Pasquino Dynasty Rankings (1 Viewer)

[jeter23]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public.

He's on FBG's staff, it's part of the job.

Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be almost exact.

In most cases, no they would not. As you know, investing in a player in dynasty is quite different than redraft and that's why you see the feedback/questions/comments.

Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.

The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

I'm afraid we'll agree to disagree. From a dynasty viewpoint, one player is younger than the other and is the aplpha dog on his team at RB. The other is many slots below his RBBC partner and still ranks above Blount. It deserves discussion.

Umm, okay. Was not saying it wasn't. Just saying there are many factors and many ways to view rankings (trading only/startups/etc)

Again, not the point I was making. It would be much easier to agree on current value than it would be to how much I like a player. I am not a believer in Foster and there are several Rbs I like more, but that does not mean I don't recognize his value is greater than almost every RB.

Again, not discussing those 2 players specifically (I agree with you and Bruce) but just the idea that if Jeff likes Mike Bush more and has some support why, then that is fine.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Rankings become so difficult to compile, especially when you know they will become public. Are they simply a reflection of the current value of players? If so, almost any of us could post our rankings and they would be alsmot exact. Does the fact that Jeff likes Mike Bush more than Blount mean he would make that deal? It shouldn't. That is where the consideration of current value comes into play. He might try and move Blount for Bush, but knowing the relative value of each, ask for an additional player as well.The questioning some of you are doing seems to be blasting Jeff for not having rankings that match your own, or the conventional wisdom.

In the case of Blount and Bush, to me it's simply a matter of future production. I don't see it happening for Bush, and I do for Blount. I don't slavishly adhere to others' rankings either, but when he starts a thread inviting comment on his rankings and then we do so, it shouldn't be considered "blasting Jeff." I thought I worded my request for explanation respectfully.

While I appreciate jeter23's comments, I took no issue with anyone's comments to date, including Couch Potato. Everything has been good discussion so far and even helped me to correct some WR3s.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

By the way, there's nothing wrong with pointing out what could be some possible biases - such as against certain teams (I don't do that) or against young WRs (I've been guilty of that int he past). I tend to favor proven players over younger emerging ones as I always want more of a track record. I've had success with older / unwanted veterans too (as they are usually undervalued in Dynasty) so that might be tilting me in that direction at times.

As we have seen already in this thread, none of these are set in stone.

 

[eaglesfan7]

Drew Brees is seven spots ahead of Aaron Rodgers while ADP suggests otherwise. Brees ADP is in the fourth round of startups (6 pts for all tds) while Rodgers is mid to late second round.

 

[Novice2]

4. Foster is solid, but I really believe that the Texans go to more of a RBBC to try and preserve Foster. That plus Foster crushed last year, and I have a hard time envisioning him to be the #1 RB again. Sure he could, but I think he's in that second tier of backs. I also think another RB (likely Ben Tate) takes some workload, both lowering the pressure on Foster and as a result lowering his fantasy production.

Foster could take a 25% workload cut and still have finished #1 last year.

No MSW?

He must think no team will want to sign him.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

Thanks Jeff for the updated rankings. I have been looking for something like this to help decide on various trade offers. Any idea when your cohorts will be giving their rankings?

I'm not sure about the others, but I am hoping to have all of my dynasty rankings up (including IDP) before the draft, which is starts on the 28th. I'm a college student and my last finals are on the 25th, so the week of the draft is really the soonest I can get them done.

 

[thriftyrocker]

DJax at #3 seems out of place, but find me a bigger home run weapon than DJax who loves to run under Vick's deep ball. If ever there was a guy who can put up 15+ TDs in a season for the next 2-3 years, this is him.

Think that number's a little overboard. Steve Smith's high water mark was 12, and only broke 10 once. Don't get me wrong I'd love for it to happen, but it won't.Collie should be about 15 spots higher. If you are downgrading him due to risk, then you still can't have him below Mark Clayton who is always injured, coming off a serious injury (torn patelar tendon), and is not even for sure a starter.

 

[eakfootball]

I would like to find one person who prefers Ben Tate and Mike Tolbert to Mike Williams TB.

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

I couldn't help but notice Lamey STILL has Flacco rated the #17 QB. Seriously? I can see #12, but #17? All he has been doing is improving.....but no credit. Lamey the Flacco hater! One of these days you'll come around!

 

[_lurker_]

I couldn't help but notice Lamey STILL has Flacco rated the #17 QB. Seriously? I can see #12, but #17? All he has been doing is improving.....but no credit. Lamey the Flacco hater! One of these days you'll come around!

where do you see Lamey's rankings?I see six staffers at http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=qb&type=dynasty&howrecent=300 but not his. Are his kept somewhere else?

 

[Carl Eller's Dead Liver]

I couldn't help but notice Lamey STILL has Flacco rated the #17 QB. Seriously? I can see #12, but #17? All he has been doing is improving.....but no credit. Lamey the Flacco hater! One of these days you'll come around!

where do you see Lamey's rankings?I see six staffers at http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=qb&type=dynasty&howrecent=300 but not his. Are his kept somewhere else?

Sorry, my mistake.....I meant Bloom. They are both Flacco haters. Not that I am a huge fan, but they give Flacco no respect for improvement over his first 3 years. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=qb&type=dynasty&howrecent=35

 

[Alex P Keaton]

- how do you rank Greg Jennings so high? he performed poorly when Finley was healthy early in 2010, then once Finley went down he finally started getting meaningful targets. aren't you worried that the Pack go back to the "feed Finley" plan?

Jennings had more targets than Finley in the 5 games that Finley was healthy. So did Donald Driver actually. And James Jones as a wopping 2 targets behind. Both Driver and Jennings also outscored Finley fantasy points-wise.Feed Finley plan. The hype on this guy is epic.

Man, so many people who have trouble reading.First, as noted multiple times, I'm a Jennings owner. Not a Finley disciple.

Second, Finley and Jennings had the exact same number of targets in the FOUR games where Finley was healthy. But for anyone who actually watched the games, it was obvious that Rodgers looked to Finley more early in the game and that the offense revolved around him early on.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'll kind of add to what Couch Potato mentioned.A quick question on your rankings in general:I see dynasty rankings generally following a "startup draft / trade x for y". I think most of us do. But do you? If not, what do you use?I'm asking because, even in non ppr, through my eyes, I see you saying you would draft Turner over Calvin or Nicks in a dynasty startup (which I can't see anyone doing, even in non ppr.) Or Grant over Dez, Bowe, or Maclin. Or making those trades (which I can't see anyone doing either, almost regardless of situation.)

That's a fair question. I use my own rankings and the ADP information. I'd rather have a stud RB over a stud WR in non-PPR. That's about a 75-100 FF point difference in most leagues (assuming say 300-500 more yards for the RB and about 8-10 more TDs). That's huge. Calvin will last longer as a WR but I stated earlier I lean towards the next 3-4 years as an event horizon to decide values. Yes Turner will likely cliff dive in 3-4 years while Calvin will still be around, so that should give me pause about that decision. I might very well draft the player with higher ADP and hope a guy I have higher on my rankings is still there for my next selection - getting both.

Turner will cliff dive after the 2012 season, not in 3-4 years.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I'll kind of add to what Couch Potato mentioned.

A quick question on your rankings in general:

I see dynasty rankings generally following a "startup draft / trade x for y". I think most of us do. But do you? If not, what do you use?

I'm asking because, even in non ppr, through my eyes, I see you saying you would draft Turner over Calvin or Nicks in a dynasty startup (which I can't see anyone doing, even in non ppr.) Or Grant over Dez, Bowe, or Maclin. Or making those trades (which I can't see anyone doing either, almost regardless of situation.)

That's a fair question. I use my own rankings and the ADP information. I'd rather have a stud RB over a stud WR in non-PPR. That's about a 75-100 FF point difference in most leagues (assuming say 300-500 more yards for the RB and about 8-10 more TDs). That's huge. Calvin will last longer as a WR but I stated earlier I lean towards the next 3-4 years as an event horizon to decide values. Yes Turner will likely cliff dive in 3-4 years while Calvin will still be around, so that should give me pause about that decision. I might very well draft the player with higher ADP and hope a guy I have higher on my rankings is still there for my next selection - getting both.

Turner will cliff dive after the 2012 season, not in 3-4 years.

I'll go forward with discussing Turner.Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

Contract (follow the money): Signed with Atlanta for $5M in 2012 and $5.5M in 2013. Odds are he is still their guy - or at least a RBBC guy - in 2013.

Workload: Remember that Turner was stuck behind LT2 for years in San Diego. He has 1349 career touches. Most RBs are good for around 2500 before they trail off (and often dramatically). Give him 300 a year - or even 350 - and he still is under 2500 career touches three years from now.

So I'm okay with saying - at this point in time - that he will be a productive RB1 for two years and probably a solid RB2 type in Year 3. That's good enough for me.

 

[DansRams]

I'll kind of add to what Couch Potato mentioned.

A quick question on your rankings in general:

I see dynasty rankings generally following a "startup draft / trade x for y". I think most of us do. But do you? If not, what do you use?

I'm asking because, even in non ppr, through my eyes, I see you saying you would draft Turner over Calvin or Nicks in a dynasty startup (which I can't see anyone doing, even in non ppr.) Or Grant over Dez, Bowe, or Maclin. Or making those trades (which I can't see anyone doing either, almost regardless of situation.)

That's a fair question. I use my own rankings and the ADP information. I'd rather have a stud RB over a stud WR in non-PPR. That's about a 75-100 FF point difference in most leagues (assuming say 300-500 more yards for the RB and about 8-10 more TDs). That's huge. Calvin will last longer as a WR but I stated earlier I lean towards the next 3-4 years as an event horizon to decide values. Yes Turner will likely cliff dive in 3-4 years while Calvin will still be around, so that should give me pause about that decision. I might very well draft the player with higher ADP and hope a guy I have higher on my rankings is still there for my next selection - getting both.

Turner will cliff dive after the 2012 season, not in 3-4 years.

I'll go forward with discussing Turner.Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

Contract (follow the money): Signed with Atlanta for $5M in 2012 and $5.5M in 2013. Odds are he is still their guy - or at least a RBBC guy - in 2013.

Workload: Remember that Turner was stuck behind LT2 for years in San Diego. He has 1349 career touches. Most RBs are good for around 2500 before they trail off (and often dramatically). Give him 300 a year - or even 350 - and he still is under 2500 career touches three years from now.

So I'm okay with saying - at this point in time - that he will be a productive RB1 for two years and probably a solid RB2 type in Year 3. That's good enough for me.

"Most RBs are successful to age 30-32"Not sure I agree with that. If by "successful" you mean equals rb1/rb2...I'd like to see what supporting data you have to make that claim.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'll kind of add to what Couch Potato mentioned.

A quick question on your rankings in general:

I see dynasty rankings generally following a "startup draft / trade x for y". I think most of us do. But do you? If not, what do you use?

I'm asking because, even in non ppr, through my eyes, I see you saying you would draft Turner over Calvin or Nicks in a dynasty startup (which I can't see anyone doing, even in non ppr.) Or Grant over Dez, Bowe, or Maclin. Or making those trades (which I can't see anyone doing either, almost regardless of situation.)

That's a fair question. I use my own rankings and the ADP information. I'd rather have a stud RB over a stud WR in non-PPR. That's about a 75-100 FF point difference in most leagues (assuming say 300-500 more yards for the RB and about 8-10 more TDs). That's huge. Calvin will last longer as a WR but I stated earlier I lean towards the next 3-4 years as an event horizon to decide values. Yes Turner will likely cliff dive in 3-4 years while Calvin will still be around, so that should give me pause about that decision. I might very well draft the player with higher ADP and hope a guy I have higher on my rankings is still there for my next selection - getting both.

Turner will cliff dive after the 2012 season, not in 3-4 years.

I'll go forward with discussing Turner.Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

Contract (follow the money): Signed with Atlanta for $5M in 2012 and $5.5M in 2013. Odds are he is still their guy - or at least a RBBC guy - in 2013.

Workload: Remember that Turner was stuck behind LT2 for years in San Diego. He has 1349 career touches. Most RBs are good for around 2500 before they trail off (and often dramatically). Give him 300 a year - or even 350 - and he still is under 2500 career touches three years from now.

So I'm okay with saying - at this point in time - that he will be a productive RB1 for two years and probably a solid RB2 type in Year 3. That's good enough for me.

"Most RBs are successful to age 30-32"Not sure I agree with that. If by "successful" you mean equals rb1/rb2...I'd like to see what supporting data you have to make that claim.

Additionally, I've seen little to no evidence that workload matters. Jeff, you've been around this site for years, thus you've likely read the same studies I have. Perhaps you could point to the conclusive evidence that low workload = greater longevity?

It's more likely that he'll be a solid RB1 this year, a low RB2 in 2012, and RB3/4 beyond. I could see much worse.

 

[moderated]

.

Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

He's 29, not 28.Also he is a power back and they fall off the cliff a lot more quickly then finesse backs. He already started to look awful at the end of the season averaging 3.5 ypc.

the contract stuff is pretty irrelevant as it's not guaranteed each year, teams always have outs.

I know you had Shaun Alexander ranked in the top 5 when he was 29 also, didn't that lesson at least teach ya something?

I wouldn't even have turner in the top 25 in dynasty. I can understand somewhere in the late late teens or early 20's, but due to age and already falling performance no way he should be close to top 10, makes zero sense.

 

[Go deep]

.

Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

He's 29, not 28.Also he is a power back and they fall off the cliff a lot more quickly then finesse backs. He already started to look awful at the end of the season averaging 3.5 ypc.

the contract stuff is pretty irrelevant as it's not guaranteed each year, teams always have outs.

I know you had Shaun Alexander ranked in the top 5 when he was 29 also, didn't that lesson at least teach ya something?

I wouldn't even have turner in the top 25 in dynasty. I can understand somewhere in the late late teens or early 20's, but due to age and already falling performance no way he should be close to top 10, makes zero sense.

..and Turner will actually turn 30 before this season is over.

 

[moderated]

.

Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

He's 29, not 28.Also he is a power back and they fall off the cliff a lot more quickly then finesse backs. He already started to look awful at the end of the season averaging 3.5 ypc.

the contract stuff is pretty irrelevant as it's not guaranteed each year, teams always have outs.

I know you had Shaun Alexander ranked in the top 5 when he was 29 also, didn't that lesson at least teach ya something?

I wouldn't even have turner in the top 25 in dynasty. I can understand somewhere in the late late teens or early 20's, but due to age and already falling performance no way he should be close to top 10, makes zero sense.

..and Turner will actually turn 30 before this season is over.

Yeah, Turner is a dead man walking as far as dynasty value goes. Seems the only ones who value him high are those who own him, and it's probably only smoke in hopes they can inflate his value and dump him off to a sucker for decent value.

 

[Go deep]

.

Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

He's 29, not 28.Also he is a power back and they fall off the cliff a lot more quickly then finesse backs. He already started to look awful at the end of the season averaging 3.5 ypc.

the contract stuff is pretty irrelevant as it's not guaranteed each year, teams always have outs.

I know you had Shaun Alexander ranked in the top 5 when he was 29 also, didn't that lesson at least teach ya something?

I wouldn't even have turner in the top 25 in dynasty. I can understand somewhere in the late late teens or early 20's, but due to age and already falling performance no way he should be close to top 10, makes zero sense.

..and Turner will actually turn 30 before this season is over.

Yeah, Turner is a dead man walking as far as dynasty value goes. Seems the only ones who value him high are those who own him, and it's probably only smoke in hopes they can inflate his value and dump him off to a sucker for decent value.

Well, those guys and our buddy Jeff. He loves his old guys, but i got on him pretty good back when he had Shaun Alexander in the top 5, so im not going to pile on.

 

[Tau837]

.

Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

He's 29, not 28.Also he is a power back and they fall off the cliff a lot more quickly then finesse backs. He already started to look awful at the end of the season averaging 3.5 ypc.

the contract stuff is pretty irrelevant as it's not guaranteed each year, teams always have outs.

I know you had Shaun Alexander ranked in the top 5 when he was 29 also, didn't that lesson at least teach ya something?

I wouldn't even have turner in the top 25 in dynasty. I can understand somewhere in the late late teens or early 20's, but due to age and already falling performance no way he should be close to top 10, makes zero sense.

With all due respect, Jeff is getting owned over Turner by several posters. It's reminding me of the DynastyGuys keeper list thread from last year... tried to find it but couldn't... maybe it has been deleted.

 

[Boom Switch]

Glad to see you not buying into the "Michael Turner has lost a step" bandwagon.

You can get that dude cheap in a startup dynasty. 16 team league i grabbed him at 3.12. I know he is getting older but he doesnt have very high mileage, plus there arent many workhorse RB's sitting there at that spot in a 16 team league.

 

[moderated]

Glad to see you not buying into the "Michael Turner has lost a step" bandwagon.

You can get that dude cheap in a startup dynasty. 16 team league i grabbed him at 3.12. I know he is getting older but he doesnt have very high mileage, plus there arent many workhorse RB's sitting there at that spot in a 16 team league.

That's not getting him cheap at all. Much better options at the 50th pick in a startup.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I couldn't help but notice Lamey STILL has Flacco rated the #17 QB. Seriously? I can see #12, but #17? All he has been doing is improving.....but no credit. Lamey the Flacco hater! One of these days you'll come around!

where do you see Lamey's rankings?I see six staffers at http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=qb&type=dynasty&howrecent=300 but not his. Are his kept somewhere else?

Sorry, my mistake.....I meant Bloom. They are both Flacco haters. Not that I am a huge fan, but they give Flacco no respect for improvement over his first 3 years. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/apps/viewrankings.php?viewpos=qb&type=dynasty&howrecent=35

Just because someone disagrees with your opinion of a player doesn't make them a hater. Everyone doesn't agree on every player.When I look at Bloom's rankings, the only player he has ranked ahead of Flacco that I would rank below him is Sanchez. Who specifically do you think should be ranked below Flacco?

 

[Tau837]

Glad to see you not buying into the "Michael Turner has lost a step" bandwagon.

You can get that dude cheap in a startup dynasty. 16 team league i grabbed him at 3.12. I know he is getting older but he doesnt have very high mileage, plus there arent many workhorse RB's sitting there at that spot in a 16 team league.

That's not getting him cheap at all. Much better options at the 50th pick in a startup.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

.

Age: 28 and a few months right now. Most RBs are successful to age 30-32. The dive/falloff happens at 31 or 32 more often than not.

He's 29, not 28.Also he is a power back and they fall off the cliff a lot more quickly then finesse backs.

While he's big he really doesn't run like a power back (exclusively up the middle and looking for contact). He's actually quite fast and shifty - not saying he'll last for more than another year or two, but if he was truly a power back, I'd be worried about this upcoming season let alone 2013.

 

[Boom Switch]

Not really, i grabbed shon green 7 picks later as my #2 rb. If you think spiller or felix are better options more power to you...

 

[matttyl]

4. Foster is solid, but I really believe that the Texans go to more of a RBBC to try and preserve Foster. That plus Foster crushed last year, and I have a hard time envisioning him to be the #1 RB again. Sure he could, but I think he's in that second tier of backs. I also think another RB (likely Ben Tate) takes some workload, both lowering the pressure on Foster and as a result lowering his fantasy production.

Foster could take a 25% workload cut and still have finished #1 last year.No MSW?

True, but only if you're assuming the same YPC and YPR and TD rate. I don't see that happening this coming year for two huge reasons - schedule and Owen Daniels. Last year he played The NFC East and the AFC West (averaged 4.7 YPC and over 1 TD per game in those) - and this year he'll play the NFC South and daunted AFC North - which had the #1, #3, #5, #7, #9, and #13 defenses in points allowed. Also, and possibly even bigger reason, Owen Daniels being healthy. I ran these numbers in my dynasty league to try to temper the expectations of the Foster owner. The fantasy point amounts are with our scoring system, which isn't standard, but isn't that far off either...Foster became the lead back week 16 of the 2009 season. At that time, Owen Daniels was on IR with his knee injury. Since then Foster had had 6 games where Daniels was enough apart of the offense to get 40+ receiving yards. Foster has also had 12 games where Daniels was either out completely, or extremely limited and thus had less than 40 yards receiving.In the 12 games with Daniels either out, or getting less than 40 receiving yards -Foster has1,348 rushing yards - 112 per game average477 receiving yards - 40 per game average16 total TDs - 1.33 per game averageExactly 300 fantasy points - 25 per game averageIn the 6 games with Daniels getting more than 40 receiving yards -Foster has482 rushing yards - 80 per game average (29% reduction)153 receiving yards - 25.5 per game average (36% reduction)5 total TDs - .833 per game average (half a TD less per game average, 38% reduction)101 fantasy points - 16.8 per game average (33% reduction)Honestly, that's staggering! That's a HUGE reduction from when the team is a running team (games with Daniels out) to when they are a passing team (when Daniels is in).Schaub's average attempts in games with Daniels out or getting less than 40 receiving yards - 34 / average when Daniels is over 40 receiving yards - 40 (18% more)Foster's average number of carries with Daniels out or getting less than 40 receiving yards - 21.3 / average when Daniels is over 40 receiving yards - 18.3 (14% less)These two stats clearly show the difference in the offense with and without Daniels.I think this shows it's pretty clear that a healthy Owen Daniels is BAD for Foster! This new 4 year deal for Daniels is HORRIBLE news for Foster's dynasty owners!!

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Several opinions here (some cases presented better than others) are getting my attention on Turner. Frankly I'm torn. Somehow I had him at 28 not 29 (and no, he won't be 30 this season - he was born in February of 1982). The other two factors in his favor are low mileage and low career touches (under 1500).

I believe Yudkin had the numbers on the two cliff dives for RBs (age 31 and 2500 touches). I will ask him to confirm the age number.

Still - in the age of RBBC - I think RBs are going to last longer than before. I don't think that applies here to Turner though in that he'll take more of a beating on a per-year basis because he's a feature back (except on 3rd/passing downs) but he's in line for 300+ touches as a featured back. I do think he'll be productive for two more strong years but now that I see he's 29 I should move him down.

 

[Hoosier16]

4. Foster is solid, but I really believe that the Texans go to more of a RBBC to try and preserve Foster. That plus Foster crushed last year, and I have a hard time envisioning him to be the #1 RB again. Sure he could, but I think he's in that second tier of backs. I also think another RB (likely Ben Tate) takes some workload, both lowering the pressure on Foster and as a result lowering his fantasy production.

Foster could take a 25% workload cut and still have finished #1 last year.No MSW?

True, but only if you're assuming the same YPC and YPR and TD rate. I don't see that happening this coming year for two huge reasons - schedule and Owen Daniels. Last year he played The NFC East and the AFC West (averaged 4.7 YPC and over 1 TD per game in those) - and this year he'll play the NFC South and daunted AFC North - which had the #1, #3, #5, #7, #9, and #13 defenses in points allowed. Also, and possibly even bigger reason, Owen Daniels being healthy. I ran these numbers in my dynasty league to try to temper the expectations of the Foster owner. The fantasy point amounts are with our scoring system, which isn't standard, but isn't that far off either...Foster became the lead back week 16 of the 2009 season. At that time, Owen Daniels was on IR with his knee injury. Since then Foster had had 6 games where Daniels was enough apart of the offense to get 40+ receiving yards. Foster has also had 12 games where Daniels was either out completely, or extremely limited and thus had less than 40 yards receiving.In the 12 games with Daniels either out, or getting less than 40 receiving yards -Foster has1,348 rushing yards - 112 per game average477 receiving yards - 40 per game average16 total TDs - 1.33 per game averageExactly 300 fantasy points - 25 per game averageIn the 6 games with Daniels getting more than 40 receiving yards -Foster has482 rushing yards - 80 per game average (29% reduction)153 receiving yards - 25.5 per game average (36% reduction)5 total TDs - .833 per game average (half a TD less per game average, 38% reduction)101 fantasy points - 16.8 per game average (33% reduction)Honestly, that's staggering! That's a HUGE reduction from when the team is a running team (games with Daniels out) to when they are a passing team (when Daniels is in).Schaub's average attempts in games with Daniels out or getting less than 40 receiving yards - 34 / average when Daniels is over 40 receiving yards - 40 (18% more)Foster's average number of carries with Daniels out or getting less than 40 receiving yards - 21.3 / average when Daniels is over 40 receiving yards - 18.3 (14% less)These two stats clearly show the difference in the offense with and without Daniels.I think this shows it's pretty clear that a healthy Owen Daniels is BAD for Foster! This new 4 year deal for Daniels is HORRIBLE news for Foster's dynasty owners!!

That really is a strange and bizarre manipulation of stats. Choosing 40 yards is strange all by itself. There is nothing magical about when Daniels gets 40 yards in a game.What Foster's stats really say in those 6 games is that when Houston is getting blown out and forced to throw the ball, they don't run it very much. During weeks 5, 14, and 15, Houston played from behind the whole game. Schaub threw the ball 150 times in those 3 games. Foster had 42 total carries and averaged 7.1 points in those games. Houston was outscored 40 to 93 in those games and never had the lead. In the other 3 games that Daniels was over 40 yards, the games were close. Schaub threw the ball 88 times. Foster had 68 carries and averaged 24.1 ppg (compared to 19.4 for the season). Foster's stats had nothing to do with Daniels and everything to do with score in the games. Owen Daniels being healthy should be nothing but a positive for Foster and open up the running game.

 

[Go deep]

Several opinions here (some cases presented better than others) are getting my attention on Turner. Frankly I'm torn. Somehow I had him at 28 not 29 (and no, he won't be 30 this season - he was born in February of 1982). The other two factors in his favor are low mileage and low career touches (under 1500).

I believe Yudkin had the numbers on the two cliff dives for RBs (age 31 and 2500 touches). I will ask him to confirm the age number.

Still - in the age of RBBC - I think RBs are going to last longer than before. I don't think that applies here to Turner though in that he'll take more of a beating on a per-year basis because he's a feature back (except on 3rd/passing downs) but he's in line for 300+ touches as a featured back. I do think he'll be productive for two more strong years but now that I see he's 29 I should move him down.

The NFL season ends in February, but youre right, he turns 30 a week after the SB. I will rephrase, Turner will turn 30 a week after next season ends.