereen, Moss to name a few. Just being on the field more does not automatically mean a huge uptick in touches.

So IMO the Pats may not run the ball 523 times again. Vereen had 62 carries last year. Woodhead had 76. I think the most Vereen gets if Ridley stays healthy would be 100 carries. I also think the realistic upside of Vereen receiving is probably 50 catches. So I see upside of 1000 yards combined and 5-6 TDs. At those numbers he would be a fantasy asset . . . but not a fantasy game changer. Like Woodhead before him, that would likely rank him in the RB20s. And also like Woodhead, when he will have big games will be hard to predict, so he may have 3-4 weeks with very little to show for it then a big game (when he might be on the fantasy bench).

He might be more appealing in larger leagues or ones with multiple flex spots. But I still view him as the back up RB on the Pats with a chance to get used more in different formations (read as: not a bell cow running back).

 
bostonfred said:
That makes sense to me, EBF. I think my problem is that I don't have the patience for rookie WRs. I prefer to trade my picks for veterans, or draft rookie RBs who are likely to play right away. I'm still learning the dynasty game though, so I'm really interested in other perspectives.

I struggle with the rookie WR lovefest that happens this time each year. If Boyce doesn't touch the field much this year - and that's a very real possibility - then will you still value him as highly? It's not just a matter of devoting the roster space to him, but also your commitment to keeping him long enough for him to produce. Will you trade him after year two? Year three? If I trade a pick to get a guy like Welker, it's easy to know when to dump him. You either ride him to the sunset or you churn him. I may even be able to trade him away in the midseason to a contender for the same or better draft pick that it cost me to get him right now.

Another part of the problem is that I have much less faith in my ability to scout rookie talent as opposed to good opportunities. Which is why I strongly prefer Montee Ball to Christine Michael and Marcus Lattimore. Y our eyes might tell you that one or both of the other guys is more talented, but I'm certain that the Denver RB produces well, and they're talking about him like he's Terrell Davis 2.0 (or 5.0 if you count Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson and Clinton Portis). Plus, I've watched Montee Ball highlights where he used his spin move, juke moves, jump move, changed direction, dove for a touchdown, and pretty much used every button on the Madden controller. So when someone says they see something "special" in one of the other guys, but not in Ball, I don't know who to trust. My own eyes? Yours? The NFL talent evaluators that didn't think any of these guys were "special" enough to take in the first round?

The same thing's true with receivers. Deonte Thompson was undrafted last year. He's a 6 footer with sub 4.3 speed and a decent bench press, and the team says that he's very good at route running, too. How did that guy go undrafted by the NFL and by every dynasty league around? Yet now there's a reasonable chance he'll be a starting WR on a team that loves to throw the ball deep and has a crappy route runner at WR1. And he's on dynasty waiver wires right now. Why should I spend a draft pick to get Boyce, when I could get a veteran WR for the interim, then use my lottery ticket roster spots on guys like Thompson or some unnamed WR who catches 6 balls for 102 yards in week 5?

And the answer is, you feel strongly about your talent evaluation. I don't. If I somehow got "stuck" drafting Boyce, I'd look to trade him for a veteran wideout as quickly as possible to capture the hype value while it was still there. That's why I wanted a comparable veteran player. And Welker's an interesting choice. With Welker, I don't know if I have a bird in the hand. He may never put up 100 receptions - or even 80 or 90 - again. You're taking a risk that he'll produce one or two or three more starting caliber seasons. I can totally understand giving up (for example) a 60% chance at three good seasons, for a 20% chance at 10 good seasons. That makes good sense to me.

Interesting discussion. Thanks for taking the time EBF.
Knowing when to pull the plug can be a challenge. There's no easy answer to that question.

I've had Andre Roberts in several leagues since his rookie year. He's an example of a guy who has taken a long time to become a good NFL player and who might not even have FF value until 2014, if ever. There's definitely a risk that if you grab someone like Josh Boyce, Chris Harper, Toby Gerhart, or Christine Michael, you'll be holding them for years before you know if they're even any good.

I think Boyce's situation is a little different than those other guys due to the lack of quality options. Harper will probably be buried behind Rice/Harvin/Tate/Baldwin in year one. There's no shame in that. I don't downgrade a rookie for failing to beat out solid veterans. It's a slightly different story with Boyce because New England's WR corps is so weak. I would take it as a slight negative if he doesn't get on the field in year one. The opportunity is there. All he has to do is beat out some other rookies and some veteran retreads. I would actually argue that he's a "good situation" guy just like Montee Ball. Both are in competition for significant playing time in a role that could yield instant FF relevance.

As far as the roster spot thing goes, I think that varies a bit depending on the league. I play in a few shallow leagues where I'm never able to keep everyone that I want. My solution is usually to try to package multiple players for an upgrade. Easier said than done. Sometimes you end up giving away a good player because the roster size forces your hand. Other times the roster crunch prevents you from making a waiver move. In this type of league, I might be a little more reluctant to take on a long term project. But most of my leagues are pretty deep, meaning it's not an either/or dilemma in terms of drafting long term projects like Michael or using roster spots on flavor-of-the-week waiver guys in hopes of catching lightning in a bottle. You can, and should, do both.

As I've said elsewhere, impatience is the norm in FF and it actually creates value for owners who are willing to saddle their roster with a non-contributor for a few years in hopes that he blows up down the road. Obvious success stories are Aaron Rodgers, Larry Johnson, Michael Turner, and Darren Sproles. Someone like Ryan Mallett, Christine Michael, or Bryce Brown could qualify right now. When everyone is looking for the immediate payoff, it pushes "bad situation" guys down the board, past where their talent warrants. When the drop is excessive enough, the player becomes too good to pass up even though he has no immediate value. Look at where Bernard Pierce went in last year's rookie drafts compared to Ronnie Hillman and Lamar Miller. Look at where Knile Davis is going this year compared to Johnathan Franklin and Zac Stacy. If you play in a deep league and you don't anticipate roster crunch being a big problem, there's a lot of value in taking this type of player.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I've said elsewhere, impatience is the norm in FF and it actually creates value for owners who are willing to saddle their roster with a non-contributor for a few years in hopes that he blows up down the road.
But if that's the case, then it seems like drafting anyone but your surest thing is a sucker move, when you can get the same player cheap or even free when their owner gives up on them. Andre roberts ws borderline waiver fodder at the start of last season. Ryan mallet is basically in the same spot aaron rodgers was, groomed behind an aging stud qb. You can get him for next to nothing right now from most owners. Ryan williams cost you a pretty penny before. Now what is he worth?You might say I'm cherry picking examples of guys who bust, but when you say that talent trumps situation, you're saying that you'll take a guy who won't produce right away over one who will. And that means that you'll frequently end up selling low - packaging two talented underperformers for one guy and having a hard time getting value, as you said - or passing on waiver wire studs like cecil shorts because you can't spare a roster spot for an undersized receiver on a bad passing team. Its possible to handcuff your team by being too focused on your perception of talent and not focused enough on current production.

I saw a youth obsessed owner recently who had peyton manning, david wilson, chris ivory, mjd, demarcus murray, marques colston and vincent jackson. He then traded away murray, ivory and colston in separate deals, acquiring pierre garcon and a bunch of draft picks. And that's great, but now he has a weak 2013 team, and he's wasting one of peytons few remaining seasons on yet another youth movement. He's also sitting on mallet, osweiler, housler and draft cordarelle. That's a whole lot of tomorrow but not enough today imo. In his case, id much rather take situation over talent. But for a rebuilding team, give me a dozen prospects over 2 or 3 good starters any day. Its all about finding the right mix for your team.

 
But if that's the case, then it seems like drafting anyone but your surest thing is a sucker move, when you can get the same player cheap or even free when their owner gives up on them. Andre roberts ws borderline waiver fodder at the start of last season. Ryan mallet is basically in the same spot aaron rodgers was, groomed behind an aging stud qb. You can get him for next to nothing right now from most owners. Ryan williams cost you a pretty penny before. Now what is he worth?You might say I'm cherry picking examples of guys who bust, but when you say that talent trumps situation, you're saying that you'll take a guy who won't produce right away over one who will. And that means that you'll frequently end up selling low - packaging two talented underperformers for one guy and having a hard time getting value, as you said - or passing on waiver wire studs like cecil shorts because you can't spare a roster spot for an undersized receiver on a bad passing team.
There are some problems with the idea that you can just sit back and buy players for cheap right when they're about to break out. Mainly...

1. You don't know exactly when they'll break out.

2. You don't know if you'll be able to trade for that player.

Breakouts don't necessarily happen on some predictable timetable. A sudden injury or coaching decision can turn a backup with no opportunity into a bona fide star overnight. Look at Cecil Shorts last year. There was no buzz on him at all. I don't think he even opened the season as a starter. But once he got his chance he looked great. If you had waited to buy him until he had opportunity, you might have waited too long. When the secret is out, you've already missed your buying window. You want to get these guys before everyone else knows how good they are. That means you don't necessarily have the luxury of sitting back and waiting.

Consider someone like Chris Harper. I think he's a pretty good long term prospect, but I don't think he will have a big rookie year in Seattle. They have a lot of options at WR and they're a veteran team with serious playoff ambitions. There's no reason for them to rush him onto the field. So should I pass on him and buy him a year from now for cheaper when his owners have given up on him? I don't think so. There's always the risk that he exceeds expectations and thrives right away. It's unlikely, but possible that he will get on the field early and create a huge buzz. If you wait to acquire him, you run the risk of losing out altogether.

Also, not all of the owners in your league are clueless. If somebody spent a high rookie pick on Rueben Randle and kept him on the bench for a year, what makes you think that owner will be willing to sell for a loss just when it looks like his prospect might finally have a shot at significant playing time? It's not by random chance that a given player ends up on a given owner's roster. If that owner invested a pick in that player, he probably rates that player higher than the average owner. This is the problem with trying to buy someone like Michael Floyd or Justin Blackmon right now. The people who own them liked them enough to draft them ahead of other alternatives, so they're not necessarily inclined to sell unless you want to overpay.

And again, it's not a black-and-white, all-or-nothing thing where you're either allowed to draft long term projects or you're allowed to take chances on waiver darlings. You can do both. The idea that drafting someone like Christine Michael or Ryan Mallett is going to limit your ability to churn your roster and try for those Morris/Shorts/Foster type of players isn't necessarily accurate. Even in my most shallow leagues I can usually make room for a waiver flyer. I don't know too many people who draft and trade so well that their rosters are full of nothing but awesome players. Most owners have some roster filler and some leverage to take a chance on a free agent if they're inclined to do so.

Its possible to handcuff your team by being too focused on your perception of talent and not focused enough on current production.
I don't think anyone would dispute this. There are some owners who underrate future value and potential to the point of fault. There are some who overvalue it the same.

The key is finding the right balance. Almost every league has at least one owner who's so youth-crazy that he's always trading away his players before they have a chance to develop. On the other hand, almost every league has at least one risk-averse owner who avoids uncertainty at all costs and sits on his expiring assets when he could instead be recycling them for younger players to maintain and grow the value of his roster. I don't think either one of those strategies is ideal. The ideal owner combines those two strategies. He can recognize future value and buy appreciating assets before they explode, but he also has the ability to recognize expiring assets and shift them before their market value plummets.

 
Some really good posts here. Finding that balance for your roster management so that you can achieve a goal, wining a championship has many different roads one can take.

In the scenario presented above the owner has mostly sold his useful assets for 2013 for future picks. I think this is fine if you do not think your current roster has a chance to win a championship this year. Start lining up your roster for a future season. That owner still has a valuable trade asset in Manning that he should be able to move for future value as well. The only advice I have for an owner turning over their roster is to keep your picks. This is kind of like tanking when you void your roster of usable talent. It is also good strategy for rebuilding as long as you keep your picks. I used to trade for teams like this draft picks whenever possible. It wrecked their team and gave me great draft position. Do not be that guy. Keep your picks. Build your team around long term assets like Qb and Wr prospects. Once you do put together some reasonable starters there then start drafting RB and look to make a run.

In my opinion this is an emergency strategy. I prefer having my rosters balanced between starters, backups, prospects and I want as most of my roster spots to be capable starters, because they are useful for winning now and other people will trade for players who are producing.

Ideally I want to only have 10-20% of my roster tied up in prospects. 20% is even a bit much and there are times where I will opt for a WW backup type player over a prospect just so I have a back up who can cover a position I am thin at, if a starter goes down.

Some owners may have 30% or more of their roster in long term prospects. This lends to a rebuilding strategy. I might use a strategy like this early on in a dynasty league or if I were rebuilding. That could go really high even 70% or more of the roster being long term prospects. But I certainly would not expect to be able to win any time soon with such a roster. I like winning.

You also need consider trade bait value. Some times I hold or pick up guys just because I think I might be able to flip them at some point. If I were to use the roster spot on a prospect I actually wanted to keep, I have less trade bait. I think it is good to try to leave a roster spot open for FA pick ups. If I see FA I want to pick up I may try to trade someone for picks so I can free up the roster spot.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top