The value of 'rentals' in dynasty (1 Viewer)

[madd futher]

I thought that the good folks on this board might have some opinions to contribute on this subject too.

I was asked by one of our owners during a recent start-up dynasty dispersion draft which Dynasty rankings I used and found to be most helpful. My quick response was “My own, that I put out on the forum at fftoday just after the 1st of the year”.

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=380433&st=0&p=4414078&hl=dynasty&fromsearch=1entry4414078

I went on to comment that I also like Evan Silva’s at Rotoworld and the ones done over at ProFootballFocus.

But the fact is that Dynasty rankings are just not very helpful for several reasons. Dynasty rankings are just general lists that have very little validity relative to your specific dynasty team and situation. For supplemental drafts in an established dynasty league, you need to be objective specific in your picks. Are you a contender or a rebuild? You might draft completely different in each case. In a start-up dynasty draft, each pick is based upon the picks before, and each pick should be made for a specific reason. Dynasty rankings are of little benefit in helping you with that. In fact, when I drafted my recent dynasty team, I did not even LOOK at my own rankings, or Silva’s, or anyone else's for that matter.

One think I do know about various Dynasty rankings is that some are much more age-influenced than others. Something that many mentors have drummed into my head is that a player’s age many times over-influences an owner’s decision in who to draft. You simply cannot bank on a player not having a season ending or career shortening injury at any point in time, and 6 year careers in the NFL are the exception and not the rule. I’m not saying that you should n't take age into account, especially when drafting studs, but I’ll be the first to admit that I still have the habit of taking things too far in the direction of youth. Every time I’ve published my dynasty rankings, it seems, WhiteWonder points this out to me. And he’s right!

In the last few years, I’ve come to rank older players with very small windows in the NFL as rentals, and put them as a special category, but I've ranked them at the bottom of each position list. In the future, I will still put them in a special category but not assign a ranking to them that implies my distain for their talents.

‘Rentals’ can have very significant value in dynasty draft situations, regardless of whether it is a supplemental draft or a start-up draft. Look no farther than the 15 round start-up draft we recently completed. I needed to complete my very neglected WR corps, where I didn’t even draft my 2nd WR until I took 32 year old Santana Moss until the 11th round. All of the good young WRs were long gone. But Moss figures to give me about 200 fantasy points or more in PPR format, about the same as other WRs drafted as WR2s like Holmes, Maclin, Knox, and Marshall, and more than Sidney Rice, Britt, and Garcon, all of who were off the board long before. I still was in need at the position, so in round 13 I took 37+ year old Derrick Mason. I’m not crazy about the 145 - 160 fantasy points I have projected for this WR3, but again, there were lots more shiny new toys that went way ahead of him that are less bankable for this kind of production. Finally in round 14, my pick for the 4th WR on my roster was….another rental….34 year old ex-inmate Plaxico Burress. Does he have bankable production that can be projected at all? Of course not. He’s a home-run or bust pick that you would expect with a 14 rounder. But we do know that he looked like a guy with quite a bit left in the tank when he exchanged his NFL uniform for an orange jumpsuit, and he’s coming back with something to prove and no additional wear-and-tear between uniform switches.

So thanks, WhiteWonder for finally convincing me of the folly of always chasing the 'pretty young girls'. This time I took my share of the older ones, who happened to be the only ones left just before the bar was closing (too sexist of an analogy maybe?? LOLOL - OK, I'm 63, but I still remember those days well!) - and they may have saved my ### in this particular draft!

 

[BeTheMatch]

I think rentals are huge in dynasty and can be the difference in winning and losing. Guys I targeted this offseason: T.O. and Randy Moss. Cost was unbelievably low, so there's really no risk, and the upside is an every-week starter. I like that cost-benefit ratio.

 

[squistion]

But the fact is that Dynasty rankings are just not very helpful for several reasons. Dynasty rankings are just general lists that have very little validity relative to your specific dynasty team and situation. For supplemental drafts in an established dynasty league, you need to be objective specific in your picks. Are you a contender or a rebuild? You might draft completely different in each case. In a start-up dynasty draft, each pick is based upon the picks before, and each pick should be made for a specific reason. Dynasty rankings are of little benefit in helping you with that. In fact, when I drafted my recent dynasty team, I did not even LOOK at my own rankings, or Silvas, or anyone else's for that matter.

OK, but that seems a rather odd approach to doing a draft IMO.I also do my own rankings (and have had them published on a couple sites over the years). I too just finished a recent start up draft, but could not imagine doing a draft and not even looking at them.

Yes, each draft is unique and the picks before go into the decision making process. However one still needs to have the players ranked in their relative positions so if you decide to take a WR in Round 6, you know which WR to take (instead of making a decision while on the clock, which doesn't always end well, from my experience).

I am not a slave to my rankings, but if I didn't use them as a guide in selecting players, it would not only be a waste of my time, they would be pretty worthless for anyone else. As F&L has noted in his Dynasty thread, one of the purposes of rankings is in part a draft guide for people who read them.

 

[madd futher]

It is true that I did not look at my rankings or the others i mentioned during the draft or in the weeks or so before. But it would be entirely erroneous to infer from that statement that i went into the draft even the slightest bit unprepared.

 

[Go deep]

Every player, young and old, has value at some point. Its not the strategy that makes one team better than the next, its the person executing it.

Treating each of my players/picks like a share (or shares) of stock has worked great for me in my four dynasty leagues. I know its not for everyone though, its certainly a bit riskier.

Youre right, you never know when a player is going to suffer a career ending injury, or just ends up not being very good for whatever reason. However, to me, that just makes the guys who I feel have a better shot at being productive for a long time more valuable.

Sure, I don't know that Calvin Johnson will be around 5 years from now, but I like his chances more than Frank Gore. Derrick Mason might help you win a championship this year. However, the odds are more slim that he ends up being the missing piece to winning a championship this year than a guy like Jacoby Ford does of becoming a perennial top 20 fantasy WR...IMO.

Like I said though, a good active dynasty owner will likely find success with any strategy. That doesn't mean his strategy is the"right way", its just one way. I think bias is a bigger factor in seperating the good from the great owners. Although thats a different conversation all together.

 

[_lurker_]

We did a new start up this year and I didn't draft a RB over 26 or a WR/TE over 31... I figure that if my team is competitive this year that at least two teams with a solid veteran will have some bad luck and drop out of the playoff race early, then I can "rent" him for the rest of the season for 2012 2nd or maybe 3rd. I already ID'd a couple of teams that have guys like Turner, Reggie Wayne, Santana Moss, etc. where I can get one of those guys for almost free by week six to help me in the post-season.

 

[FUBAR]

Depends on your league, but generally speaking I think you're on target. There will always be the next-big-thing and lower ranked rookies can outproduce higher ranked rookies. The challenge is to win now without destroying your future, getting cheap production is a good way to do that.

 

[Go deep]

Depends on your league, but generally speaking I think you're on target. There will always be the next-big-thing and lower ranked rookies can outproduce higher ranked rookies. The challenge is to win now without destroying your future, getting cheap production is a good way to do that.

I would say the challenge is to win now without hurting your chances in the future at all. I guess it also depends on what kind of league. A new dynasty league with a decent amount of money involved, I would be more likely to sell out my future to win now. Other than that though, I wouldnt sacrifice any of the future for now.

 

[bengalbuck]

As a finance guy, I always think in terms of opportunity cost. What is the opportunity cost of having to use your 11, 12, 13 and 14 rounders on "rentals"? Potentially not high. However, it does often keep you away from other options with more upside. Last year, this is the time where Arian Foster was going off the board for example. Maybe at this point guys are mostly lottery tickets, but it is still an opportunity cost.

My dynasty strategy is to try to get as many guys as possible with potential to give significant production. I'd take the guy with a 10% chance of many years of top notch production over the 60% chance that a rental will give you solid, but unspectacular production for 1 year. The whole key is to stay consistent throughout the draft and get as many high upside guys as possible.

Just my opinion.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

In general I'm usually pretty satisfied with dividing my roster into thirds:

1/3 Win Now

1/3 Depth

1/3 Future Values

Since most of my leagues have roughly 3x roster spots as starters, that works out well for me, and keeps my rosters in general from getting too, too old or too, too young.

One caution about the rentals - I would not draft as many of those unless the older guys were still significantly better than what you should be typically finding on a weekly waiver wire. The value has to be there, otherwise you are just churning your roster for no real purpose.

If you look at your roster and he doesn't fit one of the 3 big categories (win now, depth, future value) then you might want to reconsider adding him. Also if you look down your roster and you think you have too many of one type it is probably time to check your roster allocation and re-diversify your holdings (similar to a stock portfolio).

 

[Go deep]

In general I'm usually pretty satisfied with dividing my roster into thirds:1/3 Win Now 1/3 Depth1/3 Future ValuesSince most of my leagues have roughly 3x roster spots as starters, that works out well for me, and keeps my rosters in general from getting too, too old or too, too young.One caution about the rentals - I would not draft as many of those unless the older guys were still significantly better than what you should be typically finding on a weekly waiver wire. The value has to be there, otherwise you are just churning your roster for no real purpose. If you look at your roster and he doesn't fit one of the 3 big categories (win now, depth, future value) then you might want to reconsider adding him. Also if you look down your roster and you think you have too many of one type it is probably time to check your roster allocation and re-diversify your holdings (similar to a stock portfolio).

I certainly understand what you mean when you say "win now" and and "future values". I don't know what kind of players you are refering to when you say "depth". Could you be more specific or give some examples? I think you could use old guy or future guys for depth. I'm just wondering how depth fits in as a category.

 

[Go deep]

As a finance guy, I always think in terms of opportunity cost. What is the opportunity cost of having to use your 11, 12, 13 and 14 rounders on "rentals"? Potentially not high. However, it does often keep you away from other options with more upside. Last year, this is the time where Arian Foster was going off the board for example. Maybe at this point guys are mostly lottery tickets, but it is still an opportunity cost. My dynasty strategy is to try to get as many guys as possible with potential to give significant production. I'd take the guy with a 10% chance of many years of top notch production over the 60% chance that a rental will give you solid, but unspectacular production for 1 year. The whole key is to stay consistent throughout the draft and get as many high upside guys as possible. Just my opinion.

Another thing this does is helps prevent getting attached to players. There is no room in fantasy football for "fans". Liking certain players or teams hurts an FFers ability to stay unbiased. Players names to me are nothing but a way to identify a set of numbers. I might as well call Adrian Peterson "Vikings RB1". Thats the reason I started keeping my own rankings years ago and up to date on a daily/weekly basis. Its was basically a way for me to just value a player by a dynasty score.

 

[ZWK]

If you can get them for cheap and you can use them in your starting lineup, then rentals can be a great value. In a lot of dynasty leagues, a 14th round prospect isn't that different from the prospects that you can add off the waiver wire during the season. So instead of drafting a prospect, you draft an old guy that you can use now, you get a year or two out of him as your WR3 (if things go well), and then you cut him and pick up a prospect who is similar to the one you would've drafted in the first place. The main cost is the roster spot - you're filling that spot with the old guy, instead of a prospect (or multiple prospects that you cycle through). But if he makes your starting lineup then he's worth a roster spot.

But if you're not going to be starting him (not even as a bye week or injury fill-in) then you need to cut him loose and use that roster spot on something more productive, since an old guy who you're not starting has no present value for you and no future value.

 

[FUBAR]

Depends on your league, but generally speaking I think you're on target. There will always be the next-big-thing and lower ranked rookies can outproduce higher ranked rookies. The challenge is to win now without destroying your future, getting cheap production is a good way to do that.

I would say the challenge is to win now without hurting your chances in the future at all. I guess it also depends on what kind of league. A new dynasty league with a decent amount of money involved, I would be more likely to sell out my future to win now. Other than that though, I wouldnt sacrifice any of the future for now.

Obviously differences of opinion are what make this game fun, but your statement leads me to believe that you would prefer a late rookie pick flier to a guy like Peyton Manning or in an IDP league, Ray Lewis. Perhaps extreme examples, but they make the point.

 

[RaiderBones]

In general I'm usually pretty satisfied with dividing my roster into thirds:1/3 Win Now 1/3 Depth1/3 Future ValuesSince most of my leagues have roughly 3x roster spots as starters, that works out well for me, and keeps my rosters in general from getting too, too old or too, too young.One caution about the rentals - I would not draft as many of those unless the older guys were still significantly better than what you should be typically finding on a weekly waiver wire. The value has to be there, otherwise you are just churning your roster for no real purpose. If you look at your roster and he doesn't fit one of the 3 big categories (win now, depth, future value) then you might want to reconsider adding him. Also if you look down your roster and you think you have too many of one type it is probably time to check your roster allocation and re-diversify your holdings (similar to a stock portfolio).

I certainly understand what you mean when you say "win now" and and "future values". I don't know what kind of players you are refering to when you say "depth". Could you be more specific or give some examples? I think you could use old guy or future guys for depth. I'm just wondering how depth fits in as a category.

I could be wrong on this but this is how I understand Jeff's three categories,1. Win now: Players that are really good that will help you win a championship now, players that can carry your team.2. Depth: Players that are average too good who can help your team during bye weeks or injuries, basically players that won't carry your team but can contribute when called upon.3. Future Values: Players that you don't know yet what they will be, could be Win now players that carry your team to the championship or just become depth players that can help on occasion when called upon. Obviously when you draft someone with future value you hope they turn into those win now players that can carry your team to another championship and are able to replace your aging vets when the time comes.

 

[Steed]

This is a horrible strategy IMO. I would never count on Santana moss as a starte to help me win a league, no matter how strong the rest of my team is. By the time you groom some new wr talent, your rbs will need to be restocked.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Fred Jackson is this year's best example. After Lynch left last year he turned out to be ~RB18 the rest of the way. And it sounds like his role is going to stay the same for 2011. Yet two months ago he went in the 14th, 15th and 15th rounds of my three dynasty startups. A single VDB+ year from the 15th round helps win things.

Terrell Owens and Chad Johnson are also great fliers this year IMO.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This is a horrible strategy IMO. I would never count on Santana moss as a starte to help me win a league, no matter how strong the rest of my team is. By the time you groom some new wr talent, your rbs will need to be restocked.

So for 2011, if you needed a WR and your younger prospects weren't ready and you had a roster spot to spare, you wouldn't pick up a veteran - yet old - and capable guy to round out your lineup, even off of the waiver wire?

 

[Steed]

Off the ww - yes

In the 10-15 rounds - no

 

[Enoch]

I would go with a few, but not all at one spot. I OK with one old RB & WR. But i wouldn't want a whole WR core over the hill

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

In general I'm usually pretty satisfied with dividing my roster into thirds:1/3 Win Now 1/3 Depth1/3 Future ValuesSince most of my leagues have roughly 3x roster spots as starters, that works out well for me, and keeps my rosters in general from getting too, too old or too, too young.One caution about the rentals - I would not draft as many of those unless the older guys were still significantly better than what you should be typically finding on a weekly waiver wire. The value has to be there, otherwise you are just churning your roster for no real purpose. If you look at your roster and he doesn't fit one of the 3 big categories (win now, depth, future value) then you might want to reconsider adding him. Also if you look down your roster and you think you have too many of one type it is probably time to check your roster allocation and re-diversify your holdings (similar to a stock portfolio).

I certainly understand what you mean when you say "win now" and and "future values". I don't know what kind of players you are refering to when you say "depth". Could you be more specific or give some examples? I think you could use old guy or future guys for depth. I'm just wondering how depth fits in as a category.

I could be wrong on this but this is how I understand Jeff's three categories,1. Win now: Players that are really good that will help you win a championship now, players that can carry your team.2. Depth: Players that are average too good who can help your team during bye weeks or injuries, basically players that won't carry your team but can contribute when called upon.3. Future Values: Players that you don't know yet what they will be, could be Win now players that carry your team to the championship or just become depth players that can help on occasion when called upon. Obviously when you draft someone with future value you hope they turn into those win now players that can carry your team to another championship and are able to replace your aging vets when the time comes.

Not a bad attempt at my potential answer, but it is kind of a "I know it when I see it" type response. I can best describe the depth question with an example, but give me a minute to address the first two while I explain further.As a general rule, every player on your Dynasty team should be there for a reason. There could be more than one reason, but there must be at least one. What I would recommend to anyone would be to print out their roster (yes, I'm old school) and go through each player and name the reason why you have them. If there isn't one - well, seems to me like you just found a guy to cut, trade or replace in general. If there is more than one reason, odds are that the first one you think of is the most important reason you have them.Consider going through that roster with the 3 categories in mind. I'll expand on each:1. Win Now - Players that are very startable regardless of age. They are Top 100 guys in redraft, probably even higher. Top 30 WR or RB, Top 10 QB and TE. 2. Future values - Pretty simple category. These are either rookie or younger prospects with the potential to become Top 100 players (or better), or they are young and already in that Top 50-100 player range.3. Depth - This is the category that originated the comment and question from Go Deep, which is a valid one. This is where the most latitude is for this description. It could be a bye week filler guy or just a backup / handcuff RB. Either way, the player has the PRIMARY purpose of serving as depth, not necessarily as being a member of Category 2, Future Value. One example would be a Ray Rice owner. Ray Rice is both Category 1 and 2 (which is great and makes him a strong value to own). That owner may have Willis McGahee, who clearly isn't 1 or 2 but has upside if Ray Rice gets hurt - or even a spot start / bye week guy if you need a RB in your lineup. Another player that a Ray Rice owner might own is Jalen Parmele. That player has an outside shot of being in Category 2, but odds are that he is no more than a handcuff just in case Ray Rice gets hurt as well (or if McGahee doesn't re-sign with Baltimore). Other types of players that fit this bill are WR3s and WR4s that don't have a ton of upside but are very capable players for rounding out a roster. Derrick Mason will never challenge for Top 20 WR value, but for the past few years he's had solid PPR value. His Dynasty value is low since he's nearing the end of his career, but if you need a starter then he's more than capable of rounding out a lineup. Dynasty leagues have several starting RBs, WRs and TEs each week. A typical 12-team league might require a 2-3-1 lineup, meaning that 24 RBs, 36 WRs and 12 TEs will be starting. Earlier I said you wanted Top 30 RBs, Top 30 WRs and Top 10 TEs. So even with no bye weeks or injuries, some teams will need depth - it's a given. Factor in those things and you must have depth. As for your own definition of what that requires - a handcuff for injury, a capable veteran, or a mixture of those groups - you will need some of them. The ones worth the most are above-waiver wire grade guys with at least two years of that level of performance left. A player like Santana Moss is a great example.Ultimately you want a roster that is dominated by Category 1 players with some Category 2s, but odds are that you will need a mix of all three.I hope that helps.

 

[madd futher]

This is a horrible strategy IMO. I would never count on Santana moss as a starte to help me win a league, no matter how strong the rest of my team is. By the time you groom some new wr talent, your rbs will need to be restocked.

Not to de-rail the topic from the value of rentals, but just to comment on my strategy for this draft, I think you are absolutely wrong, both on the strategy and on the relative value of Santana Moss.This was a 12 team ppr league with 1 1/2 PPR for TEs and with RB/WR/TE flex. Also power scoring for a position player's return yds and TDs.

I'll admit that my strategy entailed some high risk, but that has nothing to do with the Santana Moss comment. I traded away my middle rounds to move up to get uberstuds under that format. (My strategy for pre-draft trading was to be able to put as many Porshes on the credit card as I could, knowing I'd have to scrimp to pay the electric bill.)

Here's my team: QB: Freeman, Eli; RBs: Foster, Forte, Fred Jackson, Bernard Scott; WRs: Amendola, S Moss, Mason, Burgess, Andre Roberts, David Nelson, Dorin Dickerson; TEs: Witten, Finley.

You under-estimate Santana Moss, who has been under-drafted in PPR format most of his career. You might not count on S Moss to win your league, but last year in PPR format he was the #11 most productive WR in the NFL with 235.9 FPS (and on a crappy team). Even at 32, I sure think 200+ FPTs is realistically bankable for him. He will be a very decent WR 2 on my roster.

Keep in mind that this was not an integrated veteran/rookie draft- It was veterans only. We will have a 4 round rookie/college draft and a 5 round supplemental draft in August to complete rosters. We are allowed to carry any 4 players on an inactive developmental roster as long as they have not begun their 3rd year in the league. Under this format, and given that I traded up to get quality studs (all young, except Witten who is not really old), I feel there is plenty of time to develop young talent.

I'd use different terminology than Jeff, but breaking it down, I've got 5 potential studs 25 yrs old or less (Freeman, Forte, Foster, Finley, Amendola (under the power scoring format). I've also got a 29 year old stud TE in Witten.

F Jax, Eli, S Moss and Mason are pure value plays. B. Scott and Burgess are older speculatives. Roberts, Nelson, and Dickerson (all 15th rounders - see my credit card comment) are younger speculatives (future values) that still have one year of developmental potential if I chose to de-activate them in favor of activating one or more rookies. I definitely considered both present and future value with the young studs I picked, and then drafted for the maximum present value that fell to me until I got speculative at the tail end of the draft.

My primary concern was to draft more 'bankable' fantasy points than anyone else in my league (win now mode) and still have a young corps of stud players so as not to sacrifice my future, and I think I did that.

 

[squistion]

Like I said though, a good active dynasty owner will likely find success with any strategy. That doesn't mean his strategy is the"right way", its just one way.

Agreed. It is the strategy and maintaining it with some consistency.Even though I have a shorter term outlook than most in Dynasty (2-3 years) that doesn't mean I populate my teams with the old rent-a-wreck players, particularly at the WR position. In fact my teams are usually of the Logan's Run variety (no players 30 or over in initial draft).

I completed a start up draft about 3 weeks ago. PPR, 22 rounds (becoming a 14 keeper in the offseason). The league only requires that you start 1RB (although you can start up to 3 with flex options). I secured the Oakland backfield and then took a bunch of flyers on rookies, figuring I should hit with at least one of them.

At the other positions I got some pretty solid starters that can help me win this year (although I neglected the TE position but figure I can address that on the waiver wire or in trade). I should be quite competitive this season and if I can hit on 1/3rd of the rookies I will be in really good shape beyond this year. My final roster:

QB: Romo, Flacco, Campbell

RB: McFadden, Ingram, M. Bush, K. Hunter, D.Carter, J.Rodgers, T. Jones

WR: Fitzgerald, TB Mike Williams, Britt, Sanders, G. Little, R. Cobb, Moore.

TE: H. Miller, L. Kendricks, R. Housler.

DEF: Rams - K: Nedney

Lance Moore (turns 28 this year) was my older depth WR, and if he was gone I would have taken either E. Bennett or Burleson (neither of which were drafted).

This may seem a dubious strategy to some (particularly those risk adverse) but I had the same approach in a start up last year and won the championship. Instead of creaky old veterans I took Austin Collie and Peyton Hillis in the late teens (along with M. Lynch and Tebow). In earlier rounds I took D. Bryant and Spiller (who may work out, but I doubt it). I also aggressively worked the waiver wire and snagged Vick and BJGE. Some people criticized the team at the time, but the bottom line is that it worked.

My point of this rambling post is that while I think the rental concept has merit, one can be successful with a different approach which avoids the 30+ veterans at any position entirely

 

[mjr]

Sometimes youth isn't as important as some make it out to be. To me, it's just as important to understand which way the NFL is trending and how well both rookies and vets are prepaired for such changes (which often requires a specific skill set and a level of maturity on the player's behalf, regardless of age).

For example, when my dynasty league started up in '08 I believed the NFL was trending in two specific directions: The first was a movement towards RBBCs as the new norm. The second was pure speed. My personal dynasty rankings took these two aspects into high account, and when I re-sorted them based on maturity, I ended up with a list that to this day I feel has and still serves me very well. I looked for guys who were the fastest and could make the most of their touches. And while watching youtube highlights are all fun and good, I'd put more stock into taped interviews to gauge maturity. If a guy sounded like an idiot to me, I'd drop him in my rankings a lot, regardless of his talent level.

That list has since lead me to drafting guys like Chris Johnson, Jamaal Charles and Mike Wallace at basement bargain prices long before they were popular subjects of discussion on fantasy sites. Maturity lead me to Aaron Rodgers while most other people targeted youth in rookie QBs. My strategy has kept me away from guys like Kenny Britt and Dez Bryant, which to me is a good thing regardless of talent. It kept me away from Vince Young when many believed he would be better than Vick. It kept me away from guys like Clinton Portis and Larry Johnson when everyone thought they were amoung the last backs left who would be carrying 350 times a year forever. And it's keeping me away from Jerome Simpson in 2011 (unless all it takes to roster him is a waiver wire move).

Wherever there ends up being a gap in my roster, I looked to fill that position with the best vets available. In '08 I didn't know how good Rodgers would really be, So I went after Romo (who was projected to be a top 3QB then, and after Rodgers went off, I traded Romo off for Greg Jennings and a first round rookie draft pick). I went after Gates and Witten at TE, both of which I've leaned on while picks like V. Davis developed. Basically, I went after guys who would have a good trade value once my other picks reached a point where they could be every week starters.

After that, I had what you could consider "rental" players, although I never drafted them as part of a strategy. They were mostly reluctant last round picks or waiver wire pick ups I jumped on when I saw a good week or two out of them.

But bottom line, I think if you know where the game is trending and which players have the maturity to match the physical talents favorable to these trends, you'll always end up with a roster full of good players.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

This is a horrible strategy IMO. I would never count on Santana moss as a starter to help me win a league, no matter how strong the rest of my team is. By the time you groom some new wr talent, your rbs will need to be restocked.

In my PPR leagues, Moss was a WR1 ... so him as a WR4 seems like a good thing to me. I guess I am one who thinks we give up on a 30-31 yr old wr too soon even though he may have more fantasy starter years left than the stud rb who is 26.

Fred Jackson is this year's best example. After Lynch left last year he turned out to be ~RB18 the rest of the way. And it sounds like his role is going to stay the same for 2011. Yet two months ago he went in the 14th, 15th and 15th rounds of my three dynasty startups. A single VDB+ year from the 15th round helps win things.

Terrell Owens and Chad Johnson are also great fliers this year IMO.

I think balance is the key. Having a couple of cheap older fantasy starters (who still produce at a high level)many times allows an owner to upgrade other positions. Still need youth for the future, but good cheap starters is a good thing. I like Fred Jackson a lot this year for the reasons you mentioned. TO is very cheap still as well.

 

[I was in the pool]

I would think instead of drafting these guys, it would be the cheapest to acquire them during the season from the cellar dwellers from a late rookie pick, etc. if you need a final starter/flex for the stretch run. Price would be higher before the season starts I would think.

 

[_lurker_]

I would think instead of drafting these guys, it would be the cheapest to acquire them during the season from the cellar dwellers from a late rookie pick, etc. if you need a final starter/flex for the stretch run. Price would be higher before the season starts I would think.

That's a great idea!

 

[FUBAR]

I would think instead of drafting these guys, it would be the cheapest to acquire them during the season from the cellar dwellers from a late rookie pick, etc. if you need a final starter/flex for the stretch run. Price would be higher before the season starts I would think.

Often, yes. But if the old guy is having a resurging year you have to jump earlier than the other contenders and the price could be higher. I'm guessing without checking the trades, that TO and even Santana Moss's value increased during the season, although Randy Moss's fell off a cliff.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the value of the rental player, much like in real sports is to win the Ring.

Thats what you are playing for right? and if you are a contender, pushing off those late firsts dont hurt ya

 

[Go deep]

I would think instead of drafting these guys, it would be the cheapest to acquire them during the season from the cellar dwellers from a late rookie pick, etc. if you need a final starter/flex for the stretch run. Price would be higher before the season starts I would think.

I would think with the team in your sig you dont have to worry about guys like Thomas Jones and Derrick Mason. Ultimately thats the team I am trying to build and messing with older guys just delays that. For some people the fun is trying to piece together a playoff team each year, for others its building and maintaing a dominant young team, even if you have to sacrifice the first couple of years.

 

[Go deep]

the value of the rental player, much like in real sports is to win the Ring.Thats what you are playing for right? and if you are a contender, pushing off those late firsts dont hurt ya

Of course it does. You are basically sacrificing every year after that for the current year. Once you trade your first. How are you going to replace the old guy you just traded for now that he retired or useless?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the value of the rental player, much like in real sports is to win the Ring.Thats what you are playing for right? and if you are a contender, pushing off those late firsts dont hurt ya

Of course it does. You are basically sacrificing every year after that for the current year. Once you trade your first. How are you going to replace the old guy you just traded for now that he retired or useless?

winning the cash cures all ills. Just because you dont have a first dont mean you cant replenish your roster. The wire, trades, 2nd round picks, etc.The goal is win right? not just compile the cutest dynasty roster

 

[Go deep]

the value of the rental player, much like in real sports is to win the Ring.Thats what you are playing for right? and if you are a contender, pushing off those late firsts dont hurt ya

Of course it does. You are basically sacrificing every year after that for the current year. Once you trade your first. How are you going to replace the old guy you just traded for now that he retired or useless?

winning the cash cures all ills. Just because you dont have a first dont mean you cant replenish your roster. The wire, trades, 2nd round picks, etc.The goal is win right? not just compile the cutest dynasty roster

My goal if to win, multiple times, not just once. Trading firsts for rental players is like trading 8 chances for one chance. I guess this is an OK strategy for guys who are doing a new dynasty league every year or two. You can just drop your oldest/worst team every time you do a new one. Thats just not whats fun for me, different strokes for different folks.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

the value of the rental player, much like in real sports is to win the Ring.

Thats what you are playing for right? and if you are a contender, pushing off those late firsts dont hurt ya

Of course it does. You are basically sacrificing every year after that for the current year. Once you trade your first. How are you going to replace the old guy you just traded for now that he retired or useless?

winning the cash cures all ills. Just because you dont have a first dont mean you cant replenish your roster. The wire, trades, 2nd round picks, etc.The goal is win right? not just compile the cutest dynasty roster

My goal if to win, multiple times, not just once. Trading firsts for rental players is like trading 8 chances for one chance. I guess this is an OK strategy for guys who are doing a new dynasty league every year or two. You can just drop your oldest/worst team every time you do a new one. Thats just not whats fun for me, different strokes for different folks.

BOLDED = extreme example. I have yet to drop a dynasty that didnt get destroyed by a corrupt commish (Chris Bruce Im looking at you)

Depends on the rental and their value.

Looks like the OP was more looking at what place in a startup do you spend on aging vets.

To me Picks are assests, I move them if they help me win and help my team. Picks dont always pan out, in fact they bust often.

 

[Go deep]

the value of the rental player, much like in real sports is to win the Ring.

Thats what you are playing for right? and if you are a contender, pushing off those late firsts dont hurt ya

Of course it does. You are basically sacrificing every year after that for the current year. Once you trade your first. How are you going to replace the old guy you just traded for now that he retired or useless?

winning the cash cures all ills. Just because you dont have a first dont mean you cant replenish your roster. The wire, trades, 2nd round picks, etc.The goal is win right? not just compile the cutest dynasty roster

My goal if to win, multiple times, not just once. Trading firsts for rental players is like trading 8 chances for one chance. I guess this is an OK strategy for guys who are doing a new dynasty league every year or two. You can just drop your oldest/worst team every time you do a new one. Thats just not whats fun for me, different strokes for different folks.

BOLDED = extreme example. I have yet to drop a dynasty that didnt get destroyed by a corrupt commish (Chris Bruce Im looking at you)

Depends on the rental and their value.

Looks like the OP was more looking at what place in a startup do you spend on aging vets.

To me Picks are assests, I move them if they help me win and help my team. Picks dont always pan out, in fact they bust often.

I dont totally disagree. There are times to deal a draft pick for a rental. I did it a few years ago, I lost a couple WRs to injury and traded a 3rd for Rod Smith, a year or two before he retired.However, even though first round picks are possible, even likely to bust, they are an owners best chance to get new future studs. I play in deep leagues, so getting quality players off of the waiver wire are few and far between. 2nd and later picks can be helpful, but if firsts are likely to bust, what are your odds with later picks? That leaves trading, what are you going to trade if you have no first round picks because you traded them for rental players? You only get so many quality players in your initial dynasty draft. If you have made a habit of trading your first round picks since then you wont have much young talent left.

I'm not complaining that people are willing to give up their firsts for rental players, that is how I have built my four dynasty teams over the years. Especially in the begining, I ended up with 3,4 sometimes 5 1st round rookies picks and just for trading guys like Jon Kitna, Troy Brown, and other rental players at the deadline. I'm sure the guys I traded with weren't complaining at the time, assuming those players helped them win a championship that year. After that though they had to watch me draft half of the players in the first few rounds while they waited for their first pick somewhere in the 3rd or 4th round. What good are those rental players now for them?

 

[ZWK]

I play in deep leagues, so getting quality players off of the waiver wire are few and far between.

I think that this is the main cause of the disagreement. In deep leagues with large rosters, roster spots aren't that valuable since it's hard to find good prospects, so when your rental is done there's a hole on your roster. In shallower leagues with smaller rosters, roster spots are a lot more valuable since there are quality prospects available (if you have the space for them), so when your rental's time is up that gives you an opportunity to add (or avoid cutting) a pretty good prospect.With a draft pick or a prospect, you may have to hang on to him for a few years while you wait to see if he'll pan out. A rental only takes up a roster space for as long as he's useful. It's sort of like a 2-for-1 deal: a rental ends up using less space on your roster than a prospect since you hold him for a shorter amount of time, in a similar way to how trading 2 players to get 1 opens up a roster space for you. In shallower leagues freeing up that roster space is valuable for you (whether you're freeing it up right away with a 2-for-1 trade or in a year or two when your rental is done), but in deeper leagues it's not so valuable.

 

[bengalbuck]

I think you look at each rental on his own merit. Some have more value than others. I think where you are potentially misguided here is specifically with regard to Santana Moss. He's not that great a player and I don't particularly like his situation either.

Moss has only had four 200 point seasons in his long career. He's never done it back to back. I don't think its as easy as just taking last year and discounting it by a few points and saying 200 is what he'll give you conservatively. Especially with a guy who is a FA. Even in the best case scenario (a return to Washington, the only team he'd be a #1 WR on), you have no idea who his QB will be and you still have the worries about age (he just turned 32) and when he is going to fall off the cliff completely....

 

[madd futher]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Santana Moss to slide to me in round 11 (really the equivalent to round 12, since as you know, with TEs at 1 1/2 ppr, they were pretty well picked-over, and there were no rookies included in the draft). There is no question in my mind that Santana Moss represented the best value on the board at that point, and I was delighted to get him there.

I said earlier that Santana Moss has been under-drafted in PPR pretty much his whole career. Your 'stats' are correct, but I believe that your conclusion is not. Since Moss became a full year full time starter in his 3rd year (2003), he has averaged 206.5 FPTs over the eight year period from then to the present. You are right, 4 of those years were over and 4 were under, and it happens that he never went two years in a row either over or under 200 FPTs (which incidentally is usually top 20-25ish and is my threshold for a WR2. You can chose to believe that since this is an even year, he'll be under 200, but I'll chalk this up to normal statistical variance.

If Santana leaves Washington for greener pastures, there is in my mind a pretty good probability that his productivity will still hover in the 200 - 210 pt range. However, Washington beat writer Ryan O'Halloran believes the Redskins "have no choice but to re-sign" free agent Santana Moss.O'Halloran cites "practical purposes" after the Redskins' three rookie receivers missed out on OTAs and minicamps this offseason. I tend to agree.

When it comes to whether S Moss hits 200 FPTs this year, which is 6 1/2 FPTs below his average for the last 8 years, I'll make a little side bet with you and I'll take the 'over'.

I'd also bet that he gets a multi-year contract - and productively plays through at least the 1st 2 years of it.

 

[Steed]

I take it Danny amendola scored heavy in this type of league, but spending an early pick on a questionable talent like him is...not my style. He's been on a couple practice squads throughout his career and finally landed on a team that lacked depth at his position. But can he hold off the new kids? Guys like him always seem to be fighting for their jobs. Is he the next Antonio gates/James Harrison, a role player, or a soon to be washout.

 

[bengalbuck]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Santana Moss to slide to me in round 11 (really the equivalent to round 12, since as you know, with TEs at 1 1/2 ppr, they were pretty well picked-over, and there were no rookies included in the draft). There is no question in my mind that Santana Moss represented the best value on the board at that point, and I was delighted to get him there.

I said earlier that Santana Moss has been under-drafted in PPR pretty much his whole career. Your 'stats' are correct, but I believe that your conclusion is not. Since Moss became a full year full time starter in his 3rd year (2003), he has averaged 206.5 FPTs over the eight year period from then to the present. You are right, 4 of those years were over and 4 were under, and it happens that he never went two years in a row either over or under 200 FPTs (which incidentally is usually top 20-25ish and is my threshold for a WR2. You can chose to believe that since this is an even year, he'll be under 200, but I'll chalk this up to normal statistical variance.

If Santana leaves Washington for greener pastures, there is in my mind a pretty good probability that his productivity will still hover in the 200 - 210 pt range. However, Washington beat writer Ryan O'Halloran believes the Redskins "have no choice but to re-sign" free agent Santana Moss.O'Halloran cites "practical purposes" after the Redskins' three rookie receivers missed out on OTAs and minicamps this offseason. I tend to agree.

When it comes to whether S Moss hits 200 FPTs this year, which is 6 1/2 FPTs below his average for the last 8 years, I'll make a little side bet with you and I'll take the 'over'.

I'd also bet that he gets a multi-year contract - and productively plays through at least the 1st 2 years of it.

I'll take a small side bet on 200. I think he ends up closer to 175-180, like he did in 2009. I tend to think he needs to catch some breaks to best 200 (re-signing in Washington, Washington bringing in a better option at QB than Grossman, none of the younger WRs on the team emerging).And I don't want to give the impression that I think he was a bad pick. I just tend to think his value was pretty close to where he was drafted. He seems like a 10th or 11th rounder to me, which is where I had him ranked. In fact, he was on my short list of 3 or 4 guys I was considering in the 11th. I disagree with what seems to be your implication that he should have gone in the 5th or 6th round and he was a massive steal in the 11th round (correct me if I'm reading you wrong here). Obviously, the major part of that disagreement is simply over the stats you are projecting and his age is a lesser part of the disagreement, though still there.

Going into a bit more depth, I believe that at WR you can get 11-11.5 ppg out of your 3rd WR just by playing the waiver wire and using replaceable late round draft pick types (based on hot hands, matchups, etc.). Let's call it 180 points (11.3 per game). Say I agree that Moss is a 196 point guy this year, I guess I just see him as a 1 ppg over replacement-level player. Clearly not value-less as 1 ppg over replacement is more important than it might sound. But if he's worth 1 this year. Maybe 0.5 next year. Then value-less the following year...that to me means he should be going in the 11th round, not the 5th or 6th over guys like Garcon, etc. who to me personally have significantly more value.

If you're interested in doing a little experiment this year, lets each try to pick one waiver wire WR each week and see what our cumulative score from those picks is after week 16. If its 140 or 150, I would have to admit that my notion of Moss's value (or more accurately a generic 190 point veteran, as I could end up being wrong about the Moss part of the equation) was too low. I'm pretty new to PPR, so maybe my numbers are wrong.

 

[bengalbuck]

To elaborate a little more on the previous post, I looked back on my other dynasty team's scoring last year (14 team league with 23 man rosters). I had a pretty awful draft. I had never played PPR or dynasty before and was left scrambling to fill my WR spots, but was able to do so and have them average over 12 ppg.

http://football21.myfantasyleague.com/2010/weekly?L=66626&W=16

After 1 week, I picked up Mark Clayton and started him week 2. He gave me over 15 ppg weeks 2-4. When he went down week 5, I grabbed Amendola off of waivers and he obviously went on to have a very solid PPR year and I started him 9 times. Week 7 I picked up Patrick Crayton and inserted him in my lineup for 3 weeks. He put up 15 the first week, 9 the next, and 10 the next.

Week 10, with my #1 WR (Jennings on bye) I had to use 3 guys who were either waiver pickups or very late draft picks: Amendola, D. Mason and Burleson. They combined for 45 points. Week 12 it was back to just Amendola, who gave me 15. Week 13 it was Amendola and Burleson, who went for 13 and 7 respectively.

You get the point...I'm not claiming to be a waiver wire guru. Maybe I was just lucky to find Amendola and to get such good production out of Crayton, Burleson and Clayton. But those guys basically performed equal to or better than I project Moss will this year. Of course if my projections on him are wrong, all of this is moot

 

[madd futher]

I'll take a small side bet on 200. I think he ends up closer to 175-180, like he did in 2009. I tend to think he needs to catch some breaks to best 200 (re-signing in Washington, Washington bringing in a better option at QB than Grossman, none of the younger WRs on the team emerging). You are on for a ten spot!

.... I disagree with what seems to be your implication that he should have gone in the 5th or 6th round and he was a massive steal in the 11th round (correct me if I'm reading you wrong here).

Yes, you are very wrong here...I believed all along that he'd be on the board in the 10th. I gambled big time and passed on him in the 10th, banking on the fact that the other rosters were already getting well stocked at WRs and there WAS the anti-age bias in this draft. If he hadn't been there then, my draft strategy could well have been a disaster. But in no way did I think he was close to a 5th-6th roster, especially in this format.

I believe that at WR you can get 11-11.5 ppg out of your 3rd WR just by playing the waiver wire and using replaceable late round draft pick types (based on hot hands, matchups, etc.). Let's call it 180 points (11.3 per game). Say I agree that Moss is a 196 point guy this year, I guess I just see him as a 1 ppg over replacement-level player. Clearly not value-less as 1 ppg over replacement is more important than it might sound. But if he's worth 1 this year. Maybe 0.5 next year. Then value-less the following year...that to me means he should be going in the 11th round, not the 5th or 6th over guys like Garcon, etc. who to me personally have significantly more value.

LOL, I KNOW that you TRADE better than I do, you probably play the waiver wire a lot better too. Seriously, given my strategy with pre-draft trades, I was forced to go with 'rentals' late. Fortunately there were some left to get and i think my high risk strategy worked out very nicely. But there was no reason in round 11 (probably i should have pulled the trigger in rd 10) to gamble that equivalent talent will be there at some point on the ww (assuming i can outbid you for it anyway) when I can grab even close to 2oo FPS pts on my roster to start the season.

If you're interested in doing a little experiment this year, lets each try to pick one waiver wire WR each week and see what our cumulative score from those picks is after week 16. If its 140 or 150, I would have to admit that my notion of Moss's value (or more accurately a generic 190 point veteran, as I could end up being wrong about the Moss part of the equation) was too low. I'm pretty new to PPR, so maybe my numbers are wrong.

Given the blind bid format and the 20 + 4 man rosters in a 12 team league, there will be very few WRs that are capable of putting up WR2 numbers. If you or I happen to each land one, we will be damn lucky IMO. BTW, my idea of 'generic' value for WRs in PPR is about the 155 to 165 FPT range that I'm hoping to get from Derrick Mason. That is about my 'floor' for drafting a veteran WR in PPR. If I can't see potential to put to points in that range (from a veteran player), I'll never draft him.

BTW, you had a GREAT draft, especially if you can money this year. You are one owner that I'll be very wary of competing against.

 

[bengalbuck]

I'll take a small side bet on 200. I think he ends up closer to 175-180, like he did in 2009. I tend to think he needs to catch some breaks to best 200 (re-signing in Washington, Washington bringing in a better option at QB than Grossman, none of the younger WRs on the team emerging). You are on for a ten spot!

.... I disagree with what seems to be your implication that he should have gone in the 5th or 6th round and he was a massive steal in the 11th round (correct me if I'm reading you wrong here).

Yes, you are very wrong here...I believed all along that he'd be on the board in the 10th. I gambled big time and passed on him in the 10th, banking on the fact that the other rosters were already getting well stocked at WRs and there WAS the anti-age bias in this draft. If he hadn't been there then, my draft strategy could well have been a disaster. But in no way did I think he was close to a 5th-6th roster, especially in this format.

I believe that at WR you can get 11-11.5 ppg out of your 3rd WR just by playing the waiver wire and using replaceable late round draft pick types (based on hot hands, matchups, etc.). Let's call it 180 points (11.3 per game). Say I agree that Moss is a 196 point guy this year, I guess I just see him as a 1 ppg over replacement-level player. Clearly not value-less as 1 ppg over replacement is more important than it might sound. But if he's worth 1 this year. Maybe 0.5 next year. Then value-less the following year...that to me means he should be going in the 11th round, not the 5th or 6th over guys like Garcon, etc. who to me personally have significantly more value.

LOL, I KNOW that you TRADE better than I do, you probably play the waiver wire a lot better too. Seriously, given my strategy with pre-draft trades, I was forced to go with 'rentals' late. Fortunately there were some left to get and i think my high risk strategy worked out very nicely. But there was no reason in round 11 (probably i should have pulled the trigger in rd 10) to gamble that equivalent talent will be there at some point on the ww (assuming i can outbid you for it anyway) when I can grab even close to 2oo FPS pts on my roster to start the season.

If you're interested in doing a little experiment this year, lets each try to pick one waiver wire WR each week and see what our cumulative score from those picks is after week 16. If its 140 or 150, I would have to admit that my notion of Moss's value (or more accurately a generic 190 point veteran, as I could end up being wrong about the Moss part of the equation) was too low. I'm pretty new to PPR, so maybe my numbers are wrong.

Given the blind bid format and the 20 + 4 man rosters in a 12 team league, there will be very few WRs that are capable of putting up WR2 numbers. If you or I happen to each land one, we will be damn lucky IMO. BTW, my idea of 'generic' value for WRs in PPR is about the 155 to 165 FPT range that I'm hoping to get from Derrick Mason. That is about my 'floor' for drafting a veteran WR in PPR. If I can't see potential to put to points in that range (from a veteran player), I'll never draft him.

BTW, you had a GREAT draft, especially if you can money this year. You are one owner that I'll be very wary of competing against.

Thanks for the kind words. As I mentioned, I have only 1 year experience in dynasty and ppr, so I am still testing some assumptions that I am basing my values and strategy upon. It just seemed like there were always solid WR options on the wire last year even in a 14 team league, so maybe 11 ppg is harder to come by than I thought.I told you a bit of my own simplified rating system and I have your starting lineup at 35 ppg over replacement, which was 2nd highest. (mauve was 1st at 36, though much of that is dependent on Harvin retaining KR duties). I have myself 5th highest at 31, but that's obviously inflated since I'm using my own projections and thus there's a built in selection bias in the draft where I got guys I was personally pretty high on.

 

[madd futher]

One caveat to our little prop bet. It does not count if he is out for 2 or more games due to injury. in other words, Santana Moss has to play in at least 15 games this next season. That's only fair, right?

BTW, while Moss has been amazingly durable throughout his career, injuries did play a factor in three of the four seasons that he missed the 200 FPT threshold. And counting only the six seasons (of his last 8 seasons) in which he played either 15 or 16 games, he missed scoring over 200 FPTs only two times.

His average PPR FPTs/gm over the last 122 games in that 8 season stretch that he appeared in at all (including a few that he left early due to injury) was 13.55 per game.

 

[johnadams]

Rentals in terms of a start up draft seems a bit like a misnomer. To me, rentals are guys I trade youth/picks for in order to fill a need, but are intrinsically tied to trades. In a start up draft, it's more about value and where I value productive guys on the downside of their career vs. young guys with unfulfilled upside. Typically, my first five to six rounds are not that different from a redraft with the exception that I make some changes based on age and have a couple of guys that I will not touch unless the value is ridiculous (this year, I think Turner is the only guy that I see as someone who has no chance of being on my squad). I tend to go heavy on youth, preferring to hedge the inherent risk of players who have not performed in the NFL through volume. Howeer someone who represents significant upside (like TO, RMoss, or Ochocinco) slides to a spot where the risk is minimal, I'll take the chance. I guess what I'm saying is that I take more risks on my projected bench spots, sacrificing a bit of depth for upside, but will be flexible if value presents itself.

 

[Jeff Tefertiller]

One other thing affecting the value of "rentals" is that all leagues value these players differently. Some leagues these players go for close to nothing (and liking youth) while others have owners who like the established players. The leagues vary because the owners are varied.

 

[madd futher]

One other thing affecting the value of "rentals" is that all leagues value these players differently. Some leagues these players go for close to nothing (and liking youth) while others have owners who like the established players. The leagues vary because the owners are varied.

Exactly. I learned a few things from my poker playing days (and there are a lot of similarities). It is most important to be able to 'read the table' and to take what the table gives you. If the table is tight, generally it makes sense to play loose; if loose, it is more profitible to play tight. Similarly in drafting fantasy teams, I look for trends - both in individual owners and in the league as a whole - and then let the draft come to me. And after about round 5, I've gotten pretty good at predicting a round ahead which players the other owners are going to be drafting. So I'm 'playing the player' almost as much as playing the cards - or in the case of fantasy football, not sticking closely to a script/ drafting from a cheatsheet. This was obviously a league where the great majority of owners were drafting for youth. Once that trend became obvious, the only sensible approach to value (after drafting my corps of early studs) was to take guys like F Jax in the 10th and S Moss in the 11th, and Mason and Burress a little later. I 'knew' these guys would be there for me and represent great values. I believe like many veteran dynasty owners that many owners newer to dynasty tend to under-estimate the staying power of a real veteran pro who keeps himself in shape, especially at the QB, WR and TE positions. Given our format of having a 4 player developmental squad not subject to contract year limitations for 2 years if kept inactive, I'm not nearly as concerned as most others about the 'restocking problem' - I know I'll solve that as I go along.