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

[VA703]

Amendola will break all time records this season. you heard it here first

 

[bostonfred]

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.

This is a great example. There are few players less likely to be on my roster than Chris Harper. Don't get me wrong, I'd take him if he slipped to me. But he won't, and if he did, I'd shop him around to somebody who was buying into the hype for a 2014 draft pick or a player that I liked more.There are more Chris Harpers than roster spots. You mentioned Cecil Shorts, but he was a waiver wire pickup in most leagues. He had very little hype and was on a terrible passing team. And he panned out quickly, and has immediate trade value. That's a great deal for someone who likes to flip players like I do.

My current favorite Chris Harper is a bit of a long shot, but he will also have immediate payoff if he hits. Deonte Thompson, WR BAL, was a UFA with good size/speed/route running, and had some wow plays last year in preseason and camp before a special teams fumble found him some bench time. This year he's competing for the WR2 spot in Baltimore, and if he gets it, he could be a beast. He's on waivers in almost every league, he's got good potential to break out, and if you want to dump him for someone else, you can.

You might say that my Chris Harper is less likely to hit than your Chris Harper (the actual Chris Harper). But while you sit on yours for three years, maybe longer, I'll be picking up several guys who have the potential to break out or flame out. The cumulative odds of one of my Chris Harpers panning out may actually be better than your Chris Harper having a great season, because I'm always looking for guys with the opportunity to produce right away, dumping them quickly if they don't, and trading them quickly if they can net me a more reliable player. Do that enough times, and you'll give up some decent talent, but you'll be able to ladder up your players at key positions and acquire surer things.

Meanwhile, your Chris Harper (the real Chris Harper) is sitting behind Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice, and a relatively recent Chris Harper named Golden Tate. (Full disclosure: I drafted Tate and moved him for another pick when he didn't produce out of the gate and while he still had decent value. He was later dropped to waivers.) How many years are you willing to wait, and how many new Chris Harpers are you willing to pass on, to see if he emerges?

To be fair, if you are convinced that Chris Harper, or Boyce, or Andre Roberts, or some other favorite WR prospect is going to emerge, then the only way anyone else in your league is going to get him is to draft him before you do, because once you get your grips on him, he's locked up. But that's a consequence I can totally live with.

We all get the same number of draft picks in the initial draft and we get the same picks in the rookie drafts. Over time, this should all even out. But there are several ways to increase the talent level of your team:

1) Draft better talent than your leaguemates. This should be obvious.

2) Trade better than your leaguemates. Getting the better end of most trades will help you succeed.

3) Build your team more efficiently. In theory, the most efficient way to rebuild is to have the worst year possible (to get early draft picks) followed by the best years possible. Hanging on to veterans during a rebuild, or trading veterans for prospects when you're a contender, are generally inefficient and should only be done when you're getting an appropriate vig.

4) Get luckier. Coaching changes, rule changes, injuries, off field incidents, etc. can all impact player value. And sometimes an unheralded guy just works harder, or does stuff in practice that nobody really hears about,and next thing you know they're the week 1 waiver wire darling. Getting more of those guys than your peers is huge.

When you take long term developmental guys, you give yourself a chance to do 1, but at the expense of 2, 3 and especially 4. One fewer roster spot means one fewer backup RB who could suddenly get carries and gain trade value, or give you that boost towards your own playoff run. It means one fewer guy who you're willing to drop when Cecil Shorts is on waivers. And if not Cecil Shorts, then take your pick of waiver wire longshot. If you're constantly adding and dropping and adding and dropping, eventually you'll find a guy you don't want to drop. If you've already got that guy on your roster, you're not going to add new guys you don't want to drop. You cost yourself the opportunity to get lucky.

It means one fewer roster spot that can have immediate production if you're making a championship push - which is a handicap against an owner who is trying to build now. It means one more guy you're going to overvalue in trade talks, which goes along with your "It's hard to trade two for one" comment earlier.

Not all of this contradicts what you said. I'm just thinking aloud here. I totally agree with a lot of your points in this thread. I also like Bia's post, with ballpark percentages of how much of your roster can be spent on developmental picks, etc.

I am starting to question the strategy Bia mentioned, of building around your stud QBs and WRs and then filling in the RBs when you're ready to make your run. If your league has active traders, the theoretical best strategy would be to try to assemble the best possible redraft team every year until you can't, then take your lumps for a year or two, and start the process over. For example, if you think Harvin or Mike Wallace are in for down years, and you can move them for WRs who are likely to have good years this year, then you should generally be willing to pay a premium to do it (by accepting less in trade than you think your "anchor WR" is worth). Hanging on to that stud talent year after year may not maximize the value of your window of contending, and that's inefficient roster management.

 

[EBF]

You might say that my Chris Harper is less likely to hit than your Chris Harper (the actual Chris Harper). But while you sit on yours for three years, maybe longer, I'll be picking up several guys who have the potential to break out or flame out. The cumulative odds of one of my Chris Harpers panning out may actually be better than your Chris Harper having a great season, because I'm always looking for guys with the opportunity to produce right away, dumping them quickly if they don't, and trading them quickly if they can net me a more reliable player. Do that enough times, and you'll give up some decent talent, but you'll be able to ladder up your players at key positions and acquire surer things.

I think you've outlined the basic dilemma that owners face when they decide to use a draft pick on a long term prospect. The equation basically boils down to...

(value of keeping prospect until you know what you have) vs. (value of churning that roster spot with quick turnover waiver pickups or inferior prospects with short term opportunity)

What makes these decisions difficult is that all of the information isn't available. It's not like you can just pop some numbers into a calculator and get the answer. These are complicated problems involving many variables. You have to make a guess based on what little information is at your disposal.

I think we can probably agree that an elite prospect like Tavon Austin would justify a roster spot over a revolving door of waiver scrubs even if he didn't have an immediate line on playing time. A first round NFL pick is just so much more likely to become a major contributor that you'd probably need to roster one or two dozen waiver scrubs just to match his value. Things become more borderline with middle round picks like Wheaton, Boyce, and Harper. A third rounder like Wheaton has about a 25-30% chance to hit. Still worth a lot of waiver scrubs, but not as many. A fourth rounder like Boyce or Harper has about a 10% chance to hit. Is that worth holding for 2-3 years when you could be using the roster to take flyers in hopes of finding the next Morris or Foster?

The answer is going to vary depending on a lot of factors. For one thing, not all waiver pickups are equal. There's a big difference between hearing that someone like Marques Colston or Alfred Morris is running with the starters in late August vs. flimsy Internet speculation that someone like Mark Harrison or Deonte Thompson could have value because their team has a spotty depth chart at their position. In the first case the players were earning opportunity by impressing their coaches. In the latter cases players lucked into opportunity by default because their team is weak at a given position. In general, it means a lot more to earn your opportunity than to have it handed to you on a plate. One is based on merit and the other is based on circumstance. You could reasonably argue that Baltimore's lack of activity at WR in the draft and free agency indicates faith in what they have, so maybe that's a good sign for Jacoby Jones, Tandon Doss, and/or Deonte Thompson. I'd still say based on what we know of Thompson up to this point he's such a massive underdog to ever become a viable NFL starter that he's still not worth a roster spot in most formats.

In a deep league, you won't be forced to decide between Harper or Thompson because you'll have room to keep both. This is what I was saying previously. The idea that the "long term" and "roster churn" approaches are in direct opposition to one another is not accurate in many formats. In a deep league you can keep a prospect like Chris Harper for years and still have enough disposable roster spots to take chances on whatever waiver players look promising. I know very few owners who draft so well and have such deep rosters that they have no mobility to make waiver pickups. Most owners are usually going to have some junk at the bottom of their roster. Even in a shallow league, you can do package deals for equal value to free up space.

The other thing I pointed out previously is that we don't actually know when a given prospect will make an impact. Harper is a good example. The most likely scenario for him this season is probably a minor role with 100-250 receiving yards. That won't do anything to improve his value. However, that's not the only possible outcome. He could be so impressive in training camp that he wins a starting job or a prominent role. The Seahawks could let Tate walk in free agency and cut Rice to save cap space. Harper could enter the 2014 season as the #2 target on a team with a Pro Bowl caliber QB. That outcome might not be likely, but it's definitely possible. Look at guys like David Wilson and Lamar Miller right now. If you passed on them a year ago because they didn't have opportunity, you missed out on a big value bump. You can make a good guess about when and how a player will get his chance, but it's not always that clean. People thought Ben Tate would be a starter in his rookie year.

Even if Deonte Thompson has a chance to compete for a starting job this year, that doesn't mean you're a guaranteed a definitive answer on whether or not he can play. What if he gets snaps in a rotation and finishes the season with 35 catches for 500 yards and 3 TDs? Will you cut him or keep him? You don't want to tie up a roster spot with Harper for several years, but you could easily end up doing the same with Thompson. If he shows flashes of talent without doing enough to make you think he's a lock for stardom, you'll be stuck in a weird position of not knowing whether to keep him or move him.

Overall, it's pretty clear that we have a different approach to building rosters and targeting players. You're more of a situation = value kind of guy looking for an immediate payoff. I'm more of a talent = value kind of guy looking to draft the best player with little consideration for his immediate prospects. I think there's merit in both approaches. There are also drawbacks to both approaches. Someone with my style is more likely to miss out on the likes of Arian Foster and Alfred Morris who emerge from out of nowhere. Someone with your style is more likely to miss out on guys like Aaron Rodgers and Larry Johnson who require patience and commitment. I think the ideal strategy is to combine the best aspects of both approaches. To keep a couple roster spots open for waiver flyers while also recognizing the value of players like Christine Michael and Knile Davis who could explode when they get their chance. It doesn't have to be an either-or thing.

Sometimes it does come down to a Thunderdome type of scenario where you have two candidates competing for a single roster spot. That's where good analysis and evaluation come into play. Ideally you'd be able to weigh the variables and make the right decision. That's not always easy. I don't think you can say that always taking the quality draft prospect is right or that always trying your luck with waiver pickups is right. Every case is different and making those assessments is part of what will determine your success.

 

[Biabreakable]

I am starting to question the strategy Bia mentioned, of building around your stud QBs and WRs and then filling in the RBs when you're ready to make your run. If your league has active traders, the theoretical best strategy would be to try to assemble the best possible redraft team every year until you can't, then take your lumps for a year or two, and start the process over. For example, if you think Harvin or Mike Wallace are in for down years, and you can move them for WRs who are likely to have good years this year, then you should generally be willing to pay a premium to do it (by accepting less in trade than you think your "anchor WR" is worth). Hanging on to that stud talent year after year may not maximize the value of your window of contending, and that's inefficient roster management.

Hi fred. Great post btw I agree with a lot of what you said about how one could use a roster spot. This thread seems to be in full on but who wants to talk about the Patriots some more again right now? I even like talking about them, but its a bit played out right now. So instead lets keep talking about foosball stratemegy.

My comment was about a fairly general strategy for a team that is in rebuilding mode. I try to avoid ever being in this situation and for the most part I have managed to do so, so I do not have a lot of direct experience with complete rebuilds. I have watched other owners try to do this and many fail, giving up in a year or 2 of being a bottom dweller.

Trading is extremely important for any team but especially a rebuilding team. This is where many rebuilders I think fail however is that they will trade a core player from their roster who may not matter that much to them at the time because they are not competing for a title, but is a core player they will need when/if they ever are competing for a title.

Trading is very important. You need to give something to get something. For a team in rebuild mode they may only have a few players on their whole roster producing now. Those are the few players that other teams may actually be willing to give something up for. So the question that the owner needs to ask themselves is- Is this a player essential to the core of my team? If the player is then either do not trade them, or do not trade them unless you are getting a core player in return.

It is hard to know if a player is a core player for you or not. Especially early on in their career. I will try to define what I mean by this.

A core player is not a RB. Most RB will only have 2-3 seasons playing at a high level before they fade, get injured, situation changes, what have you. It is very difficult for a RB to string together much more than this in their careers. The few who do are golden and perhaps should be considered core players, but generally I try to treat the RB position closer to redraft type valuation. They are still very valuable of course. I just do not think it is very helpful adding 5 years of expected value for a player that is not likely to achieve that. The other positions are different, you can expect 5 years from a top WR or QB. A QB like Luck may be a QB1 for you for longer than 10 years. I think that is worth considering with these players, not so much RBs.

So the core players to me are top QB, WR, TE. Generally I want those players to be former 1st round draft picks who have more staying power than other players do. There are always exceptions of course. For the most part I am talking about QB/TE/WR1s. These are occasions I have considered a WR2 a core player such as Steve Smith when he was younger, however that player should have top 10 type upside. A 5th to 3rd tier WR (WR 60-30)is not a core player even though they may have a WR2 type season at some point. That is not enough to be a core part of my plans because the player is of questionable value to me as a starter.

I think it is easy enough to identify the players who are currently core players. They are likely the same players who would be on a top 50 overall list in your league. The trickier part is identifying those core players before they become core players.

You generally only need one QB/TE as a starter. So if you can accumulate 3,4,5 tradable QB/TE and more than one of these could be a core player then you have more trade bait options. Similarly at TE. I think this is a good area for building value on a team. However keep in mind that other owners will not pay as much for a QB or TE as they will a WR or RB. Maybe they should? That is just the way it goes however. The lack of scarcity and separation at those positions is mostly why folks will not pay top dollar for QB/TE. So I would not try to stockpile too many players at these positions even if the value may be telling you those players should be rostered. If you do start to build up 3 or more at the position then begin looking for trades. Maybe trading your top players here to get the best return value from the deal as long as you are confident in the other guys you have to be able to take over.

The WR and RB is where you will be getting the most action, so that should be the main focus and where you are dedicating most of your roster spots. A core player at WR should be a high 1st round pick in the NFL draft who did not bust and has over 5 years or more left of their career hopefully playing at this high level. Those are the WR you keep and never trade (never say never.. but yeah I am not trading away Calvin if I have him). Some of these players may be at the WR2 level such as Steve Smith(when he was younger) but with enough talent that I considered him a core player. I have likely profited from trading away WR more than any other position. This is where there are many players to churn and in most leagues viable waiver wire players become available pretty frequently. The other positions besides WR seem to be picked over for the most part. WR is the main position where I can find value/trade bait.

If you are in a league that trades frequently/easily I can see making trades based on redraft type of valuation each season. I have even made trades just to fix up some bye week issues at times. Just bear in mind exit value on the older players (do not overpay for 1yr rental) and that your trades will not always work out.

The WR position is where you can waste a lot of time holding players who will not pan out for you. To combat this I only allow a certain number of slots for my team for long term prospect holds. It is hard to trade these players because they are not producing. While I may be in total agreement that a player such as Harper is a better long term prospect than a player like Joseph Randle, it will not take much for Randle to start producing and you will likely be able to use him for bait sooner than you will Harper.

As you get more experienced with this you can develop a watch list of waiver wire players available in your league that you would like to pick up at some point, such as Harper in 2015 perhaps. But use your roster space for a more short term prospect in the mean time, with a watchful eye on those situations for hopefully a timely pick up before the player breaks out. You will have many options on your watch list to choose from, so another owner picking one of you guys up is not that big of a deal when you have 100 or so other guys you are also keeping tabs on. I think this would be more optimal use of your roster spots than holding many players for several years before cutting them.

You ultimately want to balanced. Having a frame work of organization for your roster spots can help you do that, and trades can be about further refining that balance. You do not always need to win trades. If you break even on value but put your roster in a more balanced position (think of as diversifying a portfolio) you are still making progress and putting yourself in a improved position from the otherwise lateral move.

Try to not waste draft picks on players that you cannot afford to roster. You will likely end up cutting them anyways, but now you have tipped your hand to opponents about a player on your watch list.

 

[bostonfred]

A core player is not a RB. Most RB will only have 2-3 seasons playing at a high level before they fade, get injured, situation changes, what have you. It is very difficult for a RB to string together much more than this in their careers. The few who do are golden and perhaps should be considered core players, but generally I try to treat the RB position closer to redraft type valuation. They are still very valuable of course. I just do not think it is very helpful adding 5 years of expected value for a player that is not likely to achieve that. The other positions are different, you can expect 5 years from a top WR or QB. A QB like Luck may be a QB1 for you for longer than 10 years. I think that is worth considering with these players, not so much RBs.

Talk to me about core WRs and QBs. Are you looking for starter quality seasons? Or guys whose VBD numbers are higher than 0? And to answer that question, I think we need to talk about how you determine VBD in a dynasty league.VBD in dynasty seems like a vastly different thing than in a redraft. Worst starter in a 12 team redraft will generally be the 12th QB, maybe the 14th or something since some guys might draft more than one top 12 guy and others will be left in the cold. But in a dynasty league, it's very possible that some people have 3 top 12 QBs, and others don't have any top 20 guys. So the baseline there is skewed substantially.

But then there's the other side of it, where the guy with the bottom of the barrel QB probably isn't going anywhere this season, and so he begins operation "pretend I'm not tanking", and starts trading his players away for picks. Which means that that guy really doesn't belong in the baseline conversation at all, since we're all kind of given an auto win when we play him (at least those of us who play him later in the season).

When we're talking about VBD for contending teams, we're comparing our QB to the QBs of all the other contending teams - and maybe some of the teams which aren't going to contend but don't know it yet. It seems like the baseline should slide higher and higher as the season goes on, starting with most of the league, then just the guys who still think they're contending at the trade deadline, then just the guys fighting for the last playoff spot, and eventually just the playoff teams. Because really, that's who you're competing against when you're a contender.

And it that's the case, your "core QB" is rarely going to be good enough year in, year out to consistently be top 5 or better, which is what it takes to really get an advantage at the position.

So when you talk about core QBs and WRs, are you talking about guys who are going to give you a VBD advantage against other contenders? Or guys who are good enough to start for you for many years, even if they might be a little below par VBD wise one year, and a little above the next?

 

[bostonfred]

As an example, if you're building around a quarterback every year, and you get Daunte Culpepper at the start of his career, you would have absolutely crushed your league. In his first five seasons, he was number one or number two in all but one of them, and in the other, he played 11 and was on pace for another top 2 season.

Then Randy Moss left town, and he was never startable again.

If you are focused on talent, then you keep Culpepper there. You take your lumps, and you say this guy put up ridiculous numbers even when Moss was hurt. I'm not going to sell him low because he lost his best receiver. I'm going to build around my core guy.

If you more focused on situation, then you move Culpepper for 80 cents on the dollar, get his best seasons, and are very lucky to avoid the massive and immediate dropoff that occurred.

That's not to say that you should only look for guys in good situations RIGHT NOW. Sometimes you look for a talented guy in a bad situation. Sam Bradford is a good example. (Full disclosure: I was able to get him in a deep keeper but not in my dynasty). When he came out in the draft, he was expensive. After his rookie year, his price went up. Those were bad times to buy. After some changes at offensive coordinator, and a total wasteland at WR, his stock plummeted. Now his situation has room to improve. Then they passed on RG3 and they had a brazillion draft picks to rebuild a team around him, that's when you see the light at the end of the tunnel, and try to buy. Don't wait for them to dump their stud RB, improve their coaching, and draft multiple WRs with those picks, get the guy when it becomes clear they're going to build around him. Sure enough, he was still cheaper than in any of his first few seasons. And at this point, he's still not considered a stud dynasty QB, so you can get him if you want him.

It's almost impossible to get a guy who is so talented that he'll be top ten for most of his career, But it's very possible to get guys who are top ten this year, then move them for guys who are going to be top ten next year. It's all about churning guys based on their situation, imo.

 

[Biabreakable]

A core player is not a RB. Most RB will only have 2-3 seasons playing at a high level before they fade, get injured, situation changes, what have you. It is very difficult for a RB to string together much more than this in their careers. The few who do are golden and perhaps should be considered core players, but generally I try to treat the RB position closer to redraft type valuation. They are still very valuable of course. I just do not think it is very helpful adding 5 years of expected value for a player that is not likely to achieve that. The other positions are different, you can expect 5 years from a top WR or QB. A QB like Luck may be a QB1 for you for longer than 10 years. I think that is worth considering with these players, not so much RBs.

Talk to me about core WRs and QBs. Are you looking for starter quality seasons? Or guys whose VBD numbers are higher than 0? And to answer that question, I think we need to talk about how you determine VBD in a dynasty league.VBD in dynasty seems like a vastly different thing than in a redraft. Worst starter in a 12 team redraft will generally be the 12th QB, maybe the 14th or something since some guys might draft more than one top 12 guy and others will be left in the cold. But in a dynasty league, it's very possible that some people have 3 top 12 QBs, and others don't have any top 20 guys. So the baseline there is skewed substantially.

But then there's the other side of it, where the guy with the bottom of the barrel QB probably isn't going anywhere this season, and so he begins operation "pretend I'm not tanking", and starts trading his players away for picks. Which means that that guy really doesn't belong in the baseline conversation at all, since we're all kind of given an auto win when we play him (at least those of us who play him later in the season).

When we're talking about VBD for contending teams, we're comparing our QB to the QBs of all the other contending teams - and maybe some of the teams which aren't going to contend but don't know it yet. It seems like the baseline should slide higher and higher as the season goes on, starting with most of the league, then just the guys who still think they're contending at the trade deadline, then just the guys fighting for the last playoff spot, and eventually just the playoff teams. Because really, that's who you're competing against when you're a contender.

And it that's the case, your "core QB" is rarely going to be good enough year in, year out to consistently be top 5 or better, which is what it takes to really get an advantage at the position.

So when you talk about core QBs and WRs, are you talking about guys who are going to give you a VBD advantage against other contenders? Or guys who are good enough to start for you for many years, even if they might be a little below par VBD wise one year, and a little above the next?

Thanks for asking this as I do think I need to be a bit more clear on what I consider to be a core player.

For the most part a core player will be listed in the top 50 players on FBG top 100 list and similar types of lists. They are the elite players, the top players at their position and most of them are not one year wonders but have a track record of more than one top 12 type of a season. Some of the core players might be ranked 50-100 on these lists but not all of the players ranked in that range are core players. Some of the players in the top 50 might not be core players, but the only reason for this would be if they are in the last year of their careers or sometimes players have fluke seasons where they will score well but never return to that level of performance. I may not be willing to consider such a player a core player until they prove they can sustain that level of performance.

In terms of VBD number this means the player if healthy does score above zero. For the most part core players would be top 12-16 type baseline depending on the number of teams competing. Some of the QB2 and WR2 might be considered core players if you expect them to be able to solidly maintain that QB2 or WR2 performance and they have the upside to become QB1 WR1 for a season, even if you do not expect them to solidly perform as a "1" consistently as long as you do think they can remain a 2. I used Steve Smith as an example of this. I had him as a core player even though for the most part he has been a WR2 during his career with a few break out years. Another example would be Reggie Wayne. Not always considered a WR1 (especially while Harrison was across from him) but most of his career he has been a solid 2 with 1 upside. Core player.

For the TE position a core player are very few. Gonzalez, Vernon Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Jason Witten, Gates, Graham, Gronkowski. I did have Dallas Clark as a core player also. His career has been up and down, but he did have the ability to put together a few top seasons, a lot of that was situational but Clark did have enough talent, combined with the situation for me to consider him a core player. Players like Heap and so on have been good at times but if you are not a elite TE (few are) it is not enough to be considered a core player. It needs to be a player who can sustain top performance for more than 1 season.

Some of the RB early on in their career should be considered core players also. Richardson certainly is one. I just think the turnover at this position is too high to value them more than 3 years out. This is kind of where the 3 year window way of evaluation players began with me, for the RBs. I just do not have confidence in any but a select few RB having top level careers for much longer than 3 years. Those select few were likely top 10 NFL picks.

What I try to do with projections is project each player for the next 3 seasons for making my VBD comparisons. This method has been much criticized over the years on these boards and there are some good arguments against this. However before I make any trade I have found it useful to do a 3 year projection for all players involved in the trade and make a VBD comparison of the players in the trade over the next 3 seasons before making my decision. I also use a VBD comparison with draft picks. I balance out deals by putting the appropriate picks in to make the deal even based on the 3 year window VBD comparison.

I think the 3 year window is a good way of evaluating trades. It is harder for me to trust these projections for rankings. But I do trust this more for RB rankings than I do projecting them out 5 years or more. To be honest things change over time such that a team could completely turn over most of their roster in 3 years. What was a offensive line and a system built for a RB could completely change making that RB less ideal or even replaced within that time. This happens much less with the top (1st round pick) RB until they reach age 29-31.

There is somewhat more stability at WR careers, but even there look at what happened to Fitzgerald last season. A WR still needs quality QB and targets to reach their potential. It is not easy to predict who a teams starting QB/HC will be 4 or more years from now except in some situations. I do think there is more stability for a core player at the QB, WR, TE positions to be able to maintain that level of performance for a longer time frame than 3 years, and I do think that is a worthwhile consideration. Quality years remaining for all players should be some part of your evaluation, but I do not think it should be to the point that you are valuing 2020 nearly the same as 2013. I have not fully come to a conclusion about how to balance this information when making rankings.

All I know is that more than 3 years is losing sight of what matters now. 3 years is plenty of time to be able to consider exit value and trade the player before they take a large value drop due to age. If you are projecting decline in performance due to age in a 3 year window you will be factoring this decline into the VBD evaluation. There is that 4th year margin that some might be able to take advantage of at times? Perhaps. However you will be updating your projections each year so really it is a rolling 3 year time frame that keeps moving into the 4th year each update. It keeps getting updated. I have tried to project for more than 3 years before. It made me laugh. Even projecting 2013 right now there are many unknowns. There should be enough carry over that one year to the next will not be a huge change for the player, although of course this does happen. 3 years out is 3 drafts, 3 coaching and 3 free agency cylcles. That is too much change to really predict. The 3rd year is mostly just to check for age landmarks where you maybe should expect a decline in performance (part of this is due to age, the other is due to replacement players being groomed to replace them) because of that. A projection for 2015 right now would be full of noise. Not something I want to base much of my value of a player on.

Despite this I do project rookies sometimes to be worth rostering a year or 2 before I think they will possibly be putting up numbers that would be useful to start. I will look for players who can put up numbers that might make them trade bait as well. Even if I do not think they are long term answers. If the players on my watch list are moving into that year where I think they might be producing I might decide I want to pick them up off waivers or trade for them at that point. There will be some anticipation if I time it right. This is hit or miss of course. But if you are late to one party there is likely another about to start. Just keep your eyes on all of them.

I would like to refine this valuation of a roster spot somewhat. ZWK and I were talking about that a bit in his rankings thread. How does one value a roster spot? How does the number of roster spots change this value? How are these values related to rookie draft picks? One could just use the historical VBD performance of draft position to this, however I think it would be more accurate to tie the draft pick value with the roster slot value. A rookie pick is more valuable in a deeper league because the talent pool of free agents is a lower baseline than it would be in a more shallow league. For example if your league is 24 roster spots compared to 48 roster spots? The value of a roster spot in a league with 24 spots would be twice as much as the spot in a 48 spot league. Your baselines should be deeper in the 48 spot league than the 24. A rookie pick would need to be from a much higher baseline to roster in a 24 spot league than it would for a 48. Your opportunity lost from rostering a player who does not perform is half as much for the 48 spot league than it is the 24 where you likely only need 2 rounds for rookies. The later picks will not be better than the free agents available.

What I would like to do is try to combine the ideas of the 3yr projection, Quality Years Remaining, Replacement level value of a roster spot and expected value of rookie draft picks as the main ideas/basis for a composite dynasty ranking. Which is pretty much what CP does I think without the 3yr projection. I am not sure what taters thinks about the value of a roster spot. Would be interested to hear what the voices might say on that question.

 

[bostonfred]

For the most part core players would be top 12-16 type baseline depending on the number of teams competing. Some of the QB2 and WR2 might be considered core players if you expect them to be able to solidly maintain that QB2 or WR2 performance and they have the upside to become QB1 WR1 for a season, even if you do not expect them to solidly perform as a "1" consistently as long as you do think they can remain a 2. I used Steve Smith as an example of this. I had him as a core player even though for the most part he has been a WR2 during his career with a few break out years. Another example would be Reggie Wayne. Not always considered a WR1 (especially while Harrison was across from him) but most of his career he has been a solid 2 with 1 upside. Core player.

For the TE position a core player are very few. Gonzalez, Vernon Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Jason Witten, Gates, Graham, Gronkowski. I did have Dallas Clark as a core player also. His career has been up and down, but he did have the ability to put together a few top seasons, a lot of that was situational but Clark did have enough talent, combined with the situation for me to consider him a core player. Players like Heap and so on have been good at times but if you are not a elite TE (few are) it is not enough to be considered a core player. It needs to be a player who can sustain top performance for more than 1 season.

This is the part I am interested in. How and when do you identify these so called core players? Calvin Johnson may have been a can't miss prospect, but so were Big Mike Williams, and Roy Williams, and so on. In fact, Roy Williams really was semi-studly for a little bit. How do you work with that?Speaking of receivers named Williams, how about Tampa Mike? He had a studly rookie season. Is that a guy you draft hoping to build around him? Or acquire and plan to build around him? Or dump when VJax comes to town? Or do you still try to build around him? He's had 1000 yards/10 TDs in two of his three years in the league. But his upside seems limited.

Let's take a look at ZWK's QB dynasty rankings.

1 1 Aaron Rodgers GB 30.7

2 2 Robert Griffin III WAS 23.5 **

2 3 Andrew Luck IND 24.0

2 4 Cam Newton CAR 24.3

3 5 Drew Brees NO 34.6

3 6 Matt Ryan ATL 28.3

3 7 Russell Wilson SEA 24.8

3 8 Colin Kaepernick SF 25.8

4 9 Peyton Manning DEN 37.4

4 10 Tom Brady NE 36.1

4 11 Matthew Stafford DET 25.6 --

5 12 Tony Romo DAL 33.4

6 13 Ryan Tannehill MIA 25.1

6 14 Josh Freeman TB 25.6 **

6 15 EJ Manuel BUF 23.5 **

7 16 Andy Dalton CIN 25.8

7 17 Sam Bradford STL 25.8

7 18 Eli Manning NYG 32.7

7 19 Ben Roethlisberger PIT 32.5

7 20 Michael Vick PHI 33.2 **

7 21 Joe Flacco BAL 28.6

7 22 Philip Rivers SD 31.7

8 23 Geno Smith NYJ 22.9

8 24 Jay Cutler CHI 30.3

8 25 Matt Flynn OAK 28.2

8 26 Ryan Mallett NE 25.2 **

8 27 Matt Schaub HOU 32.2

8 28 Carson Palmer ARI 33.7

8 29 Jake Locker TEN 25.2

8 30 Matt Barkley PHI 23.0

8 31 Nick Foles PHI 24.6

8 32 Alex Smith KC 31.4

Is Tom Brady a core player? He's almost certainly got 3+ years left. He's been a dominant fantasy QB, and a lot of people have him projected as a dominant guy this year. Does that make him core or not? What about Russel Wilson, who is higher on this list than Brady? Core player? Are there core players who are ranked below guys with potential? Should there be? Or do you disagree with the order on this list? How far down the list can you go and still have a "core player"? If you have the #10 QB in a 12 team league, is he the type of guy you build around? Or do we not care as long as he's got longevity?

Let's say you think Brady has five years left, but this is going to be the worst of them because of the WR upheaval. He's still going to be top ten, in your estimation, but barely. But you also have confidence that they'll fix their receiver problems as they enter the stretch run. (if you'd prefer, we could say that you were confident Peyton was going to recover from his neck injury, but you were deciding whether to sit on him for a year). Does that change your opinion of whether these guys are core players?

Or if you prefer, let's say you think Percy Harvin or Greg Jennings or Mike Wallace are going to struggle on their new teams this year, but you have high hopes for them the next three years because of their talent. How does that change your estimation?

It's easy to point out who the core players were in hindsight, but there's a huge amount of turnover at the tops of these positions from year to year. Steve Smith was a forgotten man for a while, and everyone thought he was done until the Panthers drafted Cam Newton. Calling him a core player now is easy, but there was a stretch where he appeared to be anything but.

So the question is, do you trust your opinion on who the core players are enough to hang on to them from year to year? Or do you move a "core guy" to assemble the best "redraft team"? Or only if you can deal for another core guy?

 

[kutta]

I would like to refine this valuation of a roster spot somewhat. ZWK and I were talking about that a bit in his rankings thread. How does one value a roster spot? How does the number of roster spots change this value? How are these values related to rookie draft picks? One could just use the historical VBD performance of draft position to this, however I think it would be more accurate to tie the draft pick value with the roster slot value. A rookie pick is more valuable in a deeper league because the talent pool of free agents is a lower baseline than it would be in a more shallow league. For example if your league is 24 roster spots compared to 48 roster spots? The value of a roster spot in a league with 24 spots would be twice as much as the spot in a 48 spot league. Your baselines should be deeper in the 48 spot league than the 24. A rookie pick would need to be from a much higher baseline to roster in a 24 spot league than it would for a 48. Your opportunity lost from rostering a player who does not perform is half as much for the 48 spot league than it is the 24 where you likely only need 2 rounds for rookies. The later picks will not be better than the free agents available.

Right. Imagine a six man roster. Rookie picks would be worth almost nothing unless they were superstars because your roster would be filled with great guys already. As you increase the roster size, the rookies, compared to the guys at the end of your roster and the FA's, become more valuable because they are better than anyone you would pick up off the wire and better than the guys at the end of your bench, and you now have room to keep them and develop them for the future.

 

[Biabreakable]

Well to answer most of those questions you need to look at each situation specifically for the most part. It depends.

Roy Williams is not a player I ever believed in despite a lot of hype surrounding him several years of his career. He had poor catch percentage as one of the red flags I identified with him. So that is something I would look at for receivers in my evaluation. Generally a WR who is not catching over 60% of their targets is at some risk of reduced targets if that does not improve imo. There are always exceptions to any hard rule. But this has been one thing I look for in WR.

Another thing is their supporting cast. Does the WR have a good QB in a stable situation?

For Mike Williams he has finished as WR 11 (top 12) and 17 in his 3 year career. He also finished WR 50. This is mainly to do with the TD which are somewhat unreliable. Josh Freemen may not be the long term answer and Jackson is clearly better than Williams. What if Tampa develops another WR who takes more targets than Williams in the next few seasons? What if Tampa becomes a team that runs the ball more? A tendency that the coach may shift to if they can develop a good COP RB and get the carries up to 450-500 level like some of the better running teams do. This would reduce the passing attempts somewhat and a 2nd viable RB would add some risk to the TD potential for Williams.

So I think he is a valuable player to have, but I do not really consider him a core player. He is a player I would be happy to trade for a player I did consider a core player, and if he puts up another good season, Freeman is cemented as the QB would be another thing I would want to see before considering Williams a core player. He is borderline.

A general rule would be looking at players who have repeated a level of performance, which Mike Williams has done. It is the questions about offensive philosophy and if Freeman will be their QB that mainly hold him back from me considering him a core player.

Brady has been a core player. However he is reaching an age now 36yrs old that QB do see some decline after this age. It is possible that he will be playing at a high level like Favre did until 40 years old, I even think Brady may want to do that. But within the next few seasons we will almost certainly start to see some decline. I noticed Brady's completion percentage dropped last season. This may be in part due to throwing the ball away more running the up tempo offense, or it may be one of the 1st signs of decline in the efficiency of his play. With Brady you need to start thinking about contingency plans for who your QB will be once he does decline. For a team seeking to solidify their QB position with a core player I do not think Brady qualifies anymore because he may not be playing 5 years from now.

This is not to say Brady is not a good player to have for the next 3 seasons. But he is not a good player for a team that may be rebuilding. He is not a core player in that sense. Brady is actually bad for a team rebuilding to keep because he will help that team win more. Same thing applies to Peyton or any QB age 35 or more.

Wilson scored 30TD as a rookie on an offense that ran the ball more than they threw. So there is upside for him as well. I was expecting Luck and RG3 to be core QB that teams could build around. Wilson was more of a surprise. I see Wilson having a career path similar to Big Ben over the next few seasons. I would like to see another season from them to be sure. But based on what they showed as rookies, yes I think they are going to be in top 12 QB conversations for a long time.

I do not think I would rank these players ahead of Stafford yet as he has more of a track record. These QB may be better than Stafford but none of them have as good a WR to throw to, nor are they in offenses as dedicated to throwing the ball as Stafford is. Sometimes I think Stafford is a bad QB. That gives me confidence when the Vikings play the Lions. But he is a FF monster.

"The question is, do you trust your opinion on who the core players are enough to hang on to them from year to year? Or do you move a "core guy" to assemble the best "redraft team"? Or only if you can deal for another core guy?"

Yes a core player is a guy I feel good about starting for me for longer the next 3 seasons, usually longer than that. If the player is hitting age decline land marks within the next 5 seasons I might not consider them a core player any more even if I consider them a starter and perhaps the best player I have at that position, I may need another long term plan. I might sell an aging core player once they are approaching those age land marks. But I don't think of that player are a core player anymore. That would be trading for any player if I think it will help me this season. I would prefer to get a core player in return, but as I do not consider that player part of my core plan anymore, it is not necessary.

As always it depends. I have traded future 1st (ended up 1.11) for Tiki Barber because I thought it would solidify my playoff run and put me in better position to win a title. That was a high price to pay for the last 6 games of Tiki's career. I of course hoped Tiki would stick around another season, even though reports suggested he might retire. I rolled the dice and accepted that Tiki may not be back. If I would have won the title I would not be questioning if that was worth it. If Tiki would have played another season, it certainly would have been. I did not consider Tiki a core player at that point of his career. He is a guy I did pretty much consider a core player until he was 29 though. There were some rough stretches with him at times too. I owned Tiki in many different leagues his whole career.

As far as hindsight goes yes you are correct. But what I am talking about is not hindsight. Steve Smith is a player I traded for because I believed he was a core player. I kept him in bad seasons and started him when he was doing well. I never looked to move him because I did not think I could get fair value. If I did trade him away it would have been for another player I felt good about starting for me.

Perhaps that is the best definition of a core player. A guy I am comfortable being my starter in one of my roster positions, who also has some expected longevity, some staying power more than 3 seasons.

eta- In a 16 team league Mike Williams would likely be considered a core player by me, but not quite in a 12 team league. Great example Fred. That make me think about it quite a bit. The situation for him moving forward is still not as solid as I would like, but in a 16 team league he would be a lot more valuable/less replaceable.

 

[bostonfred]

Thanks for taking the time to spell that out. I see things similarly, with some minor differences.

Whether in redraft or keeper or dynasty, I want a "starter" at every position. If my team is going to make the playoffs, I need my starters to be above average. In a 12 team league where six teams make the playoffs, that might mean a top 6 QB, a top 6 RB1, a top 18 RB2, a top 30 RB3, a top 6 WR1, etc. More likely, you'll be stronger at some spots and weaker than others. something like the #2 QB, the #4 and #6 RBs, the #10, #14 and #40 WRs, etc. And your WR3 might not be one guy, but a bunch of guys you cobble together into a WR3BC throughout the year.

Of course, if that were easy to do, everyone would do it. In a redraft, you usually end up picking a spot where you're going to be weak. Say you like the late round talent at QB this year, and plan to start a guy like Wilson or Romo. Now you can punt at QB and take better RBs and WRs, and grab your QB late. You might love Jimmy Graham, and take him with an early pick, locking up your above average play at TE. Now you have a little more wiggle room at another position because you're dominant at TE.

In a dynasty, though, you need to readjust those baselines, because some teams will be loaded, and other teams will be rebuilding. So in a 12 man dynasty league, simply having the #6 QB won't be enough to contend with the 10 teams that are going for it this year because everybody will beat the two teams that are rebuilding. Now you need a top 5 QB, and a top 5 RB1, and a top 15 RB2, and so on. Having one stud isn't going to do it, you need lots of studs - what you call your "core guys".

Also, it takes a lot of luck to have all of your starters stay healthy for a full season. So you can't just roll out a stud QB, two stud RBs, two stud WRs, and a stud TE, with no other depth, and expect to win it all. You need depth to cover bye weeks, injuries, etc. And even if they do play 16 games, they also have bad matchups, or play through an undisclosed injury, or get covered by opponents' #1 corner until the guy across from them proves he can do something, or whatever. If you don't have depth, you'll need to be SO much better than every other team that it's not funny.

Obviously if you owned all of the top 5 QBs, all of the top 10 RBs, all of the top 10 WRs, etc., you'd be an overwhelming favorite to win the league. But that's clearly not practical. So the next best thing is to have more guys who can contribute to winning THIS year. It's almost impossible to (re)draft a team that is deep with "starter quality" players. It's difficult but not impossible to do in a competitive dynasty league. But every year, somebody is going to win it all. and in hindsight, most league winners will have had their "core guys" - their starters at each position - who they ended up replacing or supplementing with backups, trades, and waiver wire adds.

Again, you can't predict which of those waiver adds, or trades, or backup guys is going to be the key to the champion's season. Which means you need those roster spots we've been discussing, to give yourself a chance to "get lucky" on a waiver wire pickup who can fill a spot for you this year, or you need one or more of your developmental guys to develop this year.

In theory, the most efficient use of your dynasty roster for winning THIS year would be to have all players who were doing well THIS year. And that means that prospects who aren't expected to contribute until 2015 put you at some kind of disadvantage against guys who don't have those prospects As we discussed earlier, the deeper the rosters, the less disadvantage there is.

But unlike redraft leagues, the expected value of your entry fee this year is not entirely made up of your EV of winning this year. It's a function of EV2013 + EV2014 + EV2015 and so on. This should be self evident - and it should also be self-evident that more of the EV of your 2013 entry fee is determined by your EV in 2013 than by 2014 and beyond.

What that should tell you, then, is that the value of a player is similarly made up of EV2013 + EV2014 + EV2015 and so on. Tony Gonzalez has high value in 2013, but none in 2014 and beyond. Steven Jackson has high value in 2013, lower value in 2014, and very little value if any in 2015. Chris Harper has virtually no value in 2013, but has some value in 2014 and most of his value is in 2015 and beyond. If we're appropriately valuing a prospect like Harper (or Cordarelle, or Lattimore, or Geno Smith), then we have to account for their value over many years, as opposed to Gonzo's value which is entirely and only this year. But we also have to account for their lack of value this year, and the cost of a roster spot.

So what I'm thinking is, if I have 24 roster spots, then a hypothetical team might look something like this:

Name ---------- 2013 EV ---- 2014 EV ----- 2015 EV ----- 2016+ EV ---- CHURNABLE?Peyton Manning...320..........300...........100...........0................NGeno Smith.......110..........180...........200..........240...............NChase Daniel.....50...........50............100..........100...............YSteven Jackson...250..........210...........50............0................NMarcus Lattimore..0...........100...........200..........250...............NJoique Bell......100..........100...........150..........150...............YTOTAL*...........670..........610...........550..........640...............2* Total value of your starters, plus the 2 churnable roster spots which might net you starters for this year

Looking at this view, is 670 points from your QB and RBs enough to compete this year? If not, then can you maximize your total EV by trading for someone who can contribute more this year? Or by trading away Manning and Jackson and getting guys who can contribute next year and beyond? It looks like 2015 is going to be a rebuild year, unless you make some moves, so maybe you start planning around that. And so on.

Then we add in the depth factor - the "churnable" column is a pretty blunt instrument, but it'll do - and we start looking at the value that you're getting from assets like Lattimore, or 2014 draft picks, or scrubs who you're OK dropping, and so on.

When you consider the shelf life of RBs, you'll net results which are similar to the core player idea, but instead of looking for guys who are going to be awesome for years, you start looking for guys who match your team's makeup. If you're expected to score a bunch this year, then you devalue Harper and value Tony Gonzalez. If you have Tony Gonzalez on a team that's going nowhere, then you consider their exit value.

So maybe what we really have is something more like:

Name ---------- 2013 EV ---- 2013 Exit Value -- 2014 EV --- 2014 Exit Value -- 2015 EV --- 2015 Exit Value -Peyton Manning...320..........Mid first .........300.........Early second........100.........0.. Joique Bell......100..........Waivers............100.........Waivers.............200........2nd rounder

 

[EBF]

The man, the myth, the legend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJLb0f7Mcg0

 

[Biabreakable]

Fred I think you are on the right track.

What gheemoney and I were talking about many years back as far as the rolling 3 year window method of evaluation of players is for the purpose that you are talking about. Finding a balance to your roster between starters, decent back ups who can start if needed, trade bait and long term prospects.

I think this process helps you make decisions on if you want to shift more of your roster towards win now or if you think you need to build another season or 2 before contending, to shift your focus towards that. Making this decision will change your trade focus from valuing players for their immediate impact (when you are making a run) or longer term value (if you are building for next season or the season after) if you are not.

I am mainly trying to find a balance between the 2 perspectives. Short term goals and long term replacements. Rosters will be unbalanced due to trades and what opportunities are presented you. But looking at each player in the context of how they fit your current goals should help you to balance out your roster to better achieve those goals, to identify which players do not fit your goal and which ones do.

As things get narrowed down I usually end up with a pretty short list of players who would meet my current team goals.

 

[The Fantasy Chef]

Looking at training camp I think Dobson will have the best fantasy season

 

[Bigboy10182000]

From Eagles writer:

@ZBerm: A non-Eagles tweet, but going through my notes from practice -- Pats WR Aaron Dobson can play. Looks the part, played like it today.