Youth vs. Production (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

I originally started this in the AC since I figured it would look too much like an AC topic. But, given the responses so far, I'm kind of intrigued and wanted to move it over here. I wonder if some of us sometimes overvalue youth too much in dynasty leagues. I know that some of this is relative to the makeup of a team, i.e. rebuilding or "win now" mode, but let's say it's a team with good balance that has a good shot now and is also relatively young elsewhere.

I hope this sparks some discussions as to why you prefer one over the other and at what point does production win over youth and vice versa.

Now, I will add the following data using my scoring system of 0.5 ppr and a 5 pt milestone bonus for 100 yd games. Obviously yours might be different, but still.

In 2007--

Westbrook (29) -- 349 pts

T. Holt (32) -- 210 pts

TO (35)-- 297 pts

Lynch (22)-- 182 pts

Colston (25)-- 228 pts

The Westbrook/Holt side outscored Lynch/Colston by 150 pts last year. The Westbrook/TO side outscored Lynch/Colston by 237 pts last year. Those differences are HUGE, esp. the latter. While it may be a stretch for TO, I think it would be somewhat reasonable to assume that Westbrook and Holt can keep up that level of production for 2 more years (this year and 2009). After that, who knows. Is youth worth more than that difference in production? Is the loss of value after 2-3 yrs enough of a reason to take lower points in your starting lineup for 2 yrs? I don't know what the "right" answer is, but my guess is that most will be voting for the youth side.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

I'll easily take Westbrook and Holt/TO over Colston and Lynch. When choosing between guys that are relatively close then you take the younger players but clearly that isn't the case here.

 

[Birdie048]

The problem I have is past this year, Holt might be a heavy gamble. His knees are not getting better. Last I read was that it would be "something he has to live with" and pain is a part of every practice. That's not want I want for my WR#1.

 

[gianmarco]

The problem I have is past this year, Holt might be a heavy gamble. His knees are not getting better. Last I read was that it would be "something he has to live with" and pain is a part of every practice. That's not want I want for my WR#1.

That is definitely a concern, but what if it weren't? Would it make you choose the older guys? I will also submit that the news about his knees came out at the beginning of LAST year and he still played all 16 games and caught 93/1189/7. There really is nothing new that I've seen that says he'll be worse. Colston missed more time than he did.

 

[gianmarco]

Let me also add, here is the original topic with some responses before I put up any numbers.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=391366

 

[Sidewinder16]

In general, I'm always looking to win this year in my dynasty/contract league.

So much will happen in the next 12 months, and there will be so many opportunities to acquire more/different players for next year, that I find it fairly silly to give up the better shot at this year's title for the possibility of production next year (or the year after that, or the year after that, etc.).

I will gladly take Westy and Holt, or Westy and TO over Lynch and Colston.

 

[Warhogs]

In general relating to the topic title my approach is production over youth in my starting lineup and youth over production for my reserves.

I think looking at the points from last year are a bit deceiving because Westbrook stayed healthy and had a huge year last year. The points differential should probably be looked at based on projections for this next year instead of statistics from last year. This is a pretty close deal for me.

 

[Zoomanji]

but let's say it's a team with good balance that has a good shot now and is also relatively young elsewhere.

Westbrook option for both

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I love Westbrook but last year in 2006 he had 295.05 points in 2005 he had 202.50 points. Last year he had a tremendous year with 332.45 points.

Lynch as a rookie on a team that was playing with a rookie QB had 185 points in only 13 games.

In redraft this is easily Westy. But in dynasty Lynch is 21 years old. Who is to say he won't be putting up 300 plus points in the next couple of seasons?

Colston is 24 years old and off to one of the best starts in NFL WR history.

I would gamble with the young guys here in dynasty format.

 

[gianmarco]

I love Westbrook but last year in 2006 he had 295.05 points in 2005 he had 202.50 points. Last year he had a tremendous year with 332.45 points.Lynch as a rookie on a team that was playing with a rookie QB had 185 points in only 13 games.In redraft this is easily Westy. But in dynasty Lynch is 21 years old. Who is to say he won't be putting up 300 plus points in the next couple of seasons?Colston is 24 years old and off to one of the best starts in NFL WR history. I would gamble with the young guys here in dynasty format.

First of all, his tremendous year in 2007 with 332 is very close to his year in 2006 with 295. He has now put up two elite years in a row and is clearly the focus of that offense. The only thing at this point that should change that is injury and he's remained relatively healthy during these past 2 yrs.I understand your point about "what about next year" and as someone pointed out above, it is definitely a matter of projections. Obviously we can't just use last year's stats and say this is definitely going to happen. At the same time, Lynch has A LOT of ground to make up to even come close to Westbrook's production over the last 2 yrs. Could he do it? Absolutely. Is it likely to happen? I personally don't think so. So that definitely has to be factored.But, even just for argument's sake and more for the point of this thread, let's say we KNOW the #'s are going to be similar, i.e. Westbrook/Holt outperform Lynch/Colston by a significant amount. At what point do you take that production over the youth and vice versa? Is there a cutoff? How do you decide? I don't think there is any question that if these 2 combos project out even remotely similarly that you go with the younger group. It's just what that cutoff is that you say that youth isn't worth the loss in actual points in your lineup. That's the point of this thread, or at least how I intended it.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

If you think the amount of scoring is going to be significant over the next couple of seasons then I think you have to factor that into the equation. But I don't think it is a huge down grade to have Colston/Lynch vs Westrook/Holt or Westbrook/Owens combo and therefore in dynasty I take the young up and coming studs who are already have plenty of fantasy value.

In redraft I go Westbrook combo for sure. But in a couple of seasons in dynasty when Westbook and Owens numbers are down or they are close to retiring (if not retired) you are still competing for championships with your young studs who you may have won with at the same time when the Westbrook/Owens combo was still good. I know many times people look at the 3 year window in dynasty, but with Colston being 24 and Lynch being 21 you can definitely see greater things for many more than 3 seasons down the road.

 

[gianmarco]

If you think the amount of scoring is going to be significant over the next couple of seasons then I think you have to factor that into the equation. But I don't think it is a huge down grade to have Colston/Lynch vs Westrook/Holt or Westbrook/Owens combo and therefore in dynasty I take the young up and coming studs who are already have plenty of fantasy value. In redraft I go Westbrook combo for sure. But in a couple of seasons in dynasty when Westbook and Owens numbers are down or they are close to retiring (if not retired) you are still competing for championships with your young studs who you may have won with at the same time when the Westbrook/Owens combo was still good. I know many times people look at the 3 year window in dynasty, but with Colston being 24 and Lynch being 21 you can definitely see greater things for many more than 3 seasons down the road.

Well, again, I'm saying to go ahead and assume that the difference will be significant. I understand you don't see it as a big downgrade and that's fine. I mean, I don't care if you're discussing it here because all discussion is good, but as I posted right above, the point is to assume there WILL be a significant difference. So you say you have to factor it into the equation. So, after you factor it, what do you come up with? Do you take the significantly higher points or do you go with youth and why? There's a reason I picked Westbrook and TO. Both are older and both were top 2-3 at their positions last year and by significant amounts. A 240 pt difference is a LOT to make up between the 2, even if you see it closely. So, let's assume it stays significant. Who do you like?

 

[gianmarco]

I'm also going to add some thoughts on Lynch after looking at his #'s a little closer.

--Only two 100 yd games all year. One for 153 vs. Cincy and another for 107 vs. Miami. Not too impressive considering the teams he did it against.

--At the same time, he had 18+ carries in EVERY game he played (12 games). That's a lot of carries for a lot of time to only hit 100 yds twice.

--He had ZERO multi-TD games. He scored 7 TDs, but never more than 1 in a game

--He only had 17 catches for 162 yds and 0 TDs. Despite popular opinion, not very active in passing game

--In my PPR league, he scored 32 fantasy points vs. Cincy. Otherwise, he never topped 18 pts.

--He had a 3.9 ypc for the year.

Now, I know he was only a rookie. I know he played for the Bills. And watching him, he definitely looked good at times and I know there is room to improve. However, those are mediocre #'s at best. Considering he will still be playing for the Bills and not much around him has changed thus far, I think it's probably a little too early to be ranking him as high as I've seen him (consensus top 10 dynasty RB).

 

[Warhogs]

After thinking about this a bit longer I would go with Lynch/Colston and quite easily. I project Lynch to be a RB#1 on a FF team for maybe another 8 years, Colston can be a WR#1 for maybe 8 years as well. That would be 16 years of excellent production. I feel Westbrook may give you 2-3 more years and you may also only get 2-3 more years out of TO or Holt.

For me, I will take the 16 high level years over the 4-6 high level years. Others may feel different but that is the route I would take.

 

[gianmarco]

After thinking about this a bit longer I would go with Lynch/Colston and quite easily. I project Lynch to be a RB#1 on a FF team for maybe another 8 years, Colston can be a WR#1 for maybe 8 years as well. That would be 16 years of excellent production. I feel Westbrook may give you 2-3 more years and you may also only get 2-3 more years out of TO or Holt.

For me, I will take the 16 high level years over the 4-6 high level years. Others may feel different but that is the route I would take.

8 yrs as a #1 for Lynch? Really? He's not even a #1 yet. How many RB's can you name that have been a #1 for 8 yrs? Aside from LT and Edge and maybe Portis, I can't think of any others recently.That's a hefty prediction and the odds are HEAVILY stacked against him for that to happen.

 

[Warhogs]

I was probably unclear in what I was saying. I am saying that Lynch can be penciled in as a RB#1 for about another 8 years. Certainly he will most likely produce less at times to due injuries and such but he can be considered a RB#1 type player for that span which would put him at 29 years old.

I think the shelf life on the older players is far less and I really think the point differential shrinks a lot starting this year.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I was probably unclear in what I was saying. I am saying that Lynch can be penciled in as a RB#1 for about another 8 years. Certainly he will most likely produce less at times to due injuries and such but he can be considered a RB#1 type player for that span which would put him at 29 years old.

I think the shelf life on the older players is far less and I really think the point differential shrinks a lot starting this year.

I think gianmarco's point is still valid. How many RBs can you find historically that have been a top 12 FF RB at least at the beginning and end of an 8 year span? I imagine the list is short and full of All Pros/HOFers.Given that, if you still believe Lynch will be in the company of the all time greats 8 years from, that's fine, but you're still betting on long odds. IMO, the odds of winning a FF championship this year w/ Westy and TO are greater than the odds of Lynch becoming an all time great RB. Personally, I'll take a great shot at a championship now w/ Westbrook/TO over the long odds that Lynch is still playing pro football and producing #1 FF RB numbers 8 years from now.

 

[trollmonger]

When it comes to players that I expect to start most weeks, which I would with all of these players, I want production now. I value youth a lot more with my backups.

 

[fsufan]

I think it depends on the rest of your team, in the win now stag or rebuild stag

 

[gianmarco]

I think it depends on the rest of your team, in the win now stag or rebuild stag

There aren't just 2 modes. It can be a continuum and assume you are right in the middle. You have a youthful team that has the potential to win it all with a little work.

 

[Riffraff]

Went with Westbtrook in both. Nobody remembers the losers in the league.

RBs have a short lifespan, may as well go with the one that's already proven to be great and can lead you to a couple championships.

After that, you can probably trade for Lynch since he won't be a shiny new toy anymore.

3 years in the league and he'll most likely be viewed as Ronnie Brown, Caddy, or Benson are now.

 

[gianmarco]

I also find it interesting that TO is getting that much more love than Holt despite relatively similar production and TO being 3 yrs older.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I also find it interesting that TO is getting that much more love than Holt despite relatively similar production and TO being 3 yrs older.

Holt has been a top 5 WR (FBG scoring) once in his career. Owens has done it 7 times (using season totals; using per game avg he was probably a top 5 WR in '05 also), including being the #2 WR the past 2 years. I think Owen's ceiling, even at this stage in his career, is definitely higher than Holt's.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I also find it interesting that TO is getting that much more love than Holt despite relatively similar production and TO being 3 yrs older.

Holt has been a top 5 WR (FBG scoring) once in his career. Owens has done it 7 times (using season totals; using per game avg he was probably a top 5 WR in '05 also), including being the #2 WR the past 2 years. I think Owen's ceiling, even at this stage in his career, is definitely higher than Holt's.

Two things wrong with that.First, they are relatively similar. Using top 5 as the cutoff removes Holt's two 6th place and two 7th place finishes. Average finish in the last 5 years for Holt: 7th. Median finish: 6th. Average for Owens: 10th (without 2005: 5th). Median finish: 4th. Those would qualify as being relatively similar. Total fantasy points for each (in the best 4 of the last 5 to remove Owens problem year): Holt-805, Owens-792.

Second, this is not FBG's scoring. It's 1/2 point PPR. In those same best 4 of 5 years, that adds another 41 points to Holt and likely moves him past Owens in some of those years.

 

[gianmarco]

I also find it interesting that TO is getting that much more love than Holt despite relatively similar production and TO being 3 yrs older.

Holt has been a top 5 WR (FBG scoring) once in his career. Owens has done it 7 times (using season totals; using per game avg he was probably a top 5 WR in '05 also), including being the #2 WR the past 2 years. I think Owen's ceiling, even at this stage in his career, is definitely higher than Holt's.

I said similar production. I know that TO is better and I agree his ceiling is higher. But, they aren't huge differences at all.Since 2000:

TO Holt

2000 3rd--224 7th--200

2001 2nd--239 8th--178

2002 2nd--222 15th--156

2003 12th--164 2nd--242

2004 4th--204 7th--197

2005 32nd--116 6th--187

2006 2nd--196 6th--179

2007 2nd--226 13th--161

Let's say 2002 and 2003 cancel each other out. With the exception of 2001 and 2007, Holt has been within ~20 pts (2000, 2004, 2006) or ahead (2005). That's relatively similar production. I mean, Holt has finished 8th or better in 6 of the last 8 yrs. That's still elite production.

I would also prefer TO over Holt in the above. But, I simply find it interesting that there are significantly more people that prefer TO/Westy over the younger group than would prefer Holt/Westy. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with Holt's knees, but I don't know if that's really a good reason.