Thoughts on Grantlands top 50 NFL Trade Values? (1 Viewer)

[wiscstlatlmia]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8312966/ranking-players-contracts-national-football-leagueI think the list for the most part is decent but Flacco at 27 is ridiculous. Stafford behind Flacco? there is no planet that anyone would value Flacco over Stafford

While I agree with you I think you are overstating things. This is nfl, not ff. injury history, 1 year vs 4. Stafford is more talented but flacco is probably thought of more highly in nfl than magic football.

Then explain how Luck and RG3 are ranked so high. That list is awful, plan and simple. For far more reasons than Flacco/Stafford.

Care to take a look at any of their contract situations? Grantland(and Bill Simmons) for life

The list wreaks of inconsistency. Luck at 4 because of his contract and speculation, seeing he's never played a single game in the regular season. Then a guy like Stafford is ranked near 40 because he needs to doing it for more than one season. Comical.The article and list aren't worth wasting any more time on IMO.

What is Stafford's Contract compared to Luck's?That's the point. Injury history and contract keep Stafford lower.

 

[jurb26]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8312966/ranking-players-contracts-national-football-leagueI think the list for the most part is decent but Flacco at 27 is ridiculous. Stafford behind Flacco? there is no planet that anyone would value Flacco over Stafford

While I agree with you I think you are overstating things. This is nfl, not ff. injury history, 1 year vs 4. Stafford is more talented but flacco is probably thought of more highly in nfl than magic football.

Then explain how Luck and RG3 are ranked so high. That list is awful, plan and simple. For far more reasons than Flacco/Stafford.

Care to take a look at any of their contract situations? Grantland(and Bill Simmons) for life

The list wreaks of inconsistency. Luck at 4 because of his contract and speculation, seeing he's never played a single game in the regular season. Then a guy like Stafford is ranked near 40 because he needs to doing it for more than one season. Comical.The article and list aren't worth wasting any more time on IMO.

What is Stafford's Contract compared to Lucks?

Not surprisingly, you've missed the point...

 

[Rick James]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8312966/ranking-players-contracts-national-football-league

I think the list for the most part is decent but Flacco at 27 is ridiculous. Stafford behind Flacco? there is no planet that anyone would value Flacco over Stafford

While I agree with you I think you are overstating things. This is nfl, not ff. injury history, 1 year vs 4. Stafford is more talented but flacco is probably thought of more highly in nfl than magic football.

Then explain how Luck and RG3 are ranked so high. That list is awful, plan and simple. For far more reasons than Flacco/Stafford.

Care to take a look at any of their contract situations? Grantland(and Bill Simmons) for life

The list wreaks of inconsistency. Luck at 4 because of his contract and speculation, seeing he's never played a single game in the regular season. Then a guy like Stafford is ranked near 40 because he needs to doing it for more than one season. Comical.The article and list aren't worth wasting any more time on IMO.

What is Stafford's Contract compared to Lucks?

Not surprisingly, you've missed the point...

What in the world are you even talking about? The "Trade Value" column takes player abilities and contract situations equally. How is their write-up for Stafford unreasonable? 32. Matthew Stafford

Matthew Stafford signed a six-year, $72 million deal with $42 million guaranteed. Andrew Luck just signed a four-year, $22 million deal that had all its money guaranteed. Old Draft Pick Syndrome! Stafford put up impressive statistics last year, but note that his best games came against the Chargers, Broncos, Panthers, Buccaneers, and twice against the Vikings, all of whom had dismal pass defenses. He wasn't the same guy against the Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Falcons, and 49ers. Stafford also needs to complete a second healthy season before his trade value can rise any further.

 

[cvnpoka]

stafford should obv be way higher than 40, but i would prefer luck for reasons mentioned.

anyway, its funny that assani's list which disregarded contracts looks a ton better than barnwell.

 

[coolnerd]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8312966/ranking-players-contracts-national-football-leagueI think the list for the most part is decent but Flacco at 27 is ridiculous. Stafford behind Flacco? there is no planet that anyone would value Flacco over Stafford

While I agree with you I think you are overstating things. This is nfl, not ff. injury history, 1 year vs 4. Stafford is more talented but flacco is probably thought of more highly in nfl than magic football.

Then explain how Luck and RG3 are ranked so high. That list is awful, plan and simple. For far more reasons than Flacco/Stafford.

Care to take a look at any of their contract situations? Grantland(and Bill Simmons) for life

The list wreaks of inconsistency. Luck at 4 because of his contract and speculation, seeing he's never played a single game in the regular season. Then a guy like Stafford is ranked near 40 because he needs to doing it for more than one season. Comical.The article and list aren't worth wasting any more time on IMO.

We actually saw how much the league will pay for a rookie QB with potential (no guarantee) to be an elite player when Washington traded for number 2 overall to draft RGIII. The details are 1st 2012 1st and 2nd with firsts in the 2013 and 2014.simply, what other players would garner that in trade?

 

[jurb26]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8312966/ranking-players-contracts-national-football-league

I think the list for the most part is decent but Flacco at 27 is ridiculous. Stafford behind Flacco? there is no planet that anyone would value Flacco over Stafford

While I agree with you I think you are overstating things. This is nfl, not ff. injury history, 1 year vs 4. Stafford is more talented but flacco is probably thought of more highly in nfl than magic football.

Then explain how Luck and RG3 are ranked so high. That list is awful, plan and simple. For far more reasons than Flacco/Stafford.

Care to take a look at any of their contract situations? Grantland(and Bill Simmons) for life

The list wreaks of inconsistency. Luck at 4 because of his contract and speculation, seeing he's never played a single game in the regular season. Then a guy like Stafford is ranked near 40 because he needs to doing it for more than one season. Comical.The article and list aren't worth wasting any more time on IMO.

What is Stafford's Contract compared to Lucks?

Not surprisingly, you've missed the point...

What in the world are you even talking about? The "Trade Value" column takes player abilities and contract situations equally. How is their write-up for Stafford unreasonable? 32. Matthew Stafford

Matthew Stafford signed a six-year, $72 million deal with $42 million guaranteed. Andrew Luck just signed a four-year, $22 million deal that had all its money guaranteed. Old Draft Pick Syndrome! Stafford put up impressive statistics last year, but note that his best games came against the Chargers, Broncos, Panthers, Buccaneers, and twice against the Vikings, all of whom had dismal pass defenses. He wasn't the same guy against the Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Falcons, and 49ers. Stafford also needs to complete a second healthy season before his trade value can rise any further.

I didn't say that write up was unreasonable. I said the article lacks consistency. Apply the thought process used to score Stafford so low with other guys, it doesn't ad up. Use the thought process to score Luck so high with other guys, again it doesn't ad up.What is Brady's contract. That can be the starting point....

 

[jurb26]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8312966/ranking-players-contracts-national-football-leagueI think the list for the most part is decent but Flacco at 27 is ridiculous. Stafford behind Flacco? there is no planet that anyone would value Flacco over Stafford

While I agree with you I think you are overstating things. This is nfl, not ff. injury history, 1 year vs 4. Stafford is more talented but flacco is probably thought of more highly in nfl than magic football.

Then explain how Luck and RG3 are ranked so high. That list is awful, plan and simple. For far more reasons than Flacco/Stafford.

Care to take a look at any of their contract situations? Grantland(and Bill Simmons) for life

The list wreaks of inconsistency. Luck at 4 because of his contract and speculation, seeing he's never played a single game in the regular season. Then a guy like Stafford is ranked near 40 because he needs to doing it for more than one season. Comical.The article and list aren't worth wasting any more time on IMO.

We actually saw how much the league will pay for a rookie QB with potential (no guarantee) to be an elite player when Washington traded for number 2 overall to draft RGIII. The details are 1st 2012 1st and 2nd with firsts in the 2013 and 2014.simply, what other players would garner that in trade?

Any QB deemed a "franchise" guy would. There are several of them, who are more proven than Luck right now. The guy who actually went for that, who also has a "better" contract isn't even in the same ball park as Luck on the list.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I do think Romo is way undervalued. He's roughly the same age as Eli Manning, cheaper, and arguably just as likely to be elite in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc.

Just as likely to be elite?This isn't about fantasy football. Eli is a two time SB champ, who has performed brilliantly under the greatest pressures the sport can throw at a player. Romo craps the bed every time he hears the word "playoff".One of these guys is a lock to be in the HOF. The other one is Tony Romo. I don't think the Giants would move Eli for the entire Cowboy roster, even if the salaries could be made to work somehow.

If Eli Manning makes the HOF and Tony Romo doesn't, it will be in large part because Manning has won two SB rings, which is meaningless for who is better in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

And at the same time, it's those two Super Bowl runs, versus the complete ineptitude shown by the other guy in playoff circumstances, that make the idea that one is just as likely to be elite as the other over the next three seasons utterly absurd.All we go by here is past performance as indicative of likely future performance. Is Jahvid Best just as likely to be elite over the next three seasons as Ray Rice? If one of those guys makes the HOF and the other doesn't, it will be in large part because one was able to stay on the field and produce HOF numbers, while the other wasn't. Should we ignore that when gauging their future value to their NFL franchises?The book isn't shut on Romo yet. I get that. But he isn't an elite QB. To say he's just as likely to be one moving forward as a guy who already IS simply ignores reality and common sense.If 32 NFL teams all have a roster built, except for starting QB, and the GM's are given the choice of either Eli or Romo for the same cost (since their "value" is presumably similar) to finish up their franchise, how many do you think choose each guy? I'm guessing it finishes 32-0, with the average time taken to make the decision rounding to zero.

We're talking extremely small sample sizes with playoff peformances, and it's not like Manning has been an unstoppable force in the playoffs.In any event, over the last five years, Romo has put up elite numbers, while Manning's just been slightly above average. Manning's a turnover machine with 111 turnovers in 80 games, while Romo has 75 turnovers in 67 games. They have the same number of touchdowns despite Romo missing 13 games, and Romo has averaged half a yard more per attempt. So Romo has been better at gaining yards, has a better completion percentage, more touchdowns per game and significantly fewer turnovers. If you want to say he's not an elite quarterback because he had a bad game in 2007,

 

[Assani Fisher]

List seems pretty bad to me. Heres my list(although note that I didn't feel like looking each player's contract up, so I am NOT taking contract into consideration):1. Rodgers2. Newton3. Brees4. Luck5. Calvin Johnson6. Brady7. Revis8. RG3(I'm a Skins homer, very possible I'm baised here so if anyone thinks he belongs lower I won't argue too much)9. Von Miller10. Stafford11. Eli12. Rivers13. Jason Pierre Paul14. Cutler15. Matt Ryan16. Suh17. Big Ben18. Aldon Smith19. Jake Long20. Joe Thomas21. AJ Green22. Julio Jones23. Gronkowski24. DeMarcus Ware25. Joe Flacco26. Haloti Ngata27. Patrick Willis28. Terrell Suggs(if he were healthy)29. Tony Romo30. Geno Atkins31. Jared Allen32. Brandon Flowers33. Clay Matthews(possible I'm underrating him due to a fluke down year)34. Larry Fitzgerald35. Joe Haden36. JJ Watt37. Carl Nicks38. Jimmy Graham39. Mario Williams 40. Matt Schaub41. Peyton Manning42. Justin Smith43. Brian Orakpo44. Chris Long45. Navorro Bowman46. Julius Peppers47. Matt Kalil48. Victor Cruz49. LeSean McCoy50. Arian Foster

you say the list is bad and then you counter it with a list of your own without taking contracts into consideration. That makes no sense when contracts are a major consideration of the Grantland list.

Ya this makes no sense at all, I rated all the car insurance companies but I didn't want to look up rates so I just ignored the price. This list isn't who the best is its who has the most trade value. Stafford for $1.00 a year probably is more valuable than Rodgers at $20 million a year. Part the reason why Rodgers is the clear favorite at #1 in his mind is his contract, it's just hard to think of it this way cause NFL teams don't trade away bad contracts, or trade player for player very often.

I was unclear, apologies for that...I think the list(using their criteria) is bad in many spots.I also happened to have just made that top 50 list on another message board a few weeks ago, so I copied and pasted it here because it was somewhat related. I realize that my list, which uses different criteria, doesn't have a whole lot to do with their list. I probably should've started a different thread if I wanted to post my list and simply discuss their list ITT.

 

[Assani Fisher]

I do think Romo is way undervalued. He's roughly the same age as Eli Manning, cheaper, and arguably just as likely to be elite in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc.

Just as likely to be elite?This isn't about fantasy football. Eli is a two time SB champ, who has performed brilliantly under the greatest pressures the sport can throw at a player. Romo craps the bed every time he hears the word "playoff".One of these guys is a lock to be in the HOF. The other one is Tony Romo. I don't think the Giants would move Eli for the entire Cowboy roster, even if the salaries could be made to work somehow.

If Eli Manning makes the HOF and Tony Romo doesn't, it will be in large part because Manning has won two SB rings, which is meaningless for who is better in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

And at the same time, it's those two Super Bowl runs, versus the complete ineptitude shown by the other guy in playoff circumstances, that make the idea that one is just as likely to be elite as the other over the next three seasons utterly absurd.All we go by here is past performance as indicative of likely future performance. Is Jahvid Best just as likely to be elite over the next three seasons as Ray Rice? If one of those guys makes the HOF and the other doesn't, it will be in large part because one was able to stay on the field and produce HOF numbers, while the other wasn't. Should we ignore that when gauging their future value to their NFL franchises?The book isn't shut on Romo yet. I get that. But he isn't an elite QB. To say he's just as likely to be one moving forward as a guy who already IS simply ignores reality and common sense.If 32 NFL teams all have a roster built, except for starting QB, and the GM's are given the choice of either Eli or Romo for the same cost (since their "value" is presumably similar) to finish up their franchise, how many do you think choose each guy? I'm guessing it finishes 32-0, with the average time taken to make the decision rounding to zero.

We're talking extremely small sample sizes with playoff peformances, and it's not like Manning has been an unstoppable force in the playoffs.In any event, over the last five years, Romo has put up elite numbers, while Manning's just been slightly above average. Manning's a turnover machine with 111 turnovers in 80 games, while Romo has 75 turnovers in 67 games. They have the same number of touchdowns despite Romo missing 13 games, and Romo has averaged half a yard more per attempt. So Romo has been better at gaining yards, has a better completion percentage, more touchdowns per game and significantly fewer turnovers. If you want to say he's not an elite quarterback because he had a bad game in 2007,

Chase, from my poker experience, one of the biggest common cognitive errors is a DRASTIC difference between what sample size/variance really is and what people intuitively are led to believe. As such, guys who happen to have big games in important games get overrated and those who "choke" in big games get underrated. When you point out to people that standard deviations would make it so that the landscape of "clutch performers" vs "chokers" would appear that same even if there was no such thing as clutchness whatsoever, you are usually met with a blank stare and them repeating some mantra about how certain players "always come through in the clutch"(over a meaningless sample size of course).This can be very clearly seen in the overrating of guys like Eli and Big Ben and the underrating of guys like Romo and Rivers. In fact, I think I'm guilty of severely underrating Romo on my list- as I said, I did it kinda quickly and didn't put enough thought into it.

 

[pollardsvision]

Just curious, when do we start cutting him some slack for the Flacco ranking?

I know one game isn't enough (you know, not counting the 44 reg. season and 4 playoff games he won during the 1st 4 years), just wondering how many more it will take.

After all, it was the most blatantly ridiculous ranking on what some call a "terrible" list.

 

[cheese]

I know it's more interesting to talk about the QBs, but that Suh ranking is unbelievably bad if he's seriously looking at contracts. He's a decent defensive tackle making $60 million... come on. I wouldn't even take that contract on if I was offered him for free and I would laugh histerically if they asked for a guy like Geno Atkins who is playing as good at the same position for 1% of his money.

 

[cheese]

Just curious, when do we start cutting him some slack for the Flacco ranking?I know one game isn't enough (you know, not counting the 44 reg. season and 4 playoff games he won during the 1st 4 years), just wondering how many more it will take.After all, it was the most blatantly ridiculous ranking on what some call a "terrible" list.

Regardless of his play, his status as a "bargain" is over very soon. The Ravens either find 50M for a good, not great QB, or they lose him. I don't think you'll see him anywhere near this list once he signs a Stafford-like contract.