Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

Still not dropping Steve Smith after another injury to the guy. Situation is horrible and not getting better anytime soon either.

What do you mean? I dropped him from 14th to 18th. I dropped his value from 77 in August, to 75 in September, and now to 70 in October. You can say that I'm not dropping him enough, but you can't say that I'm not dropping him at all.

How many people would take Rivers over Rodgers or Brees right now? I think the big separation there before the season was Rodgers and Brees had so many weapons, whereas people assumed SD would become more of a running team. The marquee weapons in NO and GB are coming up small (or hurt), and the opposite is happening in SD. Rivers is on pace for 5000 yards. Gates is the best receiver in 2010 so far. Floyd is performing well. It's not like we can question Rivers' talent - he has 2 straight years of 100+ QB rating and 4000+ yards.

It seems the sole thing separating them now is Rodgers' running stats. Each week where Rivers destroys and Rodgers does merely good (e.g., failing to put Detroit away) makes that difference less meaningful.

Not me. I'd still take Rodgers, Brees, and Romo over Rivers. I should definitely bump Rivers over Manning, though. It's important to remember that players are never as good as they look when they're on a hot streak. Over a full 16-game season, a 4-game hot streak will account for 25% of a player's production. 5 weeks in, a 4-game hot streak will account for 80% of a player's production. There's always a lot of danger in overreacting when a player opens the season playing out of his mind, which is why I still have Orton and Vick outside my top 10. Also, when last I checked, Norv Turner was still in town. I don't like placing my trust in Norv Turner.

I have zero questions about Rivers' place as an elite NFL QB. I just have a few remaining reservations about his place as an elite fantasy QB.

I would rather have Brees and Rodgers than Rivers, but not Romo. I have never been a believer in Romo. The guy has had some great weapons and his play is just not as great as it should be given his situation. Rivers is playing better than I thought he could and should be top 5, but he isn't in the top 2 yet.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Fear & Loathing

    2096

  • Concept Coop

    1467

  • SSOG

    1403

  • EBF

    1210

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brewtown, the other day I posted that you were the worst thing to happen to draft discussion here in a long time--within hours it had 7-8 likes. That should tell you something.

I've been a part of this thread almost from the beginning. I've learned a lot. I've made some friends. But...let's please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. It isn't fun. Tell me what you think

Good. It's settled then. I'll continue to disregard your "analysis" and you can ignore mine. I don't think anyone in this thread will miss these exchanges.

I've had a chance to watch Miles Austin more this year than I ever have, and I'm coming around. The guy is ALWAYS open it seems like. He's a cockroach that won't go away.

Anyway, can we discuss Hester for a bit?

(RotoWire) Hester says the plan is for him to be scaled back a little on offense to keep him fresh for the return game, the Chicago Tribune reports. Analysis: Hester, who had been on the field for 90.7 percent of the plays through four games, was on the field for only 19 of the 64 offensive snaps during Sunday's victory over the Panthers. Hester's playing time isn't likely to be dramatically reduced again when quarterback Jay Cutler returns, but he may not be on the field at the 90 percent rate moving forward, making this better news for Earl Bennett and possibly even Devin Aromashodu.

My thoughts.... It appears that Hester is drawing the #1 CB in each game, and that the routes he's being asked to run are the intermediate to deep routes, of which, Cutler does not have time to attempt. The Bears offensive line is well, offensive. Cutler simply doesn't have time to get Hester the ball on a consistent basis. That said, I have not watched the Bears every week and would like to hear others thoughts. Hester's production to this point has be abysmal.

Hester is never going to be an elite Wr. He is a great returner and that is how they should use him. Also, use him in the slot and in four WR sets on deep routes. But he is not an every down, move the chains, WR.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't Fitz been battling injuries too? A guy with his talent doesn't just disappear. You don't downgrade elite talents based on a few games. Some of you are way too reactionary.

Yes, Fitz hasn't been 100%.I don't know that people are being too reactionary. Most people aren't suggesting dropping him out of Tier 1, they're just suggesting sliding him behind guys like Andre, Calvin, or Austin. I can totally understand why someone would do that. I'm not going to do it, myself, but I get the reasoning behind it and I don't think it's terrible process or anything.
But Andre has been hurt too and isn't exactly leading the league either. I can't see moving him above Fitz based on what he has done. Calvin is ok, but he still is just barely on the fringe of the top ten in my PPR league. Until he shows me some #1 production, I won't be a believer. A case could be made for Austin to be in top 3, and let's not forget Roddy White. We all know how consistent he has been about being a top 10 WR, but this year he seems to have stepped it up. His prospects look bright too since he and Ryan will be together for along time it seems. Marshall, also, is doing great in his new digs, and is well on his way to another 100 reception season--in PPR anyway, he is golden.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers > Romo and it isn't even close.If you swapped teams giving Rivers all those talented WR's and gave Romo Gates and a bunch of stiffs Rivers would be light years in stats ahead of Romo

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. When last I checked, you couldn't just wave a magical wand and give Rivers Austin/Bryant/Witten while sticking Romo with Floyd/Naanee/Gates.

I would rather have Brees and Rodgers than Rivers, but not Romo. I have never been a believer in Romo. The guy has had some great weapons and his play is just not as great as it should be given his situation. Rivers is playing better than I thought he could and should be top 5, but he isn't in the top 2 yet.

I hate to quote myself (actually, no I don't- I'm a narcissistic grandstander :rant:), but Tony Romo has averaged 21.67 ppg over the last 3 seasons, which is more than Peyton Manning (20.58) and way above Philip Rivers (19.02). The guy averages 8.1 yards per attempt for his career. He's on pace for 5400 passing yards this year. I really don't get the Romo hate. He's not as talented as Philip Rivers, but he's also not as talented as Brady and nobody seems to have a problem with people ranking Romo over Brady. Aaron Rodgers is almost always ranked ahead of at least 4 QBs that are more talented than he is. Tony Romo is a legit franchise QB who, by the way, posts elite fantasy stats year in and year out, and who might just have the sickest weapons at his disposal of any player in the entire league. Most underrated fantasy QB in the league.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers > Romo and it isn't even close.If you swapped teams giving Rivers all those talented WR's and gave Romo Gates and a bunch of stiffs Rivers would be light years in stats ahead of Romo

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. When last I checked, you couldn't just wave a magical wand and give Rivers Austin/Bryant/Witten while sticking Romo with Floyd/Naanee/Gates.
The way Gates is playing, I don't think Rivers would want that anyway. I think you're making too much of the talent differential there, at least from a 2010 standpoint. Both Austin and Gates are playing at elite levels. Other guys are making plays when coverage shifts to stop the guys in beast mode (Roy Williams' recent surge, Floyd's breakout game).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers > Romo and it isn't even close.If you swapped teams giving Rivers all those talented WR's and gave Romo Gates and a bunch of stiffs Rivers would be light years in stats ahead of Romo

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. When last I checked, you couldn't just wave a magical wand and give Rivers Austin/Bryant/Witten while sticking Romo with Floyd/Naanee/Gates.

I would rather have Brees and Rodgers than Rivers, but not Romo. I have never been a believer in Romo. The guy has had some great weapons and his play is just not as great as it should be given his situation. Rivers is playing better than I thought he could and should be top 5, but he isn't in the top 2 yet.

I hate to quote myself (actually, no I don't- I'm a narcissistic grandstander :confused:), but Tony Romo has averaged 21.67 ppg over the last 3 seasons, which is more than Peyton Manning (20.58) and way above Philip Rivers (19.02). The guy averages 8.1 yards per attempt for his career. He's on pace for 5400 passing yards this year. I really don't get the Romo hate. He's not as talented as Philip Rivers, but he's also not as talented as Brady and nobody seems to have a problem with people ranking Romo over Brady. Aaron Rodgers is almost always ranked ahead of at least 4 QBs that are more talented than he is. Tony Romo is a legit franchise QB who, by the way, posts elite fantasy stats year in and year out, and who might just have the sickest weapons at his disposal of any player in the entire league. Most underrated fantasy QB in the league.
SSOG, I was talking in real talent, not fantasy production. But there is a connection; as talent will usually trump situation. Give me Rivers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers > Romo and it isn't even close.If you swapped teams giving Rivers all those talented WR's and gave Romo Gates and a bunch of stiffs Rivers would be light years in stats ahead of Romo

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. When last I checked, you couldn't just wave a magical wand and give Rivers Austin/Bryant/Witten while sticking Romo with Floyd/Naanee/Gates.
The way Gates is playing, I don't think Rivers would want that anyway. I think you're making too much of the talent differential there, at least from a 2010 standpoint. Both Austin and Gates are playing at elite levels. Other guys are making plays when coverage shifts to stop the guys in beast mode (Roy Williams' recent surge, Floyd's breakout game).
Funny, I thought this was the Dynasty Rankings thread, not the Redraft Rankings thread :thumbup:. Rivers' weapons might be comparable to Romo's at the moment (I'd still take Romo's, but I don't think the gap is nearly as large as most people suggest), but Austin/Dez/Witten will likely age a lot better than Gates/Floyd/Naanee.

SSOG, I was talking in real talent, not fantasy production. But there is a connection; as talent will usually trump situation. Give me Rivers.

I've never denied that Rivers was more talented than Romo, but Romo is still plenty talented in his own right, has a huge track record of major success at this point, plays for a coach that doesn't have a history of putting a governor on him every time he exceeds 80 mph, and stars in an offense that positively bleeds weapons. Rivers is a top 5 QB, but Romo is a top 10 QB, and given the other advantages he has, I'd definitely take him before Rivers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers > Romo and it isn't even close.If you swapped teams giving Rivers all those talented WR's and gave Romo Gates and a bunch of stiffs Rivers would be light years in stats ahead of Romo

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. When last I checked, you couldn't just wave a magical wand and give Rivers Austin/Bryant/Witten while sticking Romo with Floyd/Naanee/Gates.
The way Gates is playing, I don't think Rivers would want that anyway. I think you're making too much of the talent differential there, at least from a 2010 standpoint. Both Austin and Gates are playing at elite levels. Other guys are making plays when coverage shifts to stop the guys in beast mode (Roy Williams' recent surge, Floyd's breakout game).
Funny, I thought this was the Dynasty Rankings thread, not the Redraft Rankings thread :rolleyes:. Rivers' weapons might be comparable to Romo's at the moment (I'd still take Romo's, but I don't think the gap is nearly as large as most people suggest), but Austin/Dez/Witten will likely age a lot better than Gates/Floyd/Naanee.

SSOG, I was talking in real talent, not fantasy production. But there is a connection; as talent will usually trump situation. Give me Rivers.

I've never denied that Rivers was more talented than Romo, but Romo is still plenty talented in his own right, has a huge track record of major success at this point, plays for a coach that doesn't have a history of putting a governor on him every time he exceeds 80 mph, and stars in an offense that positively bleeds weapons. Rivers is a top 5 QB, but Romo is a top 10 QB, and given the other advantages he has, I'd definitely take him before Rivers.
With regard to weapons, Naanee has shown to be an average talent at best so far in his career, so I don't think it matters much how he ages... he is replaceable. However, I agree that Floyd and especially Gates would be hard to replace easily with comparable talent.ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area. Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit I didn't search the past 10 weeks of posts to see if this had been discussed, but I find myself having a hard time putting a value on Stafford. I'm toying with trying to acquire him in my league. While certainly he has the physical attributes for NFL success, and has good weapons around him, he really hasn't done anything (in my mind) to increase or decrease his dynasty value since day one (mostly due to time missed with injury). On one hand, in our dynasty league Stafford I think was drafted around #8 (12 team league)...and so far he's done "as expected" for a young QB, making me think that he is about the same value as on draft day his rookie year.On the other hand, young stud QBs are hard to come by (not that Stafford is a stud...yet). And current-day Stafford has some value over a hypothetical 2011 rookie QB just because 1.5 years of the "waiting period" for him to develop has already happened.I'm in the middle of a dreaded "rebuild" and my QBs are off the scrap heap (Cassel, Gradkowski, Garrard). The guys with Stafford has Peyton Manning and Flacco as well. I have multiple firsts in each of the next few years so my dilemma is to spend a couple of those acquiring stafford, or just try and get my future QB through the draft and free agency.Any thoughts on Stafford's development, dynasty potential, and value?

I pretty much agree with your take. I like Stafford, I think he's going to be a good QB, but we haven't been able to see as much as we would like because of injuries. I would take him over the rookie QBs coming out next year for the reasons you said, but I don't think you have to necessarily spend multiple 1st round picks to get him (unless they are late picks). I agree that his value hasn't changed a whole lot, so try offering a similar pick to what he was taken with. It makes sense to go after him now if you're rebuilding because his value isn't so high, and since that guy already has Peyton and Flacco, he might be up for it.
Well i don't want to turn this into my own personal Assistant Coach Forum, but I advertised price for him is two first round picks. I was contemplating offering that, but one of those picks would definitely by toward the end of the first round.Regardless, the more general question/debate is: when in total rebuild with holes everywhere in your roster, is a player like Stafford (or similarly Sanchez or another young decent pedigree QB) worth potentially multiple draft picks (if you have them to spend)...or do you keep that money in your pocket and just hope that the draft and free agency can fill the QB hole over time? The Staffords and Sanchez's of the world have at least shown some potential, haven't totally flamed out, and have already over a season of "investment" time that you wouldn't have to spend on a rookie. On the other hand, a rookie probably costs much less. I am a fairly big proponent of the idea of "how long will it take before I know if this player is good" mentality that I think was discussed in this thread. We'll probably have a good idea of Stafford/Sanchez's true value by the end of 2011. A 2011 rookie may need to be nurtured until the end of 2013 before we would have a similar read.
I don't think this is an easy question to answer. QB values are wierd. In some leagues, they seem overpriced, in others they are criminally underpriced. ON paper, a couple late firsts seems appropriate for a young stud...but in half my leagues that would be too much.
Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

Got to agree here. Rivers has put up comparable ( arguably better ) numbers to Romo over the past 2 years, and this year he's outproducing Romo, even though Tony's got these incredible weapons. If the bump that Romo gets for his current situation can't create separation in the stat lines, what happens when that situation bonus isn't there anymore? When Wade gets fired? If Vincent signs?You've made more drastic "talent-based" leaps for transcendent guys like Jon Stewart and Jamal Charles already, before they produced over their peers. What's keeping Rivers behind Romo when he's already doing it, and you admit that he's more talented?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i don't want to turn this into my own personal Assistant Coach Forum, but I advertised price for him is two first round picks. I was contemplating offering that, but one of those picks would definitely by toward the end of the first round.

Regardless, the more general question/debate is: when in total rebuild with holes everywhere in your roster, is a player like Stafford (or similarly Sanchez or another young decent pedigree QB) worth potentially multiple draft picks (if you have them to spend)...or do you keep that money in your pocket and just hope that the draft and free agency can fill the QB hole over time? The Staffords and Sanchez's of the world have at least shown some potential, haven't totally flamed out, and have already over a season of "investment" time that you wouldn't have to spend on a rookie. On the other hand, a rookie probably costs much less.

I am a fairly big proponent of the idea of "how long will it take before I know if this player is good" mentality that I think was discussed in this thread. We'll probably have a good idea of Stafford/Sanchez's true value by the end of 2011. A 2011 rookie may need to be nurtured until the end of 2013 before we would have a similar read.

I don't think this is an easy question to answer. QB values are wierd. In some leagues, they seem overpriced, in others they are criminally underpriced. ON paper, a couple late firsts seems appropriate for a young stud...but in half my leagues that would be too much.
This is the key. Typically in dynasty leagues (especially those with somewhat limited roster space) young QBs are worth more (sometimes ALOT more) simply because they're young, than a guy that's older, but putting up similar numbers.

Just as an example, who's worth more, Matt Ryan or Hasselebeck, Garrard, Fitzpatrick, Alex Smith, etc.? Most would say Ryan - when, in many leagues the other guys listed are outproducing him (and in 10 teamers, some are likely available on the WW). Is it possible Ryan/Sanchez/Stafford/Freeman/Henne will improve? Sure. But they could also end up like Cassel, Kolb, Moore, Edwards, etc.

I'm not saying you shouldn't try to nail down a stud QB before he becomes one - I'm just saying that it's not always a given and some of the names being thrown about as "young studs" are hardly a proven commodity. My primary point here is, don't sell the farm on a QB, simply becuase of "pedigree" - as even the pros have had a tough time identifying good QBs (let alone studs) - coming out of college. Just look at some of the top QBs in the game right now. For every Peyton Manning, there is a Tom Brady and a Brett Favre...and a Ryan Leaf, and an Akili Smith, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to weapons, Naanee has shown to be an average talent at best so far in his career, so I don't think it matters much how he ages... he is replaceable. However, I agree that Floyd and especially Gates would be hard to replace easily with comparable talent.ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

I say talent usually wins out, but Romo is plenty, plenty talented in his own right. It's not like he's Jon Kitna here, only posting huge yardage totals because of the system he plays in. Rivers and Romo are #1 and #2 in career ANY/A. Romo's not a top-5 QB, but he's easily a top-10 and still a stellar talent. In a normal era, Romo probably would be a top-5 QB, but we happen to be witnessing a golden age for QBs. So, when you've got a guy who is an elite-if-not-quite-uberelite QB talent who's got pretty much the best set of weapons in the entire NFL and a huge track record of success, there's nothing wrong with ranking him way up high. Hell, I think Tony Romo is as good of a QB as Aaron Rodgers, who currently sits at #1 in my rankings. I think he's a substantially better QB than Matt Schaub, who has risen as high as 5th in my rankings. And, again, he's on pace for 5400 yards of his own this season.Getting back to what F&L said a couple of years ago, and what I resurrected last year, it's easy to go to bat for a guy on a hot streak. It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games", or "Philip Rivers should be a top 3 QB, he's on pace to pass for like 6,000 yards!" or "Miles Austin should be the #1 dynasty WR, the dude is unstoppable!". It's also not particularly useful, since by the time a player is that white-hot, everyone in your league has noticed and that player's owner has undoubtedly turtled up and is refusing all reasonable (and even several unreasonably high) trade offers. Let's see some people going to bat for a player on a cold streak. Or let's see some people badmouthing a player on a hot streak. Let's see some analysis that is based more on the next 4 weeks than it is on the last 4 weeks. Instead of talking about whether Rivers should be over Romo or whether Orton deserves a spot in the top 6/8/10/whatever, why don't we spend some time discussing what QBs are going to catch fire and join those guys at the top in the coming weeks?
Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

Got to agree here. Rivers has put up comparable ( arguably better ) numbers to Romo over the past 2 years, and this year he's outproducing Romo, even though Tony's got these incredible weapons. If the bump that Romo gets for his current situation can't create separation in the stat lines, what happens when that situation bonus isn't there anymore? When Wade gets fired? If Vincent signs?You've made more drastic "talent-based" leaps for transcendent guys like Jon Stewart and Jamal Charles already, before they produced over their peers. What's keeping Rivers behind Romo when he's already doing it, and you admit that he's more talented?
:goodposting:
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to weapons, Naanee has shown to be an average talent at best so far in his career, so I don't think it matters much how he ages... he is replaceable. However, I agree that Floyd and especially Gates would be hard to replace easily with comparable talent.ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

I say talent usually wins out, but Romo is plenty, plenty talented in his own right. It's not like he's Jon Kitna here, only posting huge yardage totals because of the system he plays in. Rivers and Romo are #1 and #2 in career ANY/A. Romo's not a top-5 QB, but he's easily a top-10 and still a stellar talent. In a normal era, Romo probably would be a top-5 QB, but we happen to be witnessing a golden age for QBs. So, when you've got a guy who is an elite-if-not-quite-uberelite QB talent who's got pretty much the best set of weapons in the entire NFL and a huge track record of success, there's nothing wrong with ranking him way up high. Hell, I think Tony Romo is as good of a QB as Aaron Rodgers, who currently sits at #1 in my rankings. I think he's a substantially better QB than Matt Schaub, who has risen as high as 5th in my rankings. And, again, he's on pace for 5400 yards of his own this season.Getting back to what F&L said a couple of years ago, and what I resurrected last year, it's easy to go to bat for a guy on a hot streak. It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games", or "Philip Rivers should be a top 3 QB, he's on pace to pass for like 6,000 yards!" or "Miles Austin should be the #1 dynasty WR, the dude is unstoppable!". It's also not particularly useful, since by the time a player is that white-hot, everyone in your league has noticed and that player's owner has undoubtedly turtled up and is refusing all reasonable (and even several unreasonably high) trade offers. Let's see some people going to bat for a player on a cold streak. Or let's see some people badmouthing a player on a hot streak. Let's see some analysis that is based more on the next 4 weeks than it is on the last 4 weeks. Instead of talking about whether Rivers should be over Romo or whether Orton deserves a spot in the top 6/8/10/whatever, why don't we spend some time discussing what QBs are going to catch fire and join those guys at the top in the coming weeks?
Great post. People's dislike for Romo transcends production, situation or reality. And what's funny is Rivers is way more of a doosh than Romo. There's not much he can do to change people's minds. People talk about the great weapons he has now...what about last year? Roy Williams was his #1 until Austin suddenly became a star. Romo has nothing to do with that, of course...Austin would be doing what he's doing with any quarterback. And if he had Rivers? He'd be making history.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to what F&L said a couple of years ago, and what I resurrected last year, it's easy to go to bat for a guy on a hot streak. It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games", or "Philip Rivers should be a top 3 QB, he's on pace to pass for like 6,000 yards!" or "Miles Austin should be the #1 dynasty WR, the dude is unstoppable!". It's also not particularly useful, since by the time a player is that white-hot, everyone in your league has noticed and that player's owner has undoubtedly turtled up and is refusing all reasonable (and even several unreasonably high) trade offers. Let's see some people going to bat for a player on a cold streak. Or let's see some people badmouthing a player on a hot streak. Let's see some analysis that is based more on the next 4 weeks than it is on the last 4 weeks. Instead of talking about whether Rivers should be over Romo or whether Orton deserves a spot in the top 6/8/10/whatever, why don't we spend some time discussing what QBs are going to catch fire and join those guys at the top in the coming weeks?

No shortage of people knocking Arian Foster :wink1:

In all seriousness, this is very :goodposting:. There's minimal value in Rivers over Romo. There's huge value in discussing whether Schaub should be dropped to Tier 3, and Jon Stewart should be dropped behind Mendenhall, Charles, Gore, and ( gasp ) Foster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long does Austin need an incredible pace to no loner be considered a hot streak? It's been what now, 20 games?

His production so far this season would pro-rate to 122/1896/8. Austin is good, but he's not that good- that production level is unsustainable, which makes it a hot streak (albeit a mild one, because I wouldn't be shocked to see Austin put up even 100/1600 this year). I think the pushback on "hot streak" is that it seems to imply that a player is playing well over his head and we're all just waiting for the other shoe to drop. In this context, I just mean a player who is absolutely on fire. It's easy to go to bat for a guy when he's currently among the top-3/top-5/top-10 at his position. It's a lot harder to go to bat for a guy when he's currently ranked 46th at his position.

Also, to answer your question, it's been 17 games. :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games",

No it's not. It's incredibly hard to say someone like Brandon Lloyd deserves to be top 20 because we have a 7 year history of him being fool's gold, always injured, minicamp MVP who never does squat.It's pointless (but sometimes entertaining) to argue Romo vs. Rivers or VJax vs. Wayne last year because they're established players already valued. But low or no value players jumping into the upper echelon, and whether you buy high or not are vital questions.When someone, and I don't even remember who, argued Austin over Ocho 2 or 3 games into his breakout, people ridiculed him. I don't remember anyone taking his side. Whether to buy into Lloyd or not is a huge question. Similar issues with Collie and Floyd. A game or two from now, you might throw Kenny Britt into the mix. Or Mike Wallace. Or Braylon Edwards. Or James Jones.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games",

No it's not. It's incredibly hard to say someone like Brandon Lloyd deserves to be top 20 because we have a 7 year history of him being fool's gold, always injured, minicamp MVP who never does squat.It's pointless (but sometimes entertaining) to argue Romo vs. Rivers or VJax vs. Wayne last year because they're established players already valued. But low or no value players jumping into the upper echelon, and whether you buy high or not are vital questions.When someone, and I don't even remember who, argued Austin over Ocho 2 or 3 games into his breakout, people ridiculed him. I don't remember anyone taking his side. Whether to buy into Lloyd or not is a huge question. Similar issues with Collie and Floyd. A game or two from now, you might throw Kenny Britt into the mix. Or Mike Wallace. Or Braylon Edwards. Or James Jones.
I said it was easy, not that it was right. It is easy to say Lloyd or Collie should be higher. If anyone disagrees, you've got your rebuttal all laid out waiting for you. Just point to the standings. It's easy to go to bat for players who are lighting it up, because you have the weight of that production behind you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to weapons, Naanee has shown to be an average talent at best so far in his career, so I don't think it matters much how he ages... he is replaceable. However, I agree that Floyd and especially Gates would be hard to replace easily with comparable talent.ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

I say talent usually wins out, but Romo is plenty, plenty talented in his own right. It's not like he's Jon Kitna here, only posting huge yardage totals because of the system he plays in. Rivers and Romo are #1 and #2 in career ANY/A. Romo's not a top-5 QB, but he's easily a top-10 and still a stellar talent. In a normal era, Romo probably would be a top-5 QB, but we happen to be witnessing a golden age for QBs. So, when you've got a guy who is an elite-if-not-quite-uberelite QB talent who's got pretty much the best set of weapons in the entire NFL and a huge track record of success, there's nothing wrong with ranking him way up high. Hell, I think Tony Romo is as good of a QB as Aaron Rodgers, who currently sits at #1 in my rankings. I think he's a substantially better QB than Matt Schaub, who has risen as high as 5th in my rankings. And, again, he's on pace for 5400 yards of his own this season.Getting back to what F&L said a couple of years ago, and what I resurrected last year, it's easy to go to bat for a guy on a hot streak. It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games", or "Philip Rivers should be a top 3 QB, he's on pace to pass for like 6,000 yards!" or "Miles Austin should be the #1 dynasty WR, the dude is unstoppable!". It's also not particularly useful, since by the time a player is that white-hot, everyone in your league has noticed and that player's owner has undoubtedly turtled up and is refusing all reasonable (and even several unreasonably high) trade offers. Let's see some people going to bat for a player on a cold streak. Or let's see some people badmouthing a player on a hot streak. Let's see some analysis that is based more on the next 4 weeks than it is on the last 4 weeks. Instead of talking about whether Rivers should be over Romo or whether Orton deserves a spot in the top 6/8/10/whatever, why don't we spend some time discussing what QBs are going to catch fire and join those guys at the top in the coming weeks?
Great post. People's dislike for Romo transcends production, situation or reality. And what's funny is Rivers is way more of a doosh than Romo. There's not much he can do to change people's minds. People talk about the great weapons he has now...what about last year? Roy Williams was his #1 until Austin suddenly became a star. Romo has nothing to do with that, of course...Austin would be doing what he's doing with any quarterback. And if he had Rivers? He'd be making history.
Let's not forget Witten or the backfield. And he also enjoyed a WR by the name of TO for three years there. Edited by az_prof
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to weapons, Naanee has shown to be an average talent at best so far in his career, so I don't think it matters much how he ages... he is replaceable. However, I agree that Floyd and especially Gates would be hard to replace easily with comparable talent.ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

I say talent usually wins out, but Romo is plenty, plenty talented in his own right. It's not like he's Jon Kitna here, only posting huge yardage totals because of the system he plays in. Rivers and Romo are #1 and #2 in career ANY/A. Romo's not a top-5 QB, but he's easily a top-10 and still a stellar talent. In a normal era, Romo probably would be a top-5 QB, but we happen to be witnessing a golden age for QBs. So, when you've got a guy who is an elite-if-not-quite-uberelite QB talent who's got pretty much the best set of weapons in the entire NFL and a huge track record of success, there's nothing wrong with ranking him way up high. Hell, I think Tony Romo is as good of a QB as Aaron Rodgers, who currently sits at #1 in my rankings. I think he's a substantially better QB than Matt Schaub, who has risen as high as 5th in my rankings. And, again, he's on pace for 5400 yards of his own this season.Getting back to what F&L said a couple of years ago, and what I resurrected last year, it's easy to go to bat for a guy on a hot streak. It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games", or "Philip Rivers should be a top 3 QB, he's on pace to pass for like 6,000 yards!" or "Miles Austin should be the #1 dynasty WR, the dude is unstoppable!". It's also not particularly useful, since by the time a player is that white-hot, everyone in your league has noticed and that player's owner has undoubtedly turtled up and is refusing all reasonable (and even several unreasonably high) trade offers. Let's see some people going to bat for a player on a cold streak. Or let's see some people badmouthing a player on a hot streak. Let's see some analysis that is based more on the next 4 weeks than it is on the last 4 weeks. Instead of talking about whether Rivers should be over Romo or whether Orton deserves a spot in the top 6/8/10/whatever, why don't we spend some time discussing what QBs are going to catch fire and join those guys at the top in the coming weeks?
First off, I like Romo, I'm not a Romo basher. I wouldn't have commented if the discussion was ranking Romo over Rivers; I think that is perfectly reasonable for many reasons, including the ones you've mentioned. The thing that caused me to respond is that I think I've seen you tout talent over situation many times, and I just saw you post that you think Rivers is more talented than Romo, so to rank Romo higher seems inconsistent to me.In this response you resort to saying Romo isn't Jon Kitna. Who made a comparison like that? I already referred to splitting hairs in this comparison. This is more like the discussions we've had about Fitz vs. Andre Johnson or other stud WRs IMO. You rank Fitz higher because you cite talent over situation. As someone who makes a lot of good, well reasoned, and thorough posts on methodology, I was hoping you would explain the inconsistency. I don't think you've done that here. I mean, you gave an explanation, but it essentially amounts to saying you are choosing situation over talent in this comparison. Maybe the truth is that you only favor talent over situation sometimes, I don't know. You didn't say.And, yes, I agree that discussing Rivers vs. Romo isn't as useful as if we were to discuss other QBs and settle on the next Rivers or Romo (and be right)... but that kind of thinking hasn't stopped you from discussing Fitz vs. other stud WRs, etc. What's the difference? These are players who could be dynasty cornerstones for many years to come. Typically we go with that kind of discussion in this thread.All that said, we can move on if you prefer not to discuss it further.
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, GO DEEP, Others:Any plan to bump Roy Williams WR up? He is looking like a legit #2 with a solid redzone bonus. He is only 28 and has plenty of juice left. He is on pace for 1,100/12. Even if that doesn't hold up, 1,000/9 would still be great WR2 numbers. Thoughts?

C'mon, man, it's easy to go to bat for a player like Williams, who is hot. Dig deeper.:confused:
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, GO DEEP, Others:Any plan to bump Roy Williams WR up? He is looking like a legit #2 with a solid redzone bonus. He is only 28 and has plenty of juice left. He is on pace for 1,100/12. Even if that doesn't hold up, 1,000/9 would still be great WR2 numbers. Thoughts?

Biggest issue I have here is that Austin and Dez are both young, and Dez is absolutely an elite talent, I can only see his role going up. At a certain point, where is Roy going to get fed from? I see his eventual best case being a Stokely or Breaston type of fleeting success for maybe another year, and then he moves on or extends his contract but plays an even smaller role.I don;t think Williams will get his until after Dez, Miles, and Witten next year, and maybe even at the end of this year.
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, GO DEEP, Others:Any plan to bump Roy Williams WR up? He is looking like a legit #2 with a solid redzone bonus. He is only 28 and has plenty of juice left. He is on pace for 1,100/12. Even if that doesn't hold up, 1,000/9 would still be great WR2 numbers. Thoughts?

C'mon, man, it's easy to go to bat for a player like Williams, who is hot. Dig deeper.:rolleyes:
No doubt. Just curios about everyone's opinion.My big "dig deep" this year was Davonne Bess. He as worked out pretty well, and I think that will continue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, GO DEEP, Others:Any plan to bump Roy Williams WR up? He is looking like a legit #2 with a solid redzone bonus. He is only 28 and has plenty of juice left. He is on pace for 1,100/12. Even if that doesn't hold up, 1,000/9 would still be great WR2 numbers. Thoughts?

Biggest issue I have here is that Austin and Dez are both young, and Dez is absolutely an elite talent, I can only see his role going up. At a certain point, where is Roy going to get fed from? I see his eventual best case being a Stokely or Breaston type of fleeting success for maybe another year, and then he moves on or extends his contract but plays an even smaller role.I don;t think Williams will get his until after Dez, Miles, and Witten next year, and maybe even at the end of this year.
I would just like to take this opportunity to stress what an absolute BUY LOW Dez Bryant is right now. He is in an interesting place where it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Bryant has elite ability, but it has not translated into big numbers yet. It is possible that the Bryant in your owner will be too savvy to pay much attention to this, but it is also possible that they are afraid that Austin takes too many targets, and maybe even that Roy Williams is emerging, and the opportunity just is not going to be there for Bryant. If so, people really need to try and get him.I am sure many other posters have said the same thing, I just want to reiterate it - a year from now it will be a no-brainer.Regards,THE FANTASY KING
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to weapons, Naanee has shown to be an average talent at best so far in his career, so I don't think it matters much how he ages... he is replaceable. However, I agree that Floyd and especially Gates would be hard to replace easily with comparable talent.ETA: I find it interesting that you are saying Rivers is more talented but you would take Romo. Aren't you a guy who believes talent trumps situation? And Rivers is a year and a half younger than Romo... not a big deal, but if we are splitting hairs, the edge goes to Rivers in that area.

I say talent usually wins out, but Romo is plenty, plenty talented in his own right. It's not like he's Jon Kitna here, only posting huge yardage totals because of the system he plays in. Rivers and Romo are #1 and #2 in career ANY/A. Romo's not a top-5 QB, but he's easily a top-10 and still a stellar talent. In a normal era, Romo probably would be a top-5 QB, but we happen to be witnessing a golden age for QBs. So, when you've got a guy who is an elite-if-not-quite-uberelite QB talent who's got pretty much the best set of weapons in the entire NFL and a huge track record of success, there's nothing wrong with ranking him way up high. Hell, I think Tony Romo is as good of a QB as Aaron Rodgers, who currently sits at #1 in my rankings. I think he's a substantially better QB than Matt Schaub, who has risen as high as 5th in my rankings. And, again, he's on pace for 5400 yards of his own this season.Getting back to what F&L said a couple of years ago, and what I resurrected last year, it's easy to go to bat for a guy on a hot streak. It's easy to sit here today and say "Austin Collie should be a top 20 receiver, he's been blazing hot!" or "Brandon Lloyd should be a top 20 receiver, he has almost 600 receiving yards through 5 games", or "Philip Rivers should be a top 3 QB, he's on pace to pass for like 6,000 yards!" or "Miles Austin should be the #1 dynasty WR, the dude is unstoppable!". It's also not particularly useful, since by the time a player is that white-hot, everyone in your league has noticed and that player's owner has undoubtedly turtled up and is refusing all reasonable (and even several unreasonably high) trade offers. Let's see some people going to bat for a player on a cold streak. Or let's see some people badmouthing a player on a hot streak. Let's see some analysis that is based more on the next 4 weeks than it is on the last 4 weeks. Instead of talking about whether Rivers should be over Romo or whether Orton deserves a spot in the top 6/8/10/whatever, why don't we spend some time discussing what QBs are going to catch fire and join those guys at the top in the coming weeks?
First off, I like Romo, I'm not a Romo basher. I wouldn't have commented if the discussion was ranking Romo over Rivers; I think that is perfectly reasonable for many reasons, including the ones you've mentioned. The thing that caused me to respond is that I think I've seen you tout talent over situation many times, and I just saw you post that you think Rivers is more talented than Romo, so to rank Romo higher seems inconsistent to me.In this response you resort to saying Romo isn't Jon Kitna. Who made a comparison like that? I already referred to splitting hairs in this comparison. This is more like the discussions we've had about Fitz vs. Andre Johnson or other stud WRs IMO. You rank Fitz higher because you cite talent over situation. As someone who makes a lot of good, well reasoned, and thorough posts on methodology, I was hoping you would explain the inconsistency. I don't think you've done that here. I mean, you gave an explanation, but it essentially amounts to saying you are choosing situation over talent in this comparison. Maybe the truth is that you only favor talent over situation sometimes, I don't know. You didn't say.And, yes, I agree that discussing Rivers vs. Romo isn't as useful as if we were to discuss other QBs and settle on the next Rivers or Romo (and be right)... but that kind of thinking hasn't stopped you from discussing Fitz vs. other stud WRs, etc. What's the difference? These are players who could be dynasty cornerstones for many years to come. Typically we go with that kind of discussion in this thread.All that said, we can move on if you prefer not to discuss it further.
The way I'm interpreting it: when the difference in talent is equal to the difference in situation, talent wins out. However, it's a question of degrees. It's possible to be a little bit less talented, but in a far superior situation. Try and find an austin collie owner who'd trade him for Lee Evans right now. Obviously that's an extreme example and Rivers has the bonus of current production, but the point is that what SSOG's saying makes sense assuming it's based on degrees of difference as opposed to just saying "talent wins over situation...except this one time" like he decided that at random.Frankly I'm biased as I was a huge proponent of Romo in the offseason (and drafted him in a dyno startup auction this offseason based on the strength of his weapons), but I don't feel like Rivers' production is sustainable...his numbers are giving off shades of Eli Manning at the beginning of last season (albeit much more talented, which I wouldn't argue against).
Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I like Romo, I'm not a Romo basher. I wouldn't have commented if the discussion was ranking Romo over Rivers; I think that is perfectly reasonable for many reasons, including the ones you've mentioned. The thing that caused me to respond is that I think I've seen you tout talent over situation many times, and I just saw you post that you think Rivers is more talented than Romo, so to rank Romo higher seems inconsistent to me.

In this response you resort to saying Romo isn't Jon Kitna. Who made a comparison like that? I already referred to splitting hairs in this comparison. This is more like the discussions we've had about Fitz vs. Andre Johnson or other stud WRs IMO. You rank Fitz higher because you cite talent over situation. As someone who makes a lot of good, well reasoned, and thorough posts on methodology, I was hoping you would explain the inconsistency. I don't think you've done that here. I mean, you gave an explanation, but it essentially amounts to saying you are choosing situation over talent in this comparison. Maybe the truth is that you only favor talent over situation sometimes, I don't know. You didn't say.

And, yes, I agree that discussing Rivers vs. Romo isn't as useful as if we were to discuss other QBs and settle on the next Rivers or Romo (and be right)... but that kind of thinking hasn't stopped you from discussing Fitz vs. other stud WRs, etc. What's the difference? These are players who could be dynasty cornerstones for many years to come. Typically we go with that kind of discussion in this thread.

All that said, we can move on if you prefer not to discuss it further.

I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear. I never intended for my "let's discuss some currently cold players" line to be interpreted as "let's discuss some currently cold players instead of what we're already discussing". I meant it more as a "let's discuss some currently cold players in addition to what we're already discussing. Obviously I have no problem discussing pretty much anything and everything that comes up (or else I wouldn't keep banging my metaphorical head against the proverbial wall every time someone decided to tell me I've got VJax ranked too high). I was just trying to incite some additional discussion about some subjects and players that are getting a lot less play for one reason or another.

As for Rivers/Romo vs. Fitzgerald/Andre... it's an interesting question. I'll do my best to explain the seeming inconsistency, but I'm afraid it doesn't have a really simple answer.

Factor #1- the nature of the QB position vs. the nature of the WR position.

A theory that I've long held but never really worked up is that, while elite WR production is almost entirely a function of talent, elite QB production is frequently a function of situation. I think all an elite WR needs to produce is a not-terrible situation, while in order for a QB to finish in the top 5, he frequently needs a fantastic situation. You've had recent top-5 finishes from guys like Matt Schaub, Marc Bulger, Jon Kitna, Aaron Brooks, Jake Plummer, etc. I may be off in this, but my gut is that situation plays a larger role with respect to QBs than it does to WRs.

Factor #2- I view the situation difference between Fitz and Andre to be a shorter-term imbalance than the one between Romo and Rivers.

This is a big one. I don't think it will take much for Fitzgerald's situation to go from terrible to a non-factor. Calvin was huge with Dan Orlovsky under center. Smiff was huge with Jake Delhomme under center (and again with Matt Moore under center). It's not going to take much to tip Fitzgerald into stone-cold top-10 lock territory again. We might have even seen the first phase of the transition last week as over half of Hall's yards went to Fitz. In addition, I think Andre's situation is more tenuous than people give it credit for. People seem to forget now that halfway through last season, people thought it was likely that Kubiak was gone. Matt Schaub is not as talented as his stats indicate, and much as I hate the "injury prone" label (especially a it applies to Schaub, whose injuries were mostly the result of cheapshots), the fact remains that Schaub *DOES* have an injury history, and the Texans are one bad hit away from the Orlovsky/Leinart era (/error). I view the situation difference there as a fleeting, short-term imbalance. Meanwhile, the situation difference between Romo and Rivers looks to be a longer-term one. Romo's weapons are only going to get better. Rivers' weapons look more likely to get worse than better. I also still don't trust Norv Turner, and it certainly doesn't look like he'll be going anywhere any time soon.

Not huge differences, sure, but enough to keep Romo over Rivers while still keeping Fitz over AJ.

I would just like to take this opportunity to stress what an absolute BUY LOW Dez Bryant is right now. He is in an interesting place where it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Bryant has elite ability, but it has not translated into big numbers yet. It is possible that the Bryant in your owner will be too savvy to pay much attention to this, but it is also possible that they are afraid that Austin takes too many targets, and maybe even that Roy Williams is emerging, and the opportunity just is not going to be there for Bryant. If so, people really need to try and get him.

I am sure many other posters have said the same thing, I just want to reiterate it - a year from now it will be a no-brainer.

Regards,

THE FANTASY KING

I question what Bryant owners are going to be bailing on him after 5 weeks, but if you can get him, then get him. I also second EBF's Bey-Bey recommendation. He's kind of got the DHB effect going on (people think he was a reach, so they pretend he was never a legit 1st round talent in the first place), so I could definitely see you sneaking him out from under someone.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I like Romo, I'm not a Romo basher. I wouldn't have commented if the discussion was ranking Romo over Rivers; I think that is perfectly reasonable for many reasons, including the ones you've mentioned. The thing that caused me to respond is that I think I've seen you tout talent over situation many times, and I just saw you post that you think Rivers is more talented than Romo, so to rank Romo higher seems inconsistent to me.

In this response you resort to saying Romo isn't Jon Kitna. Who made a comparison like that? I already referred to splitting hairs in this comparison. This is more like the discussions we've had about Fitz vs. Andre Johnson or other stud WRs IMO. You rank Fitz higher because you cite talent over situation. As someone who makes a lot of good, well reasoned, and thorough posts on methodology, I was hoping you would explain the inconsistency. I don't think you've done that here. I mean, you gave an explanation, but it essentially amounts to saying you are choosing situation over talent in this comparison. Maybe the truth is that you only favor talent over situation sometimes, I don't know. You didn't say.

And, yes, I agree that discussing Rivers vs. Romo isn't as useful as if we were to discuss other QBs and settle on the next Rivers or Romo (and be right)... but that kind of thinking hasn't stopped you from discussing Fitz vs. other stud WRs, etc. What's the difference? These are players who could be dynasty cornerstones for many years to come. Typically we go with that kind of discussion in this thread.

All that said, we can move on if you prefer not to discuss it further.

I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear. I never intended for my "let's discuss some currently cold players" line to be interpreted as "let's discuss some currently cold players instead of what we're already discussing". I meant it more as a "let's discuss some currently cold players in addition to what we're already discussing. Obviously I have no problem discussing pretty much anything and everything that comes up (or else I wouldn't keep banging my metaphorical head against the proverbial wall every time someone decided to tell me I've got VJax ranked too high). I was just trying to incite some additional discussion about some subjects and players that are getting a lot less play for one reason or another.

As for Rivers/Romo vs. Fitzgerald/Andre... it's an interesting question. I'll do my best to explain the seeming inconsistency, but I'm afraid it doesn't have a really simple answer.

Factor #1- the nature of the QB position vs. the nature of the WR position.

A theory that I've long held but never really worked up is that, while elite WR production is almost entirely a function of talent, elite QB production is frequently a function of situation. I think all an elite WR needs to produce is a not-terrible situation, while in order for a QB to finish in the top 5, he frequently needs a fantastic situation. You've had recent top-5 finishes from guys like Matt Schaub, Marc Bulger, Jon Kitna, Aaron Brooks, Jake Plummer, etc. I may be off in this, but my gut is that situation plays a larger role with respect to QBs than it does to WRs.

Factor #2- I view the situation difference between Fitz and Andre to be a shorter-term imbalance than the one between Romo and Rivers.

This is a big one. I don't think it will take much for Fitzgerald's situation to go from terrible to a non-factor. Calvin was huge with Dan Orlovsky under center. Smiff was huge with Jake Delhomme under center (and again with Matt Moore under center). It's not going to take much to tip Fitzgerald into stone-cold top-10 lock territory again. We might have even seen the first phase of the transition last week as over half of Hall's yards went to Fitz. In addition, I think Andre's situation is more tenuous than people give it credit for. People seem to forget now that halfway through last season, people thought it was likely that Kubiak was gone. Matt Schaub is not as talented as his stats indicate, and much as I hate the "injury prone" label (especially a it applies to Schaub, whose injuries were mostly the result of cheapshots), the fact remains that Schaub *DOES* have an injury history, and the Texans are one bad hit away from the Orlovsky/Leinart era (/error). I view the situation difference there as a fleeting, short-term imbalance. Meanwhile, the situation difference between Romo and Rivers looks to be a longer-term one. Romo's weapons are only going to get better. Rivers' weapons look more likely to get worse than better. I also still don't trust Norv Turner, and it certainly doesn't look like he'll be going anywhere any time soon.

Not huge differences, sure, but enough to keep Romo over Rivers while still keeping Fitz over AJ.

Thanks for the expanded explanation. This makes more sense. Though I would point out that, whatever you think of Norv as a head coach, he has been great for the offense in general and the passing offense specifically. Rivers has blossomed under his coaching and offense. If he is replaced, who knows what will happen? I wouldn't assume it would be good for Rivers' fantasy numbers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the expanded explanation. This makes more sense. Though I would point out that, whatever you think of Norv as a head coach, he has been great for the offense in general and the passing offense specifically. Rivers has blossomed under his coaching and offense. If he is replaced, who knows what will happen? I wouldn't assume it would be good for Rivers' fantasy numbers.

San Diego's passing offense has been incredibly efficient, there's no denying that, but I don't know if that's on Rivers or on Turner. There is one thing that's on Turner, though- 460, 460, 478, 486. Those are Rivers' attempt totals over the last 4 seasons. This year is the first time in Rivers' career that he's ranked in the top 10 in passing attempts- and even this year he only ranks 8th. Without Turner in town, I like Rivers' chances of improving on those attempt totals.487, 520, 553, 550. Those are Romo's attempt totals over the last 4 years, pro-rated where applicable. What do you think Rivers could do with an extra 70 passes a season?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on how Finley's injury affects his dynasty value, if at all?

Semi-related, how do you guys tend to value an elite TE relative to other players (in a standard scoring system)? One of my teams has an offer on the table that would give me Finley. I'm trying to figure out how much it's worth to get him now given he may not contribute this year. I have traded a lot to get elite RBs and WRs in the past, just haven't done it for a TE before.

Is he a guy you guys would overpay to get at this point?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the expanded explanation. This makes more sense. Though I would point out that, whatever you think of Norv as a head coach, he has been great for the offense in general and the passing offense specifically. Rivers has blossomed under his coaching and offense. If he is replaced, who knows what will happen? I wouldn't assume it would be good for Rivers' fantasy numbers.

San Diego's passing offense has been incredibly efficient, there's no denying that, but I don't know if that's on Rivers or on Turner. There is one thing that's on Turner, though- 460, 460, 478, 486. Those are Rivers' attempt totals over the last 4 seasons. This year is the first time in Rivers' career that he's ranked in the top 10 in passing attempts- and even this year he only ranks 8th. Without Turner in town, I like Rivers' chances of improving on those attempt totals.487, 520, 553, 550. Those are Romo's attempt totals over the last 4 years, pro-rated where applicable. What do you think Rivers could do with an extra 70 passes a season?
OK, good point. Any loss in efficiency could be offset by more attempts. That said, I still don't think it is a given that Turner leaving means an improvement for Rivers fantasy-wise.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to take this opportunity to stress what an absolute BUY LOW Dez Bryant is right now. He is in an interesting place where it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Bryant has elite ability, but it has not translated into big numbers yet. It is possible that the Bryant in your owner will be too savvy to pay much attention to this, but it is also possible that they are afraid that Austin takes too many targets, and maybe even that Roy Williams is emerging, and the opportunity just is not going to be there for Bryant. If so, people really need to try and get him.

I agree, although you'll only get an inexperienced / and / or panicky dynasty owner to give up Bryant. I wouldn't trade him for anything but a top 10 WR or RB.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on how Finley's injury affects his dynasty value, if at all?

Semi-related, how do you guys tend to value an elite TE relative to other players (in a standard scoring system)? One of my teams has an offer on the table that would give me Finley. I'm trying to figure out how much it's worth to get him now given he may not contribute this year. I have traded a lot to get elite RBs and WRs in the past, just haven't done it for a TE before.

Is he a guy you guys would overpay to get at this point?

First off, some background. I'm a big-time fan of stud TEs in all formats. I played in 7 leagues this year, and my TEs in those leagues are Clark x2, Finley x2, Gates x2, Keller x3, Witten x1, and Hernandez x1. I've argued in favor of the stud TE every year since I first joined, and I always put my money where my mouth is. Back in May 2006, I said I'd take Antonio Gates #5 overall in a startup dynasty draft... and the craziest part is, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have even been a great move (the players FBGs had ranked in the 5-10 range at that time were Ronnie Brown, Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush, Lamont Jordan, and Rudi Johnson- I think it's safe to say that Gates has handily outperformed all of those guys except for Jackson by a HUGE margin, while Gates vs. SJax has been pretty much a wash in terms of VBD-to-date since then- 312 VBD for SJax, 300 for Gates). I also think that TE's have been my biggest position of strength in the past in terms of predicting future performance and identifying breakout stars before they're chic picks (I had Dustin Keller as my #4 dynasty TE going into last year, had labeled Finley as an immediate buy before he blew up at the end of last season, and have been vocal in my support of both Owen Daniels and Vernon Davis against heavy criticism). Now, that might all just be dumb luck and statistical noise, but the end result is that I love TEs, and I think I'm very good at figuring out which TEs to target.

With that said, right now's a weird time for TEs. When I declared Gates a top-5 dynasty pick, he was 25 years old (about to turn 26) and coming off back-to-back first team AP All Pro seasons. He was both young and proven. Today, all of the TEs are either young (Finley, Hernandez, Keller, Davis), or they're proven (Gates, Clark). The only guys who are both young and proven aren't difference makers- they're your Wittens and Winslows (and even they aren't that young- Witten is 28 and Winslow is 27). The result is that there is no 2006 Antonio Gates out there- nobody who I'd sell the farm to acquire. Jermichael Finley looked really nice, and there's a solid chance that he becomes a cheap facsimile of 2006 Antonio Gates (for all the Finley hype, I think it's going to be a while before we see anyone as good as Gates at the TE position). I like him, and I'd be looking to acquire him from panicking owners, but I'm not going to be trading a core stud at another position to get him. A rock solid WR2? Yeah, I'll make that trade- a Colston for Finley or a Harvin for Finley. But no Vjax-for-Finley or Dez-for-Finley deals.

The nicest thing about owning a stud TE, though, is the long-term security. Few guys are as consistently good from year to year as the true difference-maker TEs. Tony Gonzalez's season-ending VBD rank was 36th or better in 9 out of the 10 seasons from 1999-2008, meaning if you'd drafted him with the first pick of the 4th round in each season (pick #37), he would have outperformed his draft spot 90% of the time. The one time he didn't meet the cutoff, he finished 45th in season-ending VBD (meaning worth a mid-4th, but not quite worth an early 4th). And Gonzo had explosive upside beyond that- he finished 13th or better in season-ending VBD in 5 of those 10 seasons. That's an entire decade of being undervalued. With other players like Tiki Barber, after they're undervalued for a couple of seasons the public catches on and starts drafting them higher, but Gonzo managed to get underestimated for an entire decade. Gates is, if anything, even more underrated- he's finished 20th or better in season-ending VBD in 5 of the past 6 seasons, and is obviously on pace to make it 6 of 7. Included in that total is two top-10 finishes, and so far this year he's standing 2nd in VBD. Most people have no clue what a devastating advantage it is if you can get an Antonio Gates or a Tony Gonzalez at the beginning of their career. As a Finley owner in a dynasty league, I desperately hope that Finley can live up to the hype and merit mention in the same breath as those two luminaries, because a 24-year old TE of that caliber is probably the most valuable dynasty asset short of a true, honest-to-goodness HoF-caliber RB like Tomlinson or Faulk. He won't single-handedly win you any seasons (although Gates has come awfully close in the past, and is doing his best to make a liar of me this season), but just possessing that steady and sizeable advantage for an entire decade adds up to so much value over that span.

Sorry for meandering all around the topic. I tend to ramble once I've gotten a couple drinks in me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those that have Best ranked a lot higher than CJ Spiller: Do you like Best's talent more and did you like him more before the NFL Draft? I would take Best over Spiller, based on what we have seen this season, so far. But I viewed them as pretty close after the NFL draft. I like Spiller more before the draft. But I seem to have them ranked closer than most, at this point in their careers.

I've been debating the same thing. I feel like Spiller is more valuable for the long term because he doesn't appear as fragile as Best (concussions, turf toe) but Best is in a better situation for playing time. Best also has no competition which is huge. They are probably about even considering Spiller is probably the better overall talent.
But one must ask himself WHY is Best in a better situation with "no competition" for playing time? Is it because the competition that Spiller has is so much better than the competition Best has? I mean, are you seriously going to tell me that Buffalo is a harder team to crack than Detriot? Are you going to tell me that Fred Jackson is better than Kevin Smith? Of course not. If anything, Kevin Smith is better and Detriot is a better team and thus tougher to get into the starting lineup. The reason Best is the feature back and Spiller is not should be a red flag for Spiller. Buffalo is the worst team in the NFL and Fred is probably the worst starting RB in the NFL, so how is it that Spiller cannot get significant playing time and Best can? Either the coaches value things differently (a possibility) or Best is simply a far better player, he can grasp the offense better, he works harder, he has more talent, he is better at picking up blitzes and different packages, etc.The fact that Best is the premier back in and of itself raises his value far more than Spiller, not simply due to opportunity this year, but it is a measure of Best's advancement and value versus Spiller's. I got lucky picking up Best in my keeper league startup this year. This is my main money league and i got Best with my 37th overall pick. The only reason i didn't take Spiller was because someone else had taken him already, and Best was my backup. I lucked into the situation, but nevertheless, with the info we have now, Best's value is far higher than Spiller's moving forward.
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, good point. Any loss in efficiency could be offset by more attempts. That said, I still don't think it is a given that Turner leaving means an improvement for Rivers fantasy-wise.

Full disclosure: I really have it out for Norv Turner. I think he's the head coach equivalent of Ted Cottrell as a defensive coordinator. In other words, he's below-average at best, but he must have nude pictures of somebody, because he keeps on getting 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th chances. His record with the Chargers is sterling, but I still feel like the Chargers have underperformed with him at the helm. I also think he's overrated as an offensive coordinator (I think he's a good-but-not-great coordinator who has been coasting on the backs of that amazing mid-90s Cowboys offensive line). Is this hatred fair? Maybe not. Is it rational? Maybe not. Is it built on selection bias and confirmation bias and the primacy effect and any number of other cognitive biases? There's certainly a chance. Is it possible that I just have a glaring blind spot when it comes to Norv Turner and I'm humanly incapable of giving him a fair shake? Yes, that's absolutely possible. But regardless, I've made it clear how I feel and why I feel that way. When I see a guy who has one of the top 5 QBs in the NFL and refuses to use him, I think the guy is a clown and a fool, and I think that his team would be better off without him.

Buy low on Greg Jennings before it's too late.Other WRs to buy:Marques ColstonBraylon EdwardsPierre Garcon

Funny, that's pretty much a list of WRs that I want absolutely nothing to do with right now. I could see buying Garcon as a cheaper-than-he-should-be lottery ticket, but I want no part of the New Orleans or Green Bay receiver cluster@$*%s, and I also have zero faith in Braylon Edwards to continue performing like he has been so far.That's the nice thing about dynasty leagues. Reasonable owners disagree strongly on player values. It certainly makes trading much more interesting.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those that have Best ranked a lot higher than CJ Spiller: Do you like Best's talent more and did you like him more before the NFL Draft?

I would take Best over Spiller, based on what we have seen this season, so far. But I viewed them as pretty close after the NFL draft. I like Spiller more before the draft. But I seem to have them ranked closer than most, at this point in their careers.

I've been debating the same thing. I feel like Spiller is more valuable for the long term because he doesn't appear as fragile as Best (concussions, turf toe) but Best is in a better situation for playing time. Best also has no competition which is huge. They are probably about even considering Spiller is probably the better overall talent.

But one must ask himself WHY is Best in a better situation with "no competition" for playing time? Is it because the competition that Spiller has is so much better than the competition Best has? I mean, are you seriously going to tell me that Buffalo is a harder team to crack than Detriot? Are you going to tell me that Fred Jackson is better than Kevin Smith? Of course not. If anything, Kevin Smith is better and Detriot is a better team and thus tougher to get into the starting lineup. The reason Best is the feature back and Spiller is not should be a red flag for Spiller. Buffalo is the worst team in the NFL and Fred is probably the worst starting RB in the NFL, so how is it that Spiller cannot get significant playing time and Best can? Either the coaches value things differently (a possibility) or Best is simply a far better player, he can grasp the offense better, he works harder, he has more talent, he is better at picking up blitzes and different packages, etc.

The fact that Best is the premier back in and of itself raises his value far more than Spiller, not simply due to opportunity this year, but it is a measure of Best's advancement and value versus Spiller's. I got lucky picking up Best in my keeper league startup this year. This is my main money league and i got Best with my 37th overall pick. The only reason i didn't take Spiller was because someone else had taken him already, and Best was my backup. I lucked into the situation, but nevertheless, with the info we have now, Best's value is far higher than Spiller's moving forward.

:cry:

No love for Fred Jackson? Dude had 1400 yards from scrimmage last year. Dude has 4.6 career ypc despite playing all of his days on that mess of a franchise. I could probably name 10 teams that don't have a single back as good as Fred Jackson without even getting too controversial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG, GO DEEP, Others:

Any plan to bump Roy Williams WR up? He is looking like a legit #2 with a solid redzone bonus. He is only 28 and has plenty of juice left. He is on pace for 1,100/12. Even if that doesn't hold up, 1,000/9 would still be great WR2 numbers. Thoughts?

Biggest issue I have here is that Austin and Dez are both young, and Dez is absolutely an elite talent, I can only see his role going up. At a certain point, where is Roy going to get fed from? I see his eventual best case being a Stokely or Breaston type of fleeting success for maybe another year, and then he moves on or extends his contract but plays an even smaller role.

I don;t think Williams will get his until after Dez, Miles, and Witten next year, and maybe even at the end of this year.

I would just like to take this opportunity to stress what an absolute BUY LOW Dez Bryant is right now. He is in an interesting place where it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Bryant has elite ability, but it has not translated into big numbers yet. It is possible that the Bryant in your owner will be too savvy to pay much attention to this, but it is also possible that they are afraid that Austin takes too many targets, and maybe even that Roy Williams is emerging, and the opportunity just is not going to be there for Bryant. If so, people really need to try and get him.

I am sure many other posters have said the same thing, I just want to reiterate it - a year from now it will be a no-brainer.

Regards,

THE FANTASY KING

Can you expand on this, or give us an example or two of what you mean by "buy low?" Bryant was a top 2 pick and hasn't been moved in a single league of mine. History tells me that dynasty owners are not willing to move top 3 picks so easily 6 weeks into their rookie season. Just curious..

ETA: I see I'm the 34th person who has jumped on this.

Edited by GreatLakesMike
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for those that have Best ranked a lot higher than CJ Spiller: Do you like Best's talent more and did you like him more before the NFL Draft? I would take Best over Spiller, based on what we have seen this season, so far. But I viewed them as pretty close after the NFL draft. I like Spiller more before the draft. But I seem to have them ranked closer than most, at this point in their careers.

Best reminded me of a young Marshall Faulk before the draft. That he landed on turf with a nice looking young nucleus with Stafford/Johnson just widened the gap between him and Spiller. If Best dedicates himself to the weight room like McCoy/Rice did after year 1, scary to think how good he could be. I was not a big McCoy fan after last year (because he wasn't physically close to ready), but he's definitely improved there.I had the big question most did with Spiller -- running in the tackles consistently. That he landed in Buffalo did downgrade him lower in my book. I don't like "wasted years" at RB (life span is too short) and I feel like Spiller's really got an even greater uphill battle in Buffalo than he would with a more stable (and talented) organization. I just believe Spiller's going to be feast or famine in Buffalo (where he's got to break the big play for value as Buffalo will have limited shots near the endzone).Just my :cry:.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on how Finley's injury affects his dynasty value, if at all?

Semi-related, how do you guys tend to value an elite TE relative to other players (in a standard scoring system)? One of my teams has an offer on the table that would give me Finley. I'm trying to figure out how much it's worth to get him now given he may not contribute this year. I have traded a lot to get elite RBs and WRs in the past, just haven't done it for a TE before.

Is he a guy you guys would overpay to get at this point?

First off, some background. I'm a big-time fan of stud TEs in all formats. I played in 7 leagues this year, and my TEs in those leagues are Clark x2, Finley x2, Gates x2, Keller x3, Witten x1, and Hernandez x1. I've argued in favor of the stud TE every year since I first joined, and I always put my money where my mouth is. Back in May 2006, I said I'd take Antonio Gates #5 overall in a startup dynasty draft... and the craziest part is, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have even been a great move (the players FBGs had ranked in the 5-10 range at that time were Ronnie Brown, Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush, Lamont Jordan, and Rudi Johnson- I think it's safe to say that Gates has handily outperformed all of those guys except for Jackson by a HUGE margin, while Gates vs. SJax has been pretty much a wash in terms of VBD-to-date since then- 312 VBD for SJax, 300 for Gates). I also think that TE's have been my biggest position of strength in the past in terms of predicting future performance and identifying breakout stars before they're chic picks (I had Dustin Keller as my #4 dynasty TE going into last year, had labeled Finley as an immediate buy before he blew up at the end of last season, and have been vocal in my support of both Owen Daniels and Vernon Davis against heavy criticism). Now, that might all just be dumb luck and statistical noise, but the end result is that I love TEs, and I think I'm very good at figuring out which TEs to target.

With that said, right now's a weird time for TEs. When I declared Gates a top-5 dynasty pick, he was 25 years old (about to turn 26) and coming off back-to-back first team AP All Pro seasons. He was both young and proven. Today, all of the TEs are either young (Finley, Hernandez, Keller, Davis), or they're proven (Gates, Clark). The only guys who are both young and proven aren't difference makers- they're your Wittens and Winslows (and even they aren't that young- Witten is 28 and Winslow is 27). The result is that there is no 2006 Antonio Gates out there- nobody who I'd sell the farm to acquire. Jermichael Finley looked really nice, and there's a solid chance that he becomes a cheap facsimile of 2006 Antonio Gates (for all the Finley hype, I think it's going to be a while before we see anyone as good as Gates at the TE position). I like him, and I'd be looking to acquire him from panicking owners, but I'm not going to be trading a core stud at another position to get him. A rock solid WR2? Yeah, I'll make that trade- a Colston for Finley or a Harvin for Finley. But no Vjax-for-Finley or Dez-for-Finley deals.

The nicest thing about owning a stud TE, though, is the long-term security. Few guys are as consistently good from year to year as the true difference-maker TEs. Tony Gonzalez's season-ending VBD rank was 36th or better in 9 out of the 10 seasons from 1999-2008, meaning if you'd drafted him with the first pick of the 4th round in each season (pick #37), he would have outperformed his draft spot 90% of the time. The one time he didn't meet the cutoff, he finished 45th in season-ending VBD (meaning worth a mid-4th, but not quite worth an early 4th). And Gonzo had explosive upside beyond that- he finished 13th or better in season-ending VBD in 5 of those 10 seasons. That's an entire decade of being undervalued. With other players like Tiki Barber, after they're undervalued for a couple of seasons the public catches on and starts drafting them higher, but Gonzo managed to get underestimated for an entire decade. Gates is, if anything, even more underrated- he's finished 20th or better in season-ending VBD in 5 of the past 6 seasons, and is obviously on pace to make it 6 of 7. Included in that total is two top-10 finishes, and so far this year he's standing 2nd in VBD. Most people have no clue what a devastating advantage it is if you can get an Antonio Gates or a Tony Gonzalez at the beginning of their career. As a Finley owner in a dynasty league, I desperately hope that Finley can live up to the hype and merit mention in the same breath as those two luminaries, because a 24-year old TE of that caliber is probably the most valuable dynasty asset short of a true, honest-to-goodness HoF-caliber RB like Tomlinson or Faulk. He won't single-handedly win you any seasons (although Gates has come awfully close in the past, and is doing his best to make a liar of me this season), but just possessing that steady and sizeable advantage for an entire decade adds up to so much value over that span.

Sorry for meandering all around the topic. I tend to ramble once I've gotten a couple drinks in me.

Thanks for the reply. I've decided to make the deal and your stance just reinforces my decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on how Finley's injury affects his dynasty value, if at all?

Semi-related, how do you guys tend to value an elite TE relative to other players (in a standard scoring system)? One of my teams has an offer on the table that would give me Finley. I'm trying to figure out how much it's worth to get him now given he may not contribute this year. I have traded a lot to get elite RBs and WRs in the past, just haven't done it for a TE before.

Is he a guy you guys would overpay to get at this point?

First off, some background. I'm a big-time fan of stud TEs in all formats. I played in 7 leagues this year, and my TEs in those leagues are Clark x2, Finley x2, Gates x2, Keller x3, Witten x1, and Hernandez x1. I've argued in favor of the stud TE every year since I first joined, and I always put my money where my mouth is. Back in May 2006, I said I'd take Antonio Gates #5 overall in a startup dynasty draft... and the craziest part is, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have even been a great move (the players FBGs had ranked in the 5-10 range at that time were Ronnie Brown, Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush, Lamont Jordan, and Rudi Johnson- I think it's safe to say that Gates has handily outperformed all of those guys except for Jackson by a HUGE margin, while Gates vs. SJax has been pretty much a wash in terms of VBD-to-date since then- 312 VBD for SJax, 300 for Gates). I also think that TE's have been my biggest position of strength in the past in terms of predicting future performance and identifying breakout stars before they're chic picks (I had Dustin Keller as my #4 dynasty TE going into last year, had labeled Finley as an immediate buy before he blew up at the end of last season, and have been vocal in my support of both Owen Daniels and Vernon Davis against heavy criticism). Now, that might all just be dumb luck and statistical noise, but the end result is that I love TEs, and I think I'm very good at figuring out which TEs to target.

With that said, right now's a weird time for TEs. When I declared Gates a top-5 dynasty pick, he was 25 years old (about to turn 26) and coming off back-to-back first team AP All Pro seasons. He was both young and proven. Today, all of the TEs are either young (Finley, Hernandez, Keller, Davis), or they're proven (Gates, Clark). The only guys who are both young and proven aren't difference makers- they're your Wittens and Winslows (and even they aren't that young- Witten is 28 and Winslow is 27). The result is that there is no 2006 Antonio Gates out there- nobody who I'd sell the farm to acquire. Jermichael Finley looked really nice, and there's a solid chance that he becomes a cheap facsimile of 2006 Antonio Gates (for all the Finley hype, I think it's going to be a while before we see anyone as good as Gates at the TE position). I like him, and I'd be looking to acquire him from panicking owners, but I'm not going to be trading a core stud at another position to get him. A rock solid WR2? Yeah, I'll make that trade- a Colston for Finley or a Harvin for Finley. But no Vjax-for-Finley or Dez-for-Finley deals.

The nicest thing about owning a stud TE, though, is the long-term security. Few guys are as consistently good from year to year as the true difference-maker TEs. Tony Gonzalez's season-ending VBD rank was 36th or better in 9 out of the 10 seasons from 1999-2008, meaning if you'd drafted him with the first pick of the 4th round in each season (pick #37), he would have outperformed his draft spot 90% of the time. The one time he didn't meet the cutoff, he finished 45th in season-ending VBD (meaning worth a mid-4th, but not quite worth an early 4th). And Gonzo had explosive upside beyond that- he finished 13th or better in season-ending VBD in 5 of those 10 seasons. That's an entire decade of being undervalued. With other players like Tiki Barber, after they're undervalued for a couple of seasons the public catches on and starts drafting them higher, but Gonzo managed to get underestimated for an entire decade. Gates is, if anything, even more underrated- he's finished 20th or better in season-ending VBD in 5 of the past 6 seasons, and is obviously on pace to make it 6 of 7. Included in that total is two top-10 finishes, and so far this year he's standing 2nd in VBD. Most people have no clue what a devastating advantage it is if you can get an Antonio Gates or a Tony Gonzalez at the beginning of their career. As a Finley owner in a dynasty league, I desperately hope that Finley can live up to the hype and merit mention in the same breath as those two luminaries, because a 24-year old TE of that caliber is probably the most valuable dynasty asset short of a true, honest-to-goodness HoF-caliber RB like Tomlinson or Faulk. He won't single-handedly win you any seasons (although Gates has come awfully close in the past, and is doing his best to make a liar of me this season), but just possessing that steady and sizeable advantage for an entire decade adds up to so much value over that span.

Sorry for meandering all around the topic. I tend to ramble once I've gotten a couple drinks in me.

:lmao: Just to add:

Zach Miller. Extremely underrated. He's always passed the eye test IMO, and I think it was you said that MIller's first 2 seasons ranked top 7 all time for Tight Ends; and that's with the crap Oakland has been trotting out there at QB.. (Grape Kool-Aid). In my PPR leagues, he's the #2 ranked TE this year.

Edited by GreatLakesMike
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, there are plenty of guys here who know Spiller well. But this whole "can't run between the tackles" deal...what's that based on?

I'm not comparing Spiller to Chris Johnson. Not in a million years. But just look at their measurables:

Chris Johnson: 5' 11" 191 lbs.

C.J. Spiller: 5'11" 196 lbs.

If Chris Johnson can adapt to the NFL with a smaller than average body, can't Spiller adapt as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, there are plenty of guys here who know Spiller well. But this whole "can't run between the tackles" deal...what's that based on?If Chris Johnson can adapt to the NFL with a smaller than average body, can't Spiller adapt as well?

Unfortunately it's impossible to tell when the idiot gailey gives his top 10 draft pick 3-5 offensive touches a game.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, there are plenty of guys here who know Spiller well. But this whole "can't run between the tackles" deal...what's that based on?I'm not comparing Spiller to Chris Johnson. Not in a million years. But just look at their measurables:Chris Johnson: 5' 11" 191 lbs.C.J. Spiller: 5'11" 196 lbs.If Chris Johnson can adapt to the NFL with a smaller than average body, can't Spiller adapt as well?

Of course Spiller can, he just needs a chance to prove it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that also applies to Demaryius Thomas. If you're looking ahead to 2011, those are two great WRs to acquire.

The problem with that is you are not going to get them "cheap". Fact is, you are going to have to pay the price of a top 10 WR for for Bryant, and a top 20 for Thomas, if you can even get them for that. I think your only shot at getting them cheap is hope they get off to a slow start next year, and see if you can find an impatient owner. For now though, people who spent their first round rookie picks on them have to be pretty happy so far.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, there are plenty of guys here who know Spiller well. But this whole "can't run between the tackles" deal...what's that based on?I'm not comparing Spiller to Chris Johnson. Not in a million years. But just look at their measurables:Chris Johnson: 5' 11" 191 lbs.C.J. Spiller: 5'11" 196 lbs.If Chris Johnson can adapt to the NFL with a smaller than average body, can't Spiller adapt as well?

Sure he can adapt...anyone can. The problem with between the tackles, it is more a mentality than anything else(that little mean streak). Spiller has been taught through positive experiences in his football career that bouncing everything outside has led to great things happening. This was Reggie Bush and McFadden's issue early in their careers.....will they learn...perhaps they have. But I think it will take time.Also, obviously adding strength will help breaking tackles.ETA: The difference between Chris Johnson and many other small RB's....he is extremely patient. A trait I believe J. Best possesses. Edited by benson_will_lead_the_way
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that also applies to Demaryius Thomas. If you're looking ahead to 2011, those are two great WRs to acquire.

The problem with that is you are not going to get them "cheap". Fact is, you are going to have to pay the price of a top 10 WR for for Bryant, and a top 20 for Thomas, if you can even get them for that. I think your only shot at getting them cheap is hope they get off to a slow start next year, and see if you can find an impatient owner. For now though, people who spent their first round rookie picks on them have to be pretty happy so far.
:goodposting: I picked D. Thomas - and his first game just showed what he is capable of on a somewhat regular basis once they work him in more, and he stays/gets healthy. It would cost a pretty penny to get him off my dynasty team.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...