Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

If I were tiering current NFL QBs based on talent (note: not fantasy rankings, just talent rankings), I'd have something like this (note #2: this is a quick off-the-cuff list and not a rigorously prepared and heavily researched super-definitive set of rankings):

Tier 1- Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees, Roethlisberger, Rivers

Tier 2- Romo, Rodgers, McNabb, Cutler

Tier 3- Vick, Orton, Ryan, Flacco, Schaub, Favre

Tier 4- Bradford, Freeman, Eli Manning, Sanchez

Do you disagree? Fantastic! Disagreement is what makes this interesting. That's how *I* rank the talents, though, and needless to say, my fantasy rankings are based on my perceptions of a player's talents. Don't imply that I'm being inconsistent in my treatment of Romo and Schaub when, in my mind, they're radically different players. One's a QB6-9 kind of guy, while the other is a QB10-15 kind of guy.

Schaub's an interesting guy IMO. I haven't seen every game he's played but when I have seen him I've liked what I've seen. However, I agree that he's in tier 3. I don't have Orton quite that high on pure talent but he's done pretty well. The disagreement I have with you here, if we're talking about pure talent is Bradford and to a lesser degree Freeman. On a pure talent level, Bradford is every bit as talented as Rivers or Ben. Freeman pretty close to McNabb. Both clearly need more seasoning to be ranked that high as far as true value, but you're talking pure talent. I might also bump Flacco up a tier but that's not a strong disagreement.

If you are going to ignore age, than Mcnabb and Favre should be moved up a tier. Except i agree iwth SSOG, at least his ranking of Bradford, Freeman, Favre.

I also happen to think Manning belongs in his own tier. The difference between Manning and Brees is bigger than the difference between Romo and Schaub.

Eli and Orton should swap spots too.

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.

Anyone care to revisit the Nicks vs. Ochocinco preseason dynasty discussion and talk about the dynasty principles involved in the 'debate'?

I cant imagine anyone would have prefered Ocho to Nicks before this season started, did they? I had Nicks at #16 with a DS of 40, and Chad at #25 with a DS of 32. Obviously now that margin is much bigger, but i dont think anyone would have taken Ocho over Nicks in a startup draft going into this season.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to revisit the Nicks vs. Ochocinco preseason dynasty discussion and talk about the dynasty principles involved in the 'debate'?

I cant imagine anyone would have prefered Ocho to Nicks before this season started, did they? I had Nicks at #16 with a DS of 40, and Chad at #25 with a DS of 32. Obviously now that margin is much bigger, but i dont think anyone would have taken Ocho over Nicks in a startup draft going into this season.
You wouldn't think so, but heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with SSOG...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to revisit the Nicks vs. Ochocinco preseason dynasty discussion and talk about the dynasty principles involved in the 'debate'?

I cant imagine anyone would have prefered Ocho to Nicks before this season started, did they? I had Nicks at #16 with a DS of 40, and Chad at #25 with a DS of 32. Obviously now that margin is much bigger, but i dont think anyone would have taken Ocho over Nicks in a startup draft going into this season.
You wouldn't think so, but heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with SSOG...
Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. ;) ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho. Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger. Edited by Go deep
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. :lmao:

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. ;)

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.

It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG: I know this was mentioned as a possible evolution of your site awhile back, but I would be very interested in seeing where you (or others for that matter) slot in draft picks among your rankings (and how that might change as the season goes on and projections of teams' draft positions get more certain).

It's in the works. Rather than just arbitrarily assigning a score, I'm trying to go through historical data to get some sort of value baselines. We're still probably several weeks away, and it might get pushed back to the offseason if it comes to that (although I'd really like to get it done by midseason if possible because that's the ideal time to start targeting draft picks, imo). The ultimate goal is once we have our cross-positional values up and running to be able to create a "draft pick" position, too, and fit that into the cross-positional values. In the meantime, priority #1 is my real job, priority #2 is the rankings, and priority #3 is whatever else I can fit in between priorities #1 and #2. Oh, and my wife likes it when I spend time with her from time to time, too. ;)

Schaub's an interesting guy IMO. I haven't seen every game he's played but when I have seen him I've liked what I've seen. However, I agree that he's in tier 3. I don't have Orton quite that high on pure talent but he's done pretty well. The disagreement I have with you here, if we're talking about pure talent is Bradford and to a lesser degree Freeman. On a pure talent level, Bradford is every bit as talented as Rivers or Ben. Freeman pretty close to McNabb. Both clearly need more seasoning to be ranked that high as far as true value, but you're talking pure talent. I might also bump Flacco up a tier but that's not a strong disagreement.

I think what you're calling "talent" is what I would call "potential". I consider things like the ability to read and accurately diagnose defenses, make pre-snap reads, go through progressions, etc. all part of "talent". Right now, Bradford can't do that. In a few years, absolutely, I'll be surprised if he hasn't developed those skills in spades (although Ryan and Flacco haven't developed as much as I expected, so I'm only cautiously optimistic instead of full-on expectant). In terms of talent today, though? Nah, Bradford's average at the very best. Average is way, way ahead of the curve for a rookie, but it doesn't change the fact that Bradford's not as good of a QB as the guys in the tiers ahead of him at this point. Hell, he's the worst QB I listed in tier 4, to boot.Likewise, that's part of the reason why I have Orton so high. I've been really impressed by his ability to always make the right decision with the football on any given play. His ability to find the open man at this point is behind only Brady, Brees, and Manning. It might be an illusion or a mirage, but it's damn impressive nevertheless.

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho. Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Value scores aren't really designed to compare guys two tiers away. They're mostly meant to compare guys within a tier to each other, and to establish how large the gap between the tiers are. It's a limited tool, but it's what I have to work with at the moment. We're working on a much more robust, comparable scoring system that will not only give proper value comparisons within the position (e.g. you'll be able to add value scores and say something like "WR4 = WR8 + WR16"), but will be comparable across positions.As for Hester and Britt... it's a 2-point difference, so they're close. And Britt is obviously trending upwards. At the moment, though, Britt is still the guy who couldn't take the job from Nate Washington in the preseason, and Hester is still the guy that opposing defenses think is talented enough to warrant their top coverages.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. ;)

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.

It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

How many guys in their third year at a position (at ANY LEVEL) consistantly draw the opposing teams #1 CB? Not calling you out...your opinion is the majority one right now. I'm simply stating that some of us see more in Hester, and I can easily see lumping Hester and Britt in the same tier.
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

At the rate he's developing? What? Two and a half years ago the guy was a cornerback.This is the development chart for a typical NFL WR:Year 1-4: playing WR in high schoolYear 5-7: playing WR in collegeYear 8: rookie year, playing poorly.Year 9: 2nd year, playing poorly.Year 10: 3rd year breakout.This is Devin Hester:Year 1: #1 WR on an NFL franchiseSee the difference? People act like Devin Hester is behind the curve or something, but the truth is he's so astronomically far ahead of the curve in terms of development that it's mind boggling. The very first year the guy was a WR, he led an NFL franchise in receiving yardage. His second season as a WR, he did it again despite missing 3 games. He draws the opposing defense's toughest coverage despite the fact that he's the rawest receiver in the league by a huge margin. I mean, if you consider him a rookie in 2008 (which he was- actually, he was worse than a rookie, he was a rookie with no college WR experience), then his progression has been exactly what you'd expect from a quality WR. 51/665/3 in 15 games as a rookie, 57/775/3 in 13 games as a sophomore (and on an 1100+ yard pace prior to getting injured).How people can bury Hester at this point just baffles me. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schaub's an interesting guy IMO. I haven't seen every game he's played but when I have seen him I've liked what I've seen. However, I agree that he's in tier 3. I don't have Orton quite that high on pure talent but he's done pretty well. The disagreement I have with you here, if we're talking about pure talent is Bradford and to a lesser degree Freeman. On a pure talent level, Bradford is every bit as talented as Rivers or Ben. Freeman pretty close to McNabb. Both clearly need more seasoning to be ranked that high as far as true value, but you're talking pure talent. I might also bump Flacco up a tier but that's not a strong disagreement.

I think what you're calling "talent" is what I would call "potential". I consider things like the ability to read and accurately diagnose defenses, make pre-snap reads, go through progressions, etc. all part of "talent". Right now, Bradford can't do that. In a few years, absolutely, I'll be surprised if he hasn't developed those skills in spades (although Ryan and Flacco haven't developed as much as I expected, so I'm only cautiously optimistic instead of full-on expectant). In terms of talent today, though? Nah, Bradford's average at the very best. Average is way, way ahead of the curve for a rookie, but it doesn't change the fact that Bradford's not as good of a QB as the guys in the tiers ahead of him at this point. Hell, he's the worst QB I listed in tier 4, to boot.Likewise, that's part of the reason why I have Orton so high. I've been really impressed by his ability to always make the right decision with the football on any given play. His ability to find the open man at this point is behind only Brady, Brees, and Manning. It might be an illusion or a mirage, but it's damn impressive nevertheless.
Fair enough, the lines between what we call talent, potential and experience sometimes blur. We can call it different things but if you're talking about the player this year, and how they would do in any given system compared to others, your rankings look very similar to mine. Has any QB gone from college stud at one point, to afterthought, to good NFL QB faster than Orton? Most people seem to have forgotten just how great Orton looked through 5 games in 2004.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. ;)

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.

It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

How many guys in their third year at a position (at ANY LEVEL) consistantly draw the opposing teams #1 CB? Not calling you out...your opinion is the majority one right now. I'm simply stating that some of us see more in Hester, and I can easily see lumping Hester and Britt in the same tier.
Because he's the most dangerous wr on a team with one of the worst wr cores in the nfl doesn't really say anything. It's all relative.

He is dangerous, but will never be well rounded imo due to lacking certain qualities that can't be taught, hands and a brain to learn coverages.

He's definitely one of the dullest wr's mentally in the nfl, and his hands are extremely inconsistant. He's not a bad bye week filler as he cqn have some big plays, but a mental midget with bad hands isn't ever going to be a solid consistant performer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

At the rate he's developing? What? Two and a half years ago the guy was a cornerback.This is the development chart for a typical NFL WR:Year 1-4: playing WR in high schoolYear 5-7: playing WR in collegeYear 8: rookie year, playing poorly.Year 9: 2nd year, playing poorly.Year 10: 3rd year breakout.This is Devin Hester:Year 1: #1 WR on an NFL franchiseSee the difference? People act like Devin Hester is behind the curve or something, but the truth is he's so astronomically far ahead of the curve in terms of development that it's mind boggling. The very first year the guy was a WR, he led an NFL franchise in receiving yardage. His second season as a WR, he did it again despite missing 3 games. He draws the opposing defense's toughest coverage despite the fact that he's the rawest receiver in the league by a huge margin. I mean, if you consider him a rookie in 2008 (which he was- actually, he was worse than a rookie, he was a rookie with no college WR experience), then his progression has been exactly what you'd expect from a quality WR. 51/665/3 in 15 games as a rookie, 57/775/3 in 13 games as a sophomore (and on an 1100+ yard pace prior to getting injured).How people can bury Hester at this point just baffles me. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Your point is solid but I always do a doubletake when I see Hester as the #1 WR on his team in any year, not that it's incorrect, it indeed is an accurate statement if we need to call someone the #1 WR. But the guy has 665 and 757 yards receiving, for a #1 WR that's plain horrible and demonstrates that there was no true #1 WR either year.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. ;)

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.

It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

How many guys in their third year at a position (at ANY LEVEL) consistantly draw the opposing teams #1 CB? Not calling you out...your opinion is the majority one right now. I'm simply stating that some of us see more in Hester, and I can easily see lumping Hester and Britt in the same tier.
Because he's the most dangerous wr on a team with one of the worst wr cores in the nfl doesn't really say anything. It's all relative.

He is dangerous, but will never be well rounded imo due to lacking certain qualities that can't be taught, hands and a brain to learn coverages.

He's definitely one of the dullest wr's mentally in the nfl, and his hands are extremely inconsistant. He's not a bad bye week filler as he cqn have some big plays, but a mental midget with bad hands isn't ever going to be a solid consistant performer.

He'd be a perfect slot WR if he had another good WR to work with and another to stretch the field. If Martz sticks around long enough and they do a good job drafting and developing around Cutler, watch out.
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG: I know this was mentioned as a possible evolution of your site awhile back, but I would be very interested in seeing where you (or others for that matter) slot in draft picks among your rankings (and how that might change as the season goes on and projections of teams' draft positions get more certain).

It's in the works. Rather than just arbitrarily assigning a score, I'm trying to go through historical data to get some sort of value baselines. We're still probably several weeks away, and it might get pushed back to the offseason if it comes to that (although I'd really like to get it done by midseason if possible because that's the ideal time to start targeting draft picks, imo). The ultimate goal is once we have our cross-positional values up and running to be able to create a "draft pick" position, too, and fit that into the cross-positional values. In the meantime, priority #1 is my real job, priority #2 is the rankings, and priority #3 is whatever else I can fit in between priorities #1 and #2. Oh, and my wife likes it when I spend time with her from time to time, too. ;)

Schaub's an interesting guy IMO. I haven't seen every game he's played but when I have seen him I've liked what I've seen. However, I agree that he's in tier 3. I don't have Orton quite that high on pure talent but he's done pretty well. The disagreement I have with you here, if we're talking about pure talent is Bradford and to a lesser degree Freeman. On a pure talent level, Bradford is every bit as talented as Rivers or Ben. Freeman pretty close to McNabb. Both clearly need more seasoning to be ranked that high as far as true value, but you're talking pure talent. I might also bump Flacco up a tier but that's not a strong disagreement.

I think what you're calling "talent" is what I would call "potential". I consider things like the ability to read and accurately diagnose defenses, make pre-snap reads, go through progressions, etc. all part of "talent". Right now, Bradford can't do that. In a few years, absolutely, I'll be surprised if he hasn't developed those skills in spades (although Ryan and Flacco haven't developed as much as I expected, so I'm only cautiously optimistic instead of full-on expectant). In terms of talent today, though? Nah, Bradford's average at the very best. Average is way, way ahead of the curve for a rookie, but it doesn't change the fact that Bradford's not as good of a QB as the guys in the tiers ahead of him at this point. Hell, he's the worst QB I listed in tier 4, to boot.

Likewise, that's part of the reason why I have Orton so high. I've been really impressed by his ability to always make the right decision with the football on any given play. His ability to find the open man at this point is behind only Brady, Brees, and Manning. It might be an illusion or a mirage, but it's damn impressive nevertheless.

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Value scores aren't really designed to compare guys two tiers away. They're mostly meant to compare guys within a tier to each other, and to establish how large the gap between the tiers are. It's a limited tool, but it's what I have to work with at the moment. We're working on a much more robust, comparable scoring system that will not only give proper value comparisons within the position (e.g. you'll be able to add value scores and say something like "WR4 = WR8 + WR16"), but will be comparable across positions.

As for Hester and Britt... it's a 2-point difference, so they're close. And Britt is obviously trending upwards. At the moment, though, Britt is still the guy who couldn't take the job from Nate Washington in the preseason, and Hester is still the guy that opposing defenses think is talented enough to warrant their top coverages.

I found this to be the hardest part in doing my rankings. The biggest problem you will come across is you will have to be pretty league specific. Actually, the biggest problem i had was comparing each player to every other player at different positions when trying to guage his fantasy score. It literally took me a year to come up with numbers i was happy with. Actually, it was probably longer, i was still fine tuning for years after i came up with my initial scores.

Anyway, good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice article, SSOG: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/articles/fa...s-hakeem-nicks/

I've overstated my opinion about 85's value in the past, and don't really want to rehash it all, but I WOULD AGAIN like to say that I just don't get how valuable a "top 20" WR is as opposed to someone who may be "top 35" but has better matchups on a weekly basis, or trying to play the hot hand off the waiver wire (replacement level?).

You made a good point that people are essentially throwing darts trying to project which young receivers are going develop into the NEXT Chad Johnson, but I really don't see how much improvement Nicks would need to match 85's production from last year on a weekly basis. And certainly, Nicks has far, far >>> upside.

I am certainly much more willing to bet on a dynasty grand slam from my starting WR2 with a guy that has the pedigree (and limited track record) and situation that Nicks has over a good bet for a guy that will consistently give me solid, but not spectacular #'s at a position where that production is not all THAT MUCH > than the average on a weekly basis over other starting WR 2's.

I'll go back to my example from last year... How much marginal value does 85 offer over Derrick Mason, a total dynasty afterthought? How much marginal value does 85 offer over a waiver wire flyer like Austin Collie was last year?

It's not that hard to acquire a decent WR2 to start on a weekly basis that will give me 80%+ of what 85 does in an average week?

Also, SSOG, you didn't mention anything at all about T.O. possibly cutting into 85's role/targets in a run heavy offense that was pretty anemic in the passing game?

SSOG trying VERY hard to ignore THIS!
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

At the rate he's developing? What? Two and a half years ago the guy was a cornerback.This is the development chart for a typical NFL WR:Year 1-4: playing WR in high schoolYear 5-7: playing WR in collegeYear 8: rookie year, playing poorly.Year 9: 2nd year, playing poorly.Year 10: 3rd year breakout.This is Devin Hester:Year 1: #1 WR on an NFL franchiseSee the difference? People act like Devin Hester is behind the curve or something, but the truth is he's so astronomically far ahead of the curve in terms of development that it's mind boggling. The very first year the guy was a WR, he led an NFL franchise in receiving yardage. His second season as a WR, he did it again despite missing 3 games. He draws the opposing defense's toughest coverage despite the fact that he's the rawest receiver in the league by a huge margin. I mean, if you consider him a rookie in 2008 (which he was- actually, he was worse than a rookie, he was a rookie with no college WR experience), then his progression has been exactly what you'd expect from a quality WR. 51/665/3 in 15 games as a rookie, 57/775/3 in 13 games as a sophomore (and on an 1100+ yard pace prior to getting injured).How people can bury Hester at this point just baffles me. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Your point is solid but I always do a doubletake when I see Hester as the #1 WR on his team in any year, not that it's incorrect, it indeed is an accurate statement if we need to call someone the #1 WR. But the guy has 665 and 757 yards receiving, for a #1 WR that's plain horrible and demonstrates that there was no true #1 WR either year.
SSOG ignores that Hester was #1 among a supporting cast of clowns. Projecting the leap to an actual difference maker at WR is much, much more dubious. Hester's ONE elite talent is the most fleeting... By the time the position skills catch up to the physical tools, the speed won't be elite anymore.All this said, Hester was a hot commodity after 6-7 games last year.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. ;)

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.

It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

How many guys in their third year at a position (at ANY LEVEL) consistantly draw the opposing teams #1 CB? Not calling you out...your opinion is the majority one right now. I'm simply stating that some of us see more in Hester, and I can easily see lumping Hester and Britt in the same tier.
If Hester and Britt were on the same team right now, there is no doubt who would be getting the defenses #1 corner....and its not Hester.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hester and Britt were on the same team right now, there is no doubt who would be getting the defenses #1 corner....and its not Hester.

As a general statement, I think this is accurate although a lot depends on the corners skills, what they're good at not just being called the #1 corner. Take the Jets with Moss for example. Which goes back to our Cutler argument awhile ago, I maintain his WRs are in the bottom tier, if not the worst in the NFL.
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

At the rate he's developing? What? Two and a half years ago the guy was a cornerback.This is the development chart for a typical NFL WR:Year 1-4: playing WR in high schoolYear 5-7: playing WR in collegeYear 8: rookie year, playing poorly.Year 9: 2nd year, playing poorly.Year 10: 3rd year breakout.This is Devin Hester:Year 1: #1 WR on an NFL franchiseSee the difference? People act like Devin Hester is behind the curve or something, but the truth is he's so astronomically far ahead of the curve in terms of development that it's mind boggling. The very first year the guy was a WR, he led an NFL franchise in receiving yardage. His second season as a WR, he did it again despite missing 3 games. He draws the opposing defense's toughest coverage despite the fact that he's the rawest receiver in the league by a huge margin. I mean, if you consider him a rookie in 2008 (which he was- actually, he was worse than a rookie, he was a rookie with no college WR experience), then his progression has been exactly what you'd expect from a quality WR. 51/665/3 in 15 games as a rookie, 57/775/3 in 13 games as a sophomore (and on an 1100+ yard pace prior to getting injured).How people can bury Hester at this point just baffles me. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Technically, this is the 4th year Hester hs played WR. He also played some WR in high school. Not that any of that makes a big difference. While Hester still has alot to learn as a route runner, he is not very good at things that should come natural, like catching passes. Im not really concerned wether he is behind or ahead of the curve, fact is he is better suited as a kick returner/slot WR. I am not writing him off, i am just ranking him as a guy who i will never want to have to plug in my starting lineup on a weekly basis(non-return yardage). While Kenny Britt might not be there yet either, there are plenty of signs that he could be soon.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also regarding hester, how many times before a given week has he been looked at as a good fantasy start?

Pretty much never unless a team is desperate for a bye week filler.

Even after the fact how many games of 60+ receiving yards does he have? We know he's not a good redzone guy so his td's won't ever be high. Unless he can become a guy who can put up big yards he's worthless going into a given week and since he is a horrible route runner who has zero awareness when running routes where he needs depth awareness i don't think he really even has future upside in FF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hester and Britt were on the same team right now, there is no doubt who would be getting the defenses #1 corner....and its not Hester.

As a general statement, I think this is accurate although a lot depends on the corners skills, what they're good at not just being called the #1 corner. Take the Jets with Moss for example. Which goes back to our Cutler argument awhile ago, I maintain his WRs are in the bottom tier, if not the worst in the NFL.
They may not be the worst, but they would certainly be in the conversation. I actually think they would have a very good WR corps if they brought in a true #1. Know would make a good #2/field stretcher and i think Hester would make a great slot WR. He isnt the type of guy who is going to beat #1 CB coverage, but he would do well with the extra space that comes along with slot duties.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also regarding hester, how many times before a given week has he been looked at as a good fantasy start?Pretty much never unless a team is desperate for a bye week filler.Even after the fact how many games of 60+ receiving yards does he have? We know he's not a good redzone guy so his td's won't ever be high. Unless he can become a guy who can put up big yards he's worthless going into a given week and since he is a horrible route runner who has zero awareness when running routes where he needs depth awareness i don't think he really even has future upside in FF.

:thumbup:IMO Hester has been overrated by SSOG and a few others around here for quite some time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG: I know this was mentioned as a possible evolution of your site awhile back, but I would be very interested in seeing where you (or others for that matter) slot in draft picks among your rankings (and how that might change as the season goes on and projections of teams' draft positions get more certain).

It's in the works. Rather than just arbitrarily assigning a score, I'm trying to go through historical data to get some sort of value baselines. We're still probably several weeks away, and it might get pushed back to the offseason if it comes to that (although I'd really like to get it done by midseason if possible because that's the ideal time to start targeting draft picks, imo). The ultimate goal is once we have our cross-positional values up and running to be able to create a "draft pick" position, too, and fit that into the cross-positional values. In the meantime, priority #1 is my real job, priority #2 is the rankings, and priority #3 is whatever else I can fit in between priorities #1 and #2. Oh, and my wife likes it when I spend time with her from time to time, too. :unsure:

Schaub's an interesting guy IMO. I haven't seen every game he's played but when I have seen him I've liked what I've seen. However, I agree that he's in tier 3. I don't have Orton quite that high on pure talent but he's done pretty well. The disagreement I have with you here, if we're talking about pure talent is Bradford and to a lesser degree Freeman. On a pure talent level, Bradford is every bit as talented as Rivers or Ben. Freeman pretty close to McNabb. Both clearly need more seasoning to be ranked that high as far as true value, but you're talking pure talent. I might also bump Flacco up a tier but that's not a strong disagreement.

I think what you're calling "talent" is what I would call "potential". I consider things like the ability to read and accurately diagnose defenses, make pre-snap reads, go through progressions, etc. all part of "talent". Right now, Bradford can't do that. In a few years, absolutely, I'll be surprised if he hasn't developed those skills in spades (although Ryan and Flacco haven't developed as much as I expected, so I'm only cautiously optimistic instead of full-on expectant). In terms of talent today, though? Nah, Bradford's average at the very best. Average is way, way ahead of the curve for a rookie, but it doesn't change the fact that Bradford's not as good of a QB as the guys in the tiers ahead of him at this point. Hell, he's the worst QB I listed in tier 4, to boot.Likewise, that's part of the reason why I have Orton so high. I've been really impressed by his ability to always make the right decision with the football on any given play. His ability to find the open man at this point is behind only Brady, Brees, and Manning. It might be an illusion or a mirage, but it's damn impressive nevertheless.

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho. Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Value scores aren't really designed to compare guys two tiers away. They're mostly meant to compare guys within a tier to each other, and to establish how large the gap between the tiers are. It's a limited tool, but it's what I have to work with at the moment. We're working on a much more robust, comparable scoring system that will not only give proper value comparisons within the position (e.g. you'll be able to add value scores and say something like "WR4 = WR8 + WR16"), but will be comparable across positions.As for Hester and Britt... it's a 2-point difference, so they're close. And Britt is obviously trending upwards. At the moment, though, Britt is still the guy who couldn't take the job from Nate Washington in the preseason, and Hester is still the guy that opposing defenses think is talented enough to warrant their top coverages.
Lets forget about the scoring gap, you have Chad two tiers ahead of Williams, would you really trade Mike Williams for Ocho? Chad isnt even the #1 WR on a team that runs first and has a QB that cant throw further than 15 yards down the field. I know he was one of the best for years, but at 33, i think those days are behind him. Edited by Go deep
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Hester and Britt were on the same team right now, there is no doubt who would be getting the defenses #1 corner....and its not Hester.

As a general statement, I think this is accurate although a lot depends on the corners skills, what they're good at not just being called the #1 corner. Take the Jets with Moss for example. Which goes back to our Cutler argument awhile ago, I maintain his WRs are in the bottom tier, if not the worst in the NFL.
They may not be the worst, but they would certainly be in the conversation. I actually think they would have a very good WR corps if they brought in a true #1. Know would make a good #2/field stretcher and i think Hester would make a great slot WR. He isnt the type of guy who is going to beat #1 CB coverage, but he would do well with the extra space that comes along with slot duties.
:unsure:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the expected return of Vincent Jackson (even temporarily) affect anyone's analysis in the Rivers vs. Romo debate? I'm really torn on how to value these guys, even after all the great discussion in this thread.

I have a team that's building for 2011 and beyond, and I have a chance to trade Rivers for Romo and a non first-round rookie pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the expected return of Vincent Jackson (even temporarily) affect anyone's analysis in the Rivers vs. Romo debate? I'm really torn on how to value these guys, even after all the great discussion in this thread.

I have a team that's building for 2011 and beyond, and I have a chance to trade Rivers for Romo and a non first-round rookie pick.

No, Rivers is better than Romo with or without Jackson. The gap isnt huge, but it would take something more than a 2nd round rookie pick for me to swap them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SSOG: I know this was mentioned as a possible evolution of your site awhile back, but I would be very interested in seeing where you (or others for that matter) slot in draft picks among your rankings (and how that might change as the season goes on and projections of teams' draft positions get more certain).

My rankings include draft picks, just compare a players or picks DS(dynaty score) to each other. For example, right now the 1.1 pick has a DS of 52, Peyton Manning has a 51, Lesean Mccoy has a 52, and Larry Fitzgerald has a 53. So acccording to my rankings, the 1.1 has similar value to those players. The pick scores are subject to change once we get a better idea of this years crop.
Interesting, and very thorough I must say...can you give some insight on how are your dynasty scores are calculated/assigned, especially across positions? That table to the right looks like it could be involved there

SSOG: I know this was mentioned as a possible evolution of your site awhile back, but I would be very interested in seeing where you (or others for that matter) slot in draft picks among your rankings (and how that might change as the season goes on and projections of teams' draft positions get more certain).

It's in the works. Rather than just arbitrarily assigning a score, I'm trying to go through historical data to get some sort of value baselines. We're still probably several weeks away, and it might get pushed back to the offseason if it comes to that (although I'd really like to get it done by midseason if possible because that's the ideal time to start targeting draft picks, imo). The ultimate goal is once we have our cross-positional values up and running to be able to create a "draft pick" position, too, and fit that into the cross-positional values. In the meantime, priority #1 is my real job, priority #2 is the rankings, and priority #3 is whatever else I can fit in between priorities #1 and #2. Oh, and my wife likes it when I spend time with her from time to time, too. :wub:
Tell your wife to wait...the internet needs its dynasty rankings!Just kidding, that's more than understandable, of course...just checking if it was still in the works as I hadn't heard anything in awhile and that sort of thing is fascinating to me (moreso the process of ranking them than the actual straight-up "1.01 is worth less than dez bryant but more than michael crabtree" type of info, which is obviously more subjective

SSOG trying VERY hard to ignore THIS!

LOL, he's not trying to do anything, he has you on ignore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, and very thorough I must say...can you give some insight on how are your dynasty scores are calculated/assigned, especially across positions? That table to the right looks like it could be involved there

The table to the right is for the trade calculator above it. It is used to weight unbalanced trades. In other words, i would not deal a player with an 80 score for four players with a 20 score. Based on league size, starting requirements, that table gives the amount of points you add per extra player in a trade. For example, if i am in a 12 team league that starts 6 RB's/WR's then you would add 13 points for one additional player, and add 3 for each one after that. Coming up with the scores, and how they relate to other positions took me years to get exactly how i wanted. I basically had to compare each player to every other player, and score accordingly. Of course there was alot that went into that as well, but i couldnt begin to list all the data, trends, math, etc. Its something i have been using for myself in my dynasty leagues for years, i just posted it this year for everyone else to see. If you run any trade(real or not) through the calc it should give you an accurate numerical analysis. I have run thousands of trades through it over the years, and it hasnt let me down yet. Well, maybe some in the begining, but that was still the tinkering stage. Edited by Go deep
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the expected return of Vincent Jackson (even temporarily) affect anyone's analysis in the Rivers vs. Romo debate? I'm really torn on how to value these guys, even after all the great discussion in this thread.I have a team that's building for 2011 and beyond, and I have a chance to trade Rivers for Romo and a non first-round rookie pick.

Rivers is on pace for 5600/35 right now without Jackson. Rivers has proven he can get it done in elite fashion no matter who's catching the ball for him.
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, yes. Do yourself a favor and buy Ben Tate now. Just like we should have purchased Foster when Tate was drafted. That is the best time to buy low.

Again, buying low means buying players whose value you think will rebound, not buying players whose value just took a hit. Yes, in the case of Arian Foster, it worked out. On the other hand, if you'd "bought low" on Chester Taylor when the Vikings brought in Peterson, and on Jerious Norwood when the Falcons brought in Turner, and on Michael Bush when the Raiders brought in McFadden, and on Marion Barber when the Cowboys brought in Felix, and on LenDale when the Titans brought in Johnson, and so on, then you would have lost your shirt. Buying players just because their value dropped is not a net positive strategy in the long run. Most players whose values drop see their value drop for a reason. It's possible that the drop is too extreme, or an overreaction to a trivial piece of evidence, but in those cases the reason to buy isn't "because his value went down", it's "because his value went down TOO MUCH". If you want to argue that now is the time to buy Forsett because people are overreacting, or because they're underestimating him, then that's one thing. If you want to argue that now is the time to buy Forsett because his value is lower today than it was a week ago, that's another thing entirely. The first is good process. The second is bad process.

As far as Forsett, he is not Jemarcus Russell. He could be Jerious Norwood or Mewelde more, or he could end up being much more than that. I am willing to pay a "Mewelde Moore" price. If he turns out to be more, I make out. If not, I get what I paid for. See why it makes sense to buy low? I don't know if you play in shallow leagues, but back up/RBBC backs still have value in the ones I play in.

My main dynasty has 270 offensive skill players rostered (QB/RB/WR/TE). It's a pretty deep league. And I used to own MeMo. He saved my bacon in a big way once when his stint as a starter in 2008 coincided with some injuries on my squad. He kept me afloat. With that said, his value was minimal, and only barely above what I would expect from someone off the street. If I had spent a valuable fantasy asset to acquire him, I would have regretted it. I'd much rather roster upside... and MeMo has none.

As for Schaub, by tools, I means weapons around him: AJ, JJ, AW, OD and so on. AJ, JJ and OD have all been injured. I actually JUST traded for Schaub, giving up much less than I would have had to if he was playing well. This is in a MOX league full of sharks. If his value can slip there, it can slip anywhere. If you would like, I can provide the link when I get off work. (Blocked at work) You shoot down my buy low candidates, using the argument that nobody will sell low. This is a very short-sighted, simple, and quite frankly, arrogant way to view things. First, you couldn't possibly know what the majority of owners are doing with schaub, seeing as how there are literally millions of Schaub owners in the world. If this doesn't apply to the leagues that you play in, fine. And when was Marc Bulger EVER a top 8 dynasty QB? Never, and we have never had this many young, talented QBs in the NFL, since I have followed it. And by discrediting Schuab by comparing him to Bulger, you discredit your own rankings. You have Schaub ranked exactly one point behind Tom Brady. You have him 4 points behind Manning. For reference, there are a full 6 points between Manning and the higher ranked Romo. If you are going to use the Bulger comparision to downplay Schaub's status as a dynasty QB, at the very least you should be consistent and apply the same (faulty) logic to your rankings.

First off, when someone mentions a QB's "tools", they're typically talking about things like his physical attributes- his height, his arm strength, his footwork, etc. Like in baseball, a "five tool player" is a player who can hit for average, hit for power, run the bases, field, and throw. "Tools" are innate attributes. If you want to discuss a player's targets, the typical nomenclature is "weapons". Schaub's tools are not elite, but his weapons are (or, at least, one of his weapons is). Again, that's the most common usage of the words, so for clarity purposes, those are the uses that I try to limit myself to.

Second off, you say that you just bought low on Schaub. What did you trade for him? What are some other trades involving QBs in that league? How low are we talking about, compared to the established market for proven QBs?

As for Bulger... back in 2006, plenty of people had him in their top 8, including F&L himself. F&L still had him as a top-10 dynasty QB as recently as the 2008 offseason- which was *AFTER* his nightmarish 2007 season where he averaged under 250 yards per game for the first time in his career (he actually averaged under 200) and threw 15 INTs vs. just 11 TDs. Bulger was a legit, no question, no hesitation top-8 dynasty QB for several years.

There's no inconsistency in my rankings. I've said from Day 1 that Matt Schaub was a better fantasy player than NFL player. I've said that he's less talented than the guys around him in the rankings, but he deserves the ranking because of the stability of his situation and the consistency of his production. This "Matt Schaub is the new Marc Bulger" thing is not a new invention. F&L and I have both been saying that the players were very similar for years now. Here's F&L in 2008 saying Matt Schaub runs the risk of being another Marc Bulger. Here's a post where F&L calls Schaub a Bulger clone, and I quote him and agree that Schaub is a much better FF QB than NFL QB. Here's another Bulger comparison from F&L. Here's a post where I go over the AMAZINGLY similar career numbers of Bulger vs. Schaub and reiterate one last time that the majority of his value is derived from situation instead of natural talent. You're accusing me of inconsistency when I've been stone-cold consistent for quite some time now on Schaub. I've been saying for ages now that he's an above average NFL QB who happens to put up elite FF numbers. I've said that he merits his lofty ranking based on the back of his production and his situation, but that if his situation turns, his ranking will turn on a dime because he doesn't have the talent to support that ranking without situation propping him up. Again, complete and utter consistency, here.

I'm not using the Bulger comparison as an attempt to denigrate Matt Schaub as a dynasty asset. Marc Bulger was a *FANTASTIC* dynasty asset. He put up awesome numbers for the Rams, and many contenders were built on the back of his performance. Then, however, his situation turned and his value dropped like a stone because he didn't have the talent to continue supporting his high rankings. That's Matt Schaub- fully worthy of his high ranking right now, but Schaub owners have to be extra wary to potential shifts in situation, because Schaub is far more dependent on his situation than his peers in the rankings. That's the whole point of the Bulger comparison. It's not to say that Schaub is a great dynasty QB, or a terrible dynasty QB, it's to say that Schaub is not a top-10 NFL QB and that a disproportionate amount of his fantasy value is based on situation when compared to his peers.

Your "2.0" argument is seriously lacking and again, arrogant. Until you can provide ways that Schaub and Bulger are similar, and Forsett and Mewelde are similar, your analogies are weak. Moore and Forsett are no more or less similar than Moore and B. Westbrook. Justin Forsett = Brian Westbrook 2.0. See how silly that is. Fact is, you don't know what is in store for Justin Forsett and you don't know how the Seahawks plan to use him or Marshawn Lynch. Even if there is only a small chance that you are wrong about him, as long as you pay a back up RB price, you lose nothing if that is all he ever turns out to be. Hence the term, buy low.

So again, if you are going to use "His value is down for a reason (DUH!)" or "His value isn't low" what is the point in responding? Value is relative.

It's arrogant? Finding similarities between players is now a sign of arrogance? I'm afraid you're going to have to unpack that one for me a little bit, because I'm not following.

As for similarities between Justin Forsett and Mewelde Moore... how about the fact that we now have 2 different coaching staffs who refuse to make Forsett a featured back, just like we had 3 coaching staffs refuse to do it with Mewelde, despite the fact that both players are the most efficient RBs on their respective teams? How about the fact that, despite their rate stats making it blindingly obvious that they should be getting more carries, every coach they've played for has gone out of their way to get them less carries? Philadelphia never traded future draft picks to bring in a new featured back when Brian Westbrook was in town, that's for sure.

Also, the phrase "back up RB price" is misleading. Backup RBs have zero inherent value. They'll never see your starting lineup (because they're backups), so they'll never score points for you. If all you get from an RB is backup production, then ANY PRICE YOU PAID was too high of a price. Any non-zero value traded is too much, because you're getting zero value in return.

I mean, take your "buy backups just because they're cheap!" statement to its logical conclusion. Why should I be trading for Justin Forsett in particular, here? Why shouldn't I trade for, say, Chester Taylor? He's a backup, so as long as I pay "backup price" for him, I can't possibly lose! And why stop there? Why not roster Matt Flynn and Matt Moore? They're backups, so I'll just pay "backup price" for them. And let's get Taylor Price, and Julian Edelman, and Quarless, and Martellus Bennett while we're at it. Pretty soon I'll have a roster constructed of nothing but backups... but it's okay, because I only paid backup price for them, so if they all perform like backups, it's not like I overpayed or anything. Could I possibly win a championship with that roster, though? Is acquiring cheap players on the cheap for no better reason than because they're cheap really a winning strategy, here? Of course not- you have to differentiate the guys who are cheaper than they should be, and the guys who are dirt cheap for a reason (a well-deserved reason, at that).

If you want to argue that I should be rostering Forsett because of his efficiency metrics, I'll listen. If you want to argue because of your "eyeball test", I'll listen. If you want to argue because Lynch is one misstep away from a major suspension, I'll listen. If you have inside information from the Seahawk coaching staff, I'll listen. If you have an observation about a strength that is a particularly good fit in Seattle's offense, or a particularly good fit against an opposing defense, I'll listen. Those are all examples of good process. If you want to tell me to add Forsett just because he's cheap, I'm not going to listen to you anymore. That's an example of bad process. The phrase "buy low" doesn't mean buy players whose value is low, it means buy players whose value is low but will wind up rising. Unless you've got some reason why a player's value will rise, then he's not a "buy low". If you do have some reason why a player's value will rise, then I'm all ears, but so far all I've heard from you is "he's cheaper right now than he was a week ago" and "he's a backup, so just pay "backup price" for him!".

You don't get it, so I will make it as simple as I can.

1. You don't know that Forsett is just a backup. You don't. He has been a starting RB all year. They gave up a 4th rounder for a RB with a different style. If you want to ASSUME that Forsett loses his job, do so. But don't throw your opinion around as fact. And Stop with the Mewelde Moore bit. He is not Mewelde Moore.

2. If you pay backup RB price for a backup RB, you lose nothing. If that RB was never infact a backup RB, but perception was the opposite, you get a steal. See how simple that is?

3. If a back up RB has 0 value, why do you give them value scores? Arian Foster was a backup, did he have no value before Tate's injury? Jonathan Stewart is a back up, you seem to score him really (too) high!

4. You are back-tracking on your Schaub/Bulger statement. What was your point? You CAN buy Schaub low. And you actually DO agree with my value of Schaub as a dynasty QB. No need to write a novel, because you didn't understand why I meant by tools.

5. "I mean, take your "buy backups just because they're cheap!" statement to its logical conclusion. Why should I be trading for Justin Forsett in particular, here? Why shouldn't I trade for, say, Chester Taylor? He's a backup, so as long as I pay "backup price" for him, I can't possibly lose! And why stop there? Why not roster Matt Flynn and Matt Moore? They're backups, so I'll just pay "backup price" for them. And let's get Taylor Price, and Julian Edelman, and Quarless, and Martellus Bennett while we're at it"

Seriously? Don't insult me or put words in your mouth. If your argument is that Forsett has no value, why do your inconsistant rankings show him as having some? You and I both know he has value, and we both know he will get carries, even if Lynch plays. Matt Flyn? REALLY?! And when did I say buy backups because they are cheap? I didn't. But definately buy guys that have a chance at starting or performing elsewhere. I drafted Foster in the 9th round of a startup while Tate was still healthy. Using your logic, I wasted that pick. Well, Mr.SSOG, he is now the #8 RB in your rankings. So don't buy backups, just because they are backups. Buy them when they provide potential. Get it?

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. :thumbup:

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
Hester is a terrible WR
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyones rankings can be as good as mine. :X

ETA Looking over SSOG's WR rankings, it looks like he has come around on Nicks, although he does seem to be too high on 85. He has Chad 21 points ahead of Mike Williams. Thats a huge gap on the 1-100 scale. I dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt even consider trading Mike Williams for Ocho.

Another ranking i dont agree with is Hester ahead of Kenny Britt. I know Britt is a bit of a head case, but he is leaps and bounds more talented than Hester(at WR), not to mention 6 years younger.

Not everyone will agree with you on this. There are more then a few of us that believe Hester will continue to develop into a very good NFL (and fantasy) WR.
Hester is a terrible WR
:lmao:

Hester is a great athlete, but a pathetic wr. No hands, no brain, bad route running, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the rate he's developing he might be startable when he's in his mid 30's.It isn't like hester is a rookie, he's been around for ahwile and still runs bad routes and has marginal hands at best. He's bye week fodder and likely won't ever be more as he lacks the needed tools to become a solid consistant wr.

At the rate he's developing? What? Two and a half years ago the guy was a cornerback.This is the development chart for a typical NFL WR:Year 1-4: playing WR in high schoolYear 5-7: playing WR in collegeYear 8: rookie year, playing poorly.Year 9: 2nd year, playing poorly.Year 10: 3rd year breakout.This is Devin Hester:Year 1: #1 WR on an NFL franchiseSee the difference? People act like Devin Hester is behind the curve or something, but the truth is he's so astronomically far ahead of the curve in terms of development that it's mind boggling. The very first year the guy was a WR, he led an NFL franchise in receiving yardage. His second season as a WR, he did it again despite missing 3 games. He draws the opposing defense's toughest coverage despite the fact that he's the rawest receiver in the league by a huge margin. I mean, if you consider him a rookie in 2008 (which he was- actually, he was worse than a rookie, he was a rookie with no college WR experience), then his progression has been exactly what you'd expect from a quality WR. 51/665/3 in 15 games as a rookie, 57/775/3 in 13 games as a sophomore (and on an 1100+ yard pace prior to getting injured).How people can bury Hester at this point just baffles me. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Your point is solid but I always do a doubletake when I see Hester as the #1 WR on his team in any year, not that it's incorrect, it indeed is an accurate statement if we need to call someone the #1 WR. But the guy has 665 and 757 yards receiving, for a #1 WR that's plain horrible and demonstrates that there was no true #1 WR either year.
SSOG ignores that Hester was #1 among a supporting cast of clowns. Projecting the leap to an actual difference maker at WR is much, much more dubious. Hester's ONE elite talent is the most fleeting... By the time the position skills catch up to the physical tools, the speed won't be elite anymore.All this said, Hester was a hot commodity after 6-7 games last year.
And you and many others are ignoring the fact that Hester put up numbers most fantasy owners would be pleased with from a first/second year WR, while acting as his team's top receiving threat.I don't get it....everyone is bashing him for less than stellar NFL #1 numbers...but his experiance level is such that his numbers have been not only good, but outstanding under the circumstances.I understand that many aren't sold on him, but those writing him off are :moneybag: There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for assuming that Devin Hester has come even remotely close to his ceiling as an NFL WR. At his currrent cost, he's a solid BUY.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And you and many others are ignoring the fact that Hester put up numbers most fantasy owners would be pleased with from a first/second year WR, while acting as his team's top receiving threat.I don't get it....everyone is bashing him for less than stellar NFL #1 numbers...but his experiance level is such that his numbers have been not only good, but outstanding under the circumstances.I understand that many aren't sold on him, but those writing him off are :clyde: There is absolutely no reasonable explanation for assuming that Devin Hester has come even remotely close to his ceiling as an NFL WR. At his currrent cost, he's a solid BUY.

You and I have different views of what "outstanding" means. Here are Hester's career numbers:2006 - 16 games, 0/0/0 receiving2007 - 16 games, 20/299/2 receiving (15.0 ypr) 2008 - 15 games, 51/665/3 receiving (13.0 ypr)2009 - 13 games, 57/757/3 receiving (13.3 ypr)2010 - 5 games, 11/126/1 receiving (11.5 ypr)Whether or not anyone should be happy with any of those season numbers from a first/second year WR depends on the pedigree of that WR. Consider:1. Even if you give him a pass for 2006-2007, he started 20 games in 2008-2009, and this should be viewed as the equivalent of his third year. Would anyone be satisfied with his level of production in a third year WR?2. He is 28. Would anyone be satisfied with this track record to date for another 28 year old WR?Perhaps more importantly, he is on pace for a major regression this season, projecting to about 35/400/3. And this under Martz, who many thought would elevate the entire passing game, Hester included.His backers have been talking about his ceiling/upside for three years now, just as you have done here. Are you expecting a turnaround this year that will show us this ceiling/upside? If not, how long are you expecting it to take?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this to be the hardest part in doing my rankings. The biggest problem you will come across is you will have to be pretty league specific. Actually, the biggest problem i had was comparing each player to every other player at different positions when trying to guage his fantasy score. It literally took me a year to come up with numbers i was happy with. Actually, it was probably longer, i was still fine tuning for years after i came up with my initial scores. Anyway, good luck.

We're developing our own VBD-style value system that's weighted based on two factors (how likely a player ranked at a certain spot is to start for you, as well as how many points a player ranked at a certain spot typically scores). The answer to the first question is based off of several years worth of data looking at cheatsheets ("a preseason top-8 QB finds himself in the weekly top-8 49% of the time", etc). The answer to the second question is based on historical scoring data over a 5-year window (which is long enough, in my opinion, to weed out the short-term flukes and cause the cream to rise to the top). That VBD score then gets tweaked based on my player valuations to better match my tiering, and the end result is a raw "value score" number. Theoretically, you shouldn't need to make any adjustments when using it to calculate values in many-for-few trades, because that is already built in. The formula is going to produce such severe diminishing returns that it'll say that in order to acquire the #1 QB, someone might need to trade QB10, QB11, QB12, and QB20 (which, based on my most recent rankings, would be Sam Bradford, Kyle Orton, Joe Flacco, and Josh Freeman for Aaron Rodgers). Just as a for example.

Also regarding hester, how many times before a given week has he been looked at as a good fantasy start?Pretty much never unless a team is desperate for a bye week filler.Even after the fact how many games of 60+ receiving yards does he have? We know he's not a good redzone guy so his td's won't ever be high. Unless he can become a guy who can put up big yards he's worthless going into a given week and since he is a horrible route runner who has zero awareness when running routes where he needs depth awareness i don't think he really even has future upside in FF.

Throwing out his game against Detroit where he got injured in the 1st quarter, Devin Hester has topped 60 receiving yards in 8 of his 17 games since the beginning of the 2009 season. Over the same span, Kenny Britt has topped 60 receiving yards 5 times in 20 games.That one sure blew up on you, didn't it? :lol:

Lets forget about the scoring gap, you have Chad two tiers ahead of Williams, would you really trade Mike Williams for Ocho? Chad isnt even the #1 WR on a team that runs first and has a QB that cant throw further than 15 yards down the field. I know he was one of the best for years, but at 33, i think those days are behind him.

If I have Player A over Player B, you don't need to ask if I would trade Player B for Player A. The answer is "yes". If the players are close in value, the answer might be "yes, as long as ________", but if the players have a decent gap between them, the answer is just "yes".
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is solid but I always do a doubletake when I see Hester as the #1 WR on his team in any year, not that it's incorrect, it indeed is an accurate statement if we need to call someone the #1 WR. But the guy has 665 and 757 yards receiving, for a #1 WR that's plain horrible and demonstrates that there was no true #1 WR either year.

His 757 yard season, he was on pace for 1100+ yards before getting hurt. In the 12 full games he played (not counting the game he got injured in the 1st quarter), Hester put up 755 yards, which equates to a 1007 yard pace over a full 16 games. Not bad for a guy who was only in his second season playing WR.

So don't buy backups, just because they are backups. Buy them when they provide potential. Get it?

Cutting out the majority of the post because it all boils down to this. I agree 100% with this statement. You originally said "buy Justin Forsett because he has potential". I responded that I really didn't think he had much potential, and outlined my reasons why (because his coaches seemed to be allergic to giving him a featured workload). You responded with the following: "My confusion is this: Everybody reading this knows why Forsett's value is much lower than it was a couple weeks ago. But isn't that when you buy? As I said, he is a lottery ticket, in that he shouldn't cost you much. If he doesn't work out, you have a back up RB/handcuff or a RBBC guy, which is really all you are going to have to pay for. If he does work out, you have more than what you paid for."

I took major, major exception to the bolded, and responded as such. I specifically said that my response was in reply to the bolded, and only in reply to the bolded. "His price has gone down" is not a good reason to buy on an RB. Your first stated reasons (that he might be the featured back) was a fine reason to buy on him, although I strongly disagreed for the reasons I mentioned. Then we got off on a big tangent on the difference between "buying him low" and "buying because his value is low".

As for the backup RB discussion... Arian Foster was a backup who wound up having value because he stopped being a backup. If you buy a backup, and he remains a backup, then he had 0 value. So if you pay "backup price" for an RB, and he remains a backup, you lost value (even though you "only" paid "backup price").

Backups only have value insofar as they have the chance to shed their backup label. If they fail to shed that backup label, then it doesn't matter what you paid for them, it was too much.

You and I have different views of what "outstanding" means. Here are Hester's career numbers:

2006 - 16 games, 0/0/0 receiving

2007 - 16 games, 20/299/2 receiving (15.0 ypr)

2008 - 15 games, 51/665/3 receiving (13.0 ypr)

2009 - 13 games, 57/757/3 receiving (13.3 ypr)

2010 - 5 games, 11/126/1 receiving (11.5 ypr)

Whether or not anyone should be happy with any of those season numbers from a first/second year WR depends on the pedigree of that WR. Consider:

1. Even if you give him a pass for 2006-2007, he started 20 games in 2008-2009, and this should be viewed as the equivalent of his third year. Would anyone be satisfied with his level of production in a third year WR?

2. He is 28. Would anyone be satisfied with this track record to date for another 28 year old WR?

Perhaps more importantly, he is on pace for a major regression this season, projecting to about 35/400/3. And this under Martz, who many thought would elevate the entire passing game, Hester included.

His backers have been talking about his ceiling/upside for three years now, just as you have done here. Are you expecting a turnaround this year that will show us this ceiling/upside? If not, how long are you expecting it to take?

In 2006, Devin Hester was a cornerback. In 2007, Devin Hester was a cornerback. In 2008, Devin Hester was a Wide Receiver. Please explain to me again why we should consider 2008 Hester's "third year" again? That looks like his "first year" to me.

If a guy put up 51/665/3 in his first year, and 75/1007/4 in his second year (those are his pro-rated numbers based on the 12 games he played), then people would be thrilled with his performance to date. Devin Hester does it, and he's a scrub. 'Sup, market inefficiency?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point is solid but I always do a doubletake when I see Hester as the #1 WR on his team in any year, not that it's incorrect, it indeed is an accurate statement if we need to call someone the #1 WR. But the guy has 665 and 757 yards receiving, for a #1 WR that's plain horrible and demonstrates that there was no true #1 WR either year.

His 757 yard season, he was on pace for 1100+ yards before getting hurt. In the 12 full games he played (not counting the game he got injured in the 1st quarter), Hester put up 755 yards, which equates to a 1007 yard pace over a full 16 games. Not bad for a guy who was only in his second season playing WR.

So don't buy backups, just because they are backups. Buy them when they provide potential. Get it?

Cutting out the majority of the post because it all boils down to this. I agree 100% with this statement. You originally said "buy Justin Forsett because he has potential". I responded that I really didn't think he had much potential, and outlined my reasons why (because his coaches seemed to be allergic to giving him a featured workload). You responded with the following: "My confusion is this: Everybody reading this knows why Forsett's value is much lower than it was a couple weeks ago. But isn't that when you buy? As I said, he is a lottery ticket, in that he shouldn't cost you much. If he doesn't work out, you have a back up RB/handcuff or a RBBC guy, which is really all you are going to have to pay for. If he does work out, you have more than what you paid for."

I took major, major exception to the bolded, and responded as such. I specifically said that my response was in reply to the bolded, and only in reply to the bolded. "His price has gone down" is not a good reason to buy on an RB. Your first stated reasons (that he might be the featured back) was a fine reason to buy on him, although I strongly disagreed for the reasons I mentioned. Then we got off on a big tangent on the difference between "buying him low" and "buying because his value is low".

As for the backup RB discussion... Arian Foster was a backup who wound up having value because he stopped being a backup. If you buy a backup, and he remains a backup, then he had 0 value. So if you pay "backup price" for an RB, and he remains a backup, you lost value (even though you "only" paid "backup price").

Backups only have value insofar as they have the chance to shed their backup label. If they fail to shed that backup label, then it doesn't matter what you paid for them, it was too much.

You and I have different views of what "outstanding" means. Here are Hester's career numbers:

2006 - 16 games, 0/0/0 receiving

2007 - 16 games, 20/299/2 receiving (15.0 ypr)

2008 - 15 games, 51/665/3 receiving (13.0 ypr)

2009 - 13 games, 57/757/3 receiving (13.3 ypr)

2010 - 5 games, 11/126/1 receiving (11.5 ypr)

Whether or not anyone should be happy with any of those season numbers from a first/second year WR depends on the pedigree of that WR. Consider:

1. Even if you give him a pass for 2006-2007, he started 20 games in 2008-2009, and this should be viewed as the equivalent of his third year. Would anyone be satisfied with his level of production in a third year WR?

2. He is 28. Would anyone be satisfied with this track record to date for another 28 year old WR?

Perhaps more importantly, he is on pace for a major regression this season, projecting to about 35/400/3. And this under Martz, who many thought would elevate the entire passing game, Hester included.

His backers have been talking about his ceiling/upside for three years now, just as you have done here. Are you expecting a turnaround this year that will show us this ceiling/upside? If not, how long are you expecting it to take?

In 2006, Devin Hester was a cornerback. In 2007, Devin Hester was a cornerback. In 2008, Devin Hester was a Wide Receiver. Please explain to me again why we should consider 2008 Hester's "third year" again? That looks like his "first year" to me.

If a guy put up 51/665/3 in his first year, and 75/1007/4 in his second year (those are his pro-rated numbers based on the 12 games he played), then people would be thrilled with his performance to date. Devin Hester does it, and he's a scrub. 'Sup, market inefficiency?

have you ever been confidant starting hester so far in his career?
Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever been confidant starting hester so far in his career?

I don't know what that question has to do with anything. First off, that is highly dependent on scoring systems. Second off, even if the answer was "no" (and in this case, the answer is not "no"), it doesn't prove anything- I wouldn't be confident starting Demaryius Thomas, either. With those two caveats... Hester has played in 17 games over the past 2 seasons. I've started him in 11 of those games. Of course, like I said, scoring system matters- my league counts punt return yards the same as receiving yards.

For a more objective answer... Going through Dodds' weekly cheatsheets, here's how often Hester has been ranked in each range since the beginning of 2009, corresponding to WR1, high WR2, low WR2, high WR3, and low WR3, respectively.

Top 12- 2

13-18- 3

19-24- 4

25-30- 3

31-36- 0

healthy, but outside the top 36- 5

So Dodds would have been confident starting Hester in 12 of the 17 weeks where he was healthy heading into the game over the last year. He would have been VERY conident (WR2 numbers or better) in 9 of those 17 games.

Just because you haven't felt confident starting Hester does not mean that everyone else hasn't felt confident starting Hester.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever been confidant starting hester so far in his career?

I don't know what that question has to do with anything. First off, that is highly dependent on scoring systems. Second off, even if the answer was "no" (and in this case, the answer is not "no"), it doesn't prove anything- I wouldn't be confident starting Demaryius Thomas, either. With those two caveats... Hester has played in 17 games over the past 2 seasons. I've started him in 11 of those games. Of course, like I said, scoring system matters- my league counts punt return yards the same as receiving yards.

For a more objective answer... Going through Dodds' weekly cheatsheets, here's how often Hester has been ranked in each range since the beginning of 2009, corresponding to WR1, high WR2, low WR2, high WR3, and low WR3, respectively.

Top 12- 2

13-18- 3

19-24- 4

25-30- 3

31-36- 0

healthy, but outside the top 36- 5

So Dodds would have been confident starting Hester in 12 of the 17 weeks where he was healthy heading into the game over the last year. He would have been VERY conident (WR2 numbers or better) in 9 of those 17 games.

Just because you haven't felt confident starting Hester does not mean that everyone else hasn't felt confident starting Hester.

Somehow, I seriously doubt everyone else but moderated has felt confident starting Hester 12 of the last 17 weeks.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also regarding hester, how many times before a given week has he been looked at as a good fantasy start?

Pretty much never unless a team is desperate for a bye week filler.

Even after the fact how many games of 60+ receiving yards does he have? We know he's not a good redzone guy so his td's won't ever be high. Unless he can become a guy who can put up big yards he's worthless going into a given week and since he is a horrible route runner who has zero awareness when running routes where he needs depth awareness i don't think he really even has future upside in FF.

;)

IMO Hester has been overrated by SSOG and a few others around here for quite some time.

:lmao:

How can anyone put Hester anywhere close to Britt in Dynasty value?

It's not just that Hester is one of the handful of least productive starting WRs in the league, he's also having his offensive role reduced once again so he can concentrate on punt returns.

He's played 5 games this year and cleared 20 receiving yards once. I don't know if I can find a WR with less value. He played 19 of the Bears' 64 offensive snaps last week (compared to 38 for Earl Bennett), and he admits that the plan is for him to sit more often. I'm not sure I'd even waste a roster spot on him even in 25-man Dynasty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa F&L. Love the new website. I hadn't checked on your ranking in a while and was pleasantly surprised :thumbsup:

Can someone PM me the link? I noticed the links were removed from F&L's sig and not sure if there is a reason for that but I'd like to see his new site.

TIA

Links removed courtesy of Joe Bryant.

Edit to add: I am updating rankings this weekend, and I'm going to try to include at least QB/RB in my Morning After column on Rotoworld tomorrow.

Edited by Fear & Loathing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Early 2011 will be very interesting. Per rotoworld, Foster is a RFA next year, so watching the Texans decisions on how much to pay the man is going to say a lot about whether he's a special back, or just a guy in a special scheme.

If the Texans commit big money to Foster on a 4 or 5 year contract, i would feel ALOT better about him.
I'm pretty sure he's an exclusive rights free agent after the season as opposed to a restricted free agent. Either way, he's not going anywhere. But obviously a 4-5 year contract would be optimal for his dynasty value.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You and I have different views of what "outstanding" means. Here are Hester's career numbers:

2006 - 16 games, 0/0/0 receiving

2007 - 16 games, 20/299/2 receiving (15.0 ypr)

2008 - 15 games, 51/665/3 receiving (13.0 ypr)

2009 - 13 games, 57/757/3 receiving (13.3 ypr)

2010 - 5 games, 11/126/1 receiving (11.5 ypr)

Whether or not anyone should be happy with any of those season numbers from a first/second year WR depends on the pedigree of that WR. Consider:

1. Even if you give him a pass for 2006-2007, he started 20 games in 2008-2009, and this should be viewed as the equivalent of his third year. Would anyone be satisfied with his level of production in a third year WR?

2. He is 28. Would anyone be satisfied with this track record to date for another 28 year old WR?

Perhaps more importantly, he is on pace for a major regression this season, projecting to about 35/400/3. And this under Martz, who many thought would elevate the entire passing game, Hester included.

His backers have been talking about his ceiling/upside for three years now, just as you have done here. Are you expecting a turnaround this year that will show us this ceiling/upside? If not, how long are you expecting it to take?

In 2006, Devin Hester was a cornerback. In 2007, Devin Hester was a cornerback. In 2008, Devin Hester was a Wide Receiver. Please explain to me again why we should consider 2008 Hester's "third year" again? That looks like his "first year" to me.

If a guy put up 51/665/3 in his first year, and 75/1007/4 in his second year (those are his pro-rated numbers based on the 12 games he played), then people would be thrilled with his performance to date. Devin Hester does it, and he's a scrub. 'Sup, market inefficiency?

I didn't say 2008 should be considered his third year. I said if you give him a pass on 2006 and 2007, this (2010) would be his third year. Hope that helps.

Also, stop with the prorating. His numbers are his numbers, and he played 13 games, not 12. He hasn't yet come close to posting 1000 yards in a season. Your man love for this guy is over the top.

Also, I noticed you did not address the bolded above. Those are really the critical issues here.

SSOG: You are the guy who brought up the discussion of urgency earlier in this thread, right? How do you feel that concept applies to Hester?

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever been confidant starting hester so far in his career?

I don't know what that question has to do with anything. First off, that is highly dependent on scoring systems. Second off, even if the answer was "no" (and in this case, the answer is not "no"), it doesn't prove anything- I wouldn't be confident starting Demaryius Thomas, either. With those two caveats... Hester has played in 17 games over the past 2 seasons. I've started him in 11 of those games. Of course, like I said, scoring system matters- my league counts punt return yards the same as receiving yards.

For a more objective answer... Going through Dodds' weekly cheatsheets, here's how often Hester has been ranked in each range since the beginning of 2009, corresponding to WR1, high WR2, low WR2, high WR3, and low WR3, respectively.

Top 12- 2

13-18- 3

19-24- 4

25-30- 3

31-36- 0

healthy, but outside the top 36- 5

So Dodds would have been confident starting Hester in 12 of the 17 weeks where he was healthy heading into the game over the last year. He would have been VERY conident (WR2 numbers or better) in 9 of those 17 games.

Just because you haven't felt confident starting Hester does not mean that everyone else hasn't felt confident starting Hester.

And how many times would Dodds have regretted it after the fact? How many times would Hester have justified that ranking? :lmao:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you haven't felt confident starting Hester does not mean that everyone else hasn't felt confident starting Hester.

Somehow, I seriously doubt everyone else but moderated has felt confident starting Hester 12 of the last 17 weeks.
I never said that. I said that it does not mean that everyone else hasn't felt confident starting Hester. In order for that to be a true statement, you don't need to prove that everyone else *DID* feel confident starting Hester, you just need to demonstrate that a single person did feel confident starting Hester (which I have already demonstrated with David Dodds' weekly cheatsheets, which means that my statement was a true statement).

I didn't say 2008 should be considered his third year. I said if you give him a pass on 2006 and 2007, this (2010) would be his third year. Hope that helps.

Also, stop with the prorating. His numbers are his numbers, and he played 13 games, not 12. He hasn't yet come close to posting 1000 yards in a season. Your man love for this guy is over the top.

Also, I noticed you did not address the bolded above. Those are really the critical issues here.

SSOG: You are the guy who brought up the discussion of urgency earlier in this thread, right? How do you feel that concept applies to Hester?

You're right on the first point. Reading fail on my part.

I will not stop pro-rating. I remain steadfastly convinced that pro-rated numbers give a truer measure of a player's production level than his aggregate numbers. That is a point I remain 100% convinced is "good process" and will not budge on. Provided you have a large enough sample size (i.e. you aren't pro-rating based off of 2 games), this seems self-evident to me. I think Chase's "points per quarter" is the ultimate measure of statistical performance, and if I had a means of easily reproducing it, I would use that 100% of the time. I don't think it's perfect (I do agree that aggregate performance matters to some degree- 5 points per quarter over 64 quarters is more impressive than the same figure over 44 quarters), but I think it's a far sight above what is used most of the time.

I would hardly classify my feelings for Hester as "man-love". I've got him 36th in my rankings, down in tier 7. If that's man-love, then I need to be locked up for stalking Dwayne Bowe, who I've got 33rd. I just refuse to close the book on him as definitively as everyone else seems to be willing to do. If I talk about him a lot, it's because others bring him up a lot, which hardly represents any fault of my own or any commentary on my own feelings.

In response to your bolded, I don't know how long Hester will take to develop. I also have no idea how long Britt, Sims-Walker, or Knox (to name 3 of the 4 guys ranked closest to Hester) will continue to develop. At that point, I'm not ranking based on immediacy of a player's contributions to my squad, I'm ranking based on long-term value. Urgency matters, but it's a very minor concept best used when deciding between fringe prospects or guys in virtual ties, and I'm not even convinced that Hester is a "low-urgency" player based on his level of play last season.

And how many times would Dodds have regretted it after the fact? How many times would Hester have justified that ranking? :(

Give me a working definition of "justifying the ranking" and I'll gladly provide you the figures. If he's ranked 11th and he finishes 13th, did he justify his ranking? 18th? 24th? What if he's ranked 36th and he finishes 37th?

Time permitting, I'll also make an effort to figure out how frequently comparably ranked players "justified their ranking" to provide some context (which, in my opinion, is far more important than Hester's raw success rate).

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to your bolded, I don't know how long Hester will take to develop. I also have no idea how long Britt, Sims-Walker, or Knox (to name 3 of the 4 guys ranked closest to Hester) will continue to develop. At that point, I'm not ranking based on immediacy of a player's contributions to my squad, I'm ranking based on long-term value. Urgency matters, but it's a very minor concept best used when deciding between fringe prospects or guys in virtual ties, and I'm not even convinced that Hester is a "low-urgency" player based on his level of play last season.

There are significant age differences here:28 Hester26 Sims-Walker24 Knox22 BrittI'd much rather have Knox or Britt in particular. Their upside seems quite a bit more tangible given that they have 4-6 more years to improve than Hester does. It's hard for me to see Hester being ranked essentially equivalent to them based on long term value.

And how many times would Dodds have regretted it after the fact? How many times would Hester have justified that ranking? :thumbdown:

Give me a working definition of "justifying the ranking" and I'll gladly provide you the figures. If he's ranked 11th and he finishes 13th, did he justify his ranking? 18th? 24th? What if he's ranked 36th and he finishes 37th?Time permitting, I'll also make an effort to figure out how frequently comparably ranked players "justified their ranking" to provide some context (which, in my opinion, is far more important than Hester's raw success rate).
I don't know, it becomes a subjective question, so I'm not sure it's all that useful. If you were going to perform the exercise, I'd say it would be good enough to be within a handful of ranking spots (6?).Another way to look at it is looking at fantasy points scored. Hester has scored 8+ fantasy points (FBG scoring, not including returns) 13 times since 2008 - 6 times in 2008, 6 times in 2009, and once this season. That is a number that I would not be unhappy with from a starting WR in most leagues/formats. But that's just 13 times in 35 games, he has averaged just 5.9 ppg over that 35 game span, and he is regressing. From the second half of last season through yesterday, he has had 8+ fantasy points only once in 11 games, and he has just 29/361/1 receiving in that span... just 3.8 ppg.To me, right now he is not startable in any league... and I don't see any reason to believe he ever will be. Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also regarding hester, how many times before a given week has he been looked at as a good fantasy start?

Pretty much never unless a team is desperate for a bye week filler.

Even after the fact how many games of 60+ receiving yards does he have? We know he's not a good redzone guy so his td's won't ever be high. Unless he can become a guy who can put up big yards he's worthless going into a given week and since he is a horrible route runner who has zero awareness when running routes where he needs depth awareness i don't think he really even has future upside in FF.

:coffee:

IMO Hester has been overrated by SSOG and a few others around here for quite some time.

:goodposting:

How can anyone put Hester anywhere close to Britt in Dynasty value?

It's not just that Hester is one of the handful of least productive starting WRs in the league, he's also having his offensive role reduced once again so he can concentrate on punt returns.

He's played 5 games this year and cleared 20 receiving yards once. I don't know if I can find a WR with less value. He played 19 of the Bears' 64 offensive snaps last week (compared to 38 for Earl Bennett), and he admits that the plan is for him to sit more often. I'm not sure I'd even waste a roster spot on him even in 25-man Dynasty.

Hester stinks. When I read SSOG's unflinching love for him it makes me very scared that I have based other moves on SSOG's opinions. :hophead: lol
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...