Waldman's dynasty overall (1 Viewer)

[Holy Schneikes]

I couldn't find an email for Matt, so I thought I'd ask if there was a glitch in his dynasty overall rankings. First RB I see listed is Johnson at #11 overall.

I could see making a case for avoiding RBs to some degree, but starting RBs at #11 is probably either something that needs to be tweeked on the technical side, or the very least a nice starting point for a discussion if there is no mistake.

 

[IHEARTFF]

I couldn't find an email for Matt, so I thought I'd ask if there was a glitch in his dynasty overall rankings. First RB I see listed is Johnson at #11 overall.I could see making a case for avoiding RBs to some degree, but starting RBs at #11 is probably either something that needs to be tweeked on the technical side, or the very least a nice starting point for a discussion if there is no mistake.

looks like a sorting issue to me. QB 1-5, WR 6-10, RB 11-15

 

[MoraccoMole]

I think Waldman places a higher premium on QBs and WRs, thus the ranking. He subscribes to drafting rbs early and often in rookie drafts. But feels the long-term value in dynasties is in the other two positions. Even in redrafts, I remember Matt goes for those two positions early and gets the high risk-high reward rbs later.

 

[D.J.]

I think he also stated a month or so ago that his early rankings are just based on positional tiers. So it may not be relevant which position he.listed first (maybe just listed tier 1 wr, then tier 1 qb, tier 1 rb, then went to tier 2. Not sure thougj

 

[Matt Waldman]

I think Waldman places a higher premium on QBs and WRs, thus the ranking. He subscribes to drafting rbs early and often in rookie drafts. But feels the long-term value in dynasties is in the other two positions. Even in redrafts, I remember Matt goes for those two positions early and gets the high risk-high reward rbs later.

That is correct. I think the entire fantasy football world has a much more difficult predicting the No.5-No.15 Rbs from year to year than QBs, WRs, and TEs. Plus RB has a shorter career span than the other positions. Therefore I may think Ray Rice is one of the top 10 RBs in fantasy football, but I wouldn't pick him over the top tier of WRs. Thanks M

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Fantastic. That's way better than what I was thinking. Crazy, but better.

So in dynasty startup, you would select 35 year old Peyton Manning, who put up (in a very good year mind you) 74 VBD points last year (and averaged about 65 over the last 3) over a 25 year old RB who put up 189 VBD points last year. Or a 26 year old RB who averaged about 140 VBD points over the last 2 years. Or a full 41 spots in front of a talented 24 year old Jonathon Stewart who you think is one of the most talented backs in the league.

Being nice and safe and predictable is great. Manning is that and then some. But drafting him (significantly) over those guys is throwing points away, especially in the 12 team leagues the rankings are supposed to be geared toward.

Manning is just an example of course, but I get the feeling you are trying to dive home a valid point (that QBs/WRs are more predictable) by posting rankings I don't think you would really use as a guideline for a startup draft.

 

[Matt Waldman]

I'm driving home a point and I think one of those points is that VBD points are like any theory (such as the one I discuss a lot - RBs are less predictable year to year than QBs/WRs/top TEs) has some issues. VBD tells you that IF you pick the player projected to have those VBD points based on projections THEN you'll be in great shape. But it means you have to hit the bull's eye to get that RB.

I'd rather have a 35-year-old Peyton Manning for the next 2-3 years who puts up points I believe he'll produce consistently compared to an RB who one year is 189 VBD one year and likely far less then next - with the exception of maybe 3-4 RBs every 5-7 years. I'd rather take my chances drafting top QBs/WRs in dynasty start ups early. It's easier to reload with RBs and play with a weak RB2 than find stud WRs and QBs, because once those positions hit they stay at the top longer.

I believe most people play dynasty leagues by looking at their teams in 2-3 year blocks. Trying to look any further is not likely to help you in most competitive leagues. So for me, thinking that I'm going to get the next Adrian Peterson or Emmitt Smith is far too risky than taking the 3-5 QBs who will AT LEAST give you 2-3 years of elite QB performance.

Over the past three years I have been playing this way in re-draft quite frequently and I've been scoring near the top or at the top in just about every league I've competed. As for dynasty start ups, I haven't been in a start up with a traditional non-IDP set up to really test it yet.

It did draft an IDP start up dynasty last year and I waited. My team was in good shape for the first 6 weeks to make a run until Antonio Gates got hurt. That took the wind out of my team's sails due to the lack of great RB talent on the roster.

After so many years of following the herd and trying to show a few "unique" twists that turned out to be really minor in the context of every other strategy out there, I decided that it was more important to for me as a fantasy writer/analyst to begin experimenting with ways take vastly different approaches from the norm and figure out how to incorporate some of those experiments into viable strategies. I believe at least for re-draft, this is one of them.

In dynasty, I also believe this will work well - especially if you are decent at evaluating young talent (which I tend to do pretty well) at RB. Especially when most leagues I've played only allow 2RBs compared to the other five positions (1QB, 3 WRs, and 1 TE). Even in a flex league, I find I can get 3 WR1s and 2 WR2s with an elite TE and that makes my team high-scoring compared to my leaguemates most weeks.

So yeah, I'd rather you get a chance to see something different at Footballguys.com that might be helpful to you. That's why I mock draft with this type of approach as well. I want you to be able to see how these experiments could work out for you without taking the risk yourself.

I've done the magazine drafts. I've played in the showcase leagues. It is no longer about worrying if people think I'm a good fantasy football owner. It's about trying to help find new (or emphasize not-so-new, but different and effective) ways to do things that can help you think differently against strong competition and have an advantage. That's how I look at my role as a fantasy football writer.

We have some terrific folks writing for us here and

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I appreciate the concept of going against the grain to gain new perspectives. And truth be told I agree that RBs are a little overrated compared to some other positions in all formats.

But I've got a couple of "beefs" with your stated approach.

First, what may work in redrafts doesn't necessarily apply to dynasty start-ups. There is (or should be) a HUGE difference in approach between the two. Having one dynasty startup under your belt (a couple of years from it) I don't think will bear the strategy out one way or the other. Dynasty lists are extremely difficult for any site or expert to present because there are so many variables that come into play. But the one thing that DOES differentiate them from redraft rankings is the fact that guys like Manning simply have less value. It's just a fact. Part of what makes QBs (and to some degree WRs) solid choices in dynasty startups is their longevity. But with guys like Manning, that longevity is already used up and is taken completely out of the equation (except for the other direction). You can't say "QBs last longer" and use it for a justification in taking a 35 year old guy over a 25 year old guy no matter WHAT position they play.

Which leads me to my second point. If you want to ignore a big part of what makes a dynasty ranking a dynasty ranking, that's fine. Totally fine to mix it up and present your own view of things. However, those rankings right now are so "out of whack" that they are skewing the overall rankings (of only 4 guys) in a significant way. I know I can turn them off and just look at the rest. But I don't want to have to do that. I WANT your opinion mixed in with the rest, I just want that opinion represented in a more realistic way. Right now I really can't do that because my personal belief is that "as is" some of them are quite frankly ridiculous if you look at them realistically. Do you know how far wrong you would have to be about ANY of those backs for them to be not worth a mid 1st round pick? I believe that they aren't AS predictable as some other positions, but Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson, outside of some medical issue, are simply more valuable going forward than Peyton Manning is, and it's not close.

Again, I think I know and appreciate what you are trying to accomplish with the rankings. I'm just not sure it's the best approach to make the point. Folks aren't going to look at that Manning ranking and say "Wow, he's really out there, I wonder what drove him to that ranking?". They are going to say either "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, I'm going to remove him." or "There must be some kind of technical problem, I'm going to remove him." Neither accomplishes your mission.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[FantasyTrader]

I tip the hat to Matt for thinking outside the box and being willing to go out on a limb. Like you, I agree with his general reasoning of downgrading a certain type of blue-chip RB in favor of the elite at QB and WR. Like you, I'm also thinking Matt may have gone too far to the other extreme in proving his point.

"I believe most people play dynasty leagues by looking at their teams in 2-3 year blocks. Trying to look any further is not likely to help you in most competitive leagues. So for me, thinking that I'm going to get the next Adrian Peterson or Emmitt Smith is far too risky than taking the 3-5 QBs who will AT LEAST give you 2-3 years of elite QB performance."

I couldn't be any further on the other end of the spectrum than Matt with the bolded. I've had some good success in dynasty and my general focus while managing my team is longer than the next two years.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Certainly you guys give me some good food for thought. Thanks for sharing.