What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Dynasty Rankings (2 Viewers)

Perception, meet reality. Reality, meet perception.
SSOG, I love ya, brother, but I urge you to take a more open-minded look at this situation. Your position on Devin Hester vs. Kenny Britt is preposterous.Re: Britt's "on pace" stats. Come on. You're not even trying to be fair here. Britt has started two games out of six. You sweep this major note under the rug like it's not even a factor. Additionally, his production was clearly hurt Monday night by the exit of Vince Young and the Titans' early lead. He's a 22-year-old 1st round pick with an obvious No. 1 WR skill-set. His value is only going to rise, and the game film on him is excellent. Hester is a 28-year-old converted corner/return specialist who is what he is: Not an NFL caliber starting WR. He actually has started all six games, and he's on pace for fewer yards than Britt. His body won't hold up to the starting role, and he's not good enough to keep Chicago's mediocre backups off the field.
 
You didn't compare Foster to Peterson, but you did use Peterson as an example of eliteness.I think I need a term defination here - What is an Elite RB in your mind? we talking historic, HoF good? Top 10 current back good? Or are we talking about skill set or elite ability in a phase of the game? If I understand your argument, Peterson is, Felix Jones will be as soon as he gets the chance, Foster can't be; so I'm trying to get your frame of reference.Val
I don't know how to tangibly quantify "elite". Good question. Without much though, I would say top 5 in the NFL at any one aspect of your game. I think Felix's ability to plant and go is elite, I think Jamaal Charles' speed is elite, I think Ray Rice's balance is elite, I think Chris Johnson's quickness is elite, I think Matt Forte's pass blocking is elite, I think Steven Jackson does just about everything at an elite level. I can give more examples, but I think you get the idea. I don't think doing any one thing at an elite level makes you elite. But I don't think you can be elite without doing at least one thing at an elite level.EDIT: I didn't really answer your question. I would say top 5 right now = "elite".
OK, I can buy that. He's not top 5 dynasty. Note, neither is Felix Jones, no matter how much you stare at him through navy and silver colored glasses.Now, Foster at the 10-15 level with a chance to break into the top 10? That I can buy into.Val
 
OK, I can buy that. He's not top 5 dynasty. Note, neither is Felix Jones, no matter how much you stare at him through navy and silver colored glasses.Now, Foster at the 10-15 level with a chance to break into the top 10? That I can buy into.Val
I would agree on both counts: Felix is not top 5 and Foster is top 10-15 with potential to move up. I have them both pretty close. But if Felix continues to get 15-17 carries, I think the difference in talent will begin translating to stats as soon as the end of the season.
 
I guess it would depend on your team, and what you mean by mid-tier. I hate being mid-tier in FF. You miss out on elite talent in the draft, more often than not, and you are never one lucky week away from winning everything.

I would decide if you are a hot streak away from being the best team in the league for 2-3 weeks. If the answer is no, move him. If the answer is yes, only move him for equal return, this season, or at least more of an initial impact than D. Brown will offer.

As far as Donald Brown, he is the more talented player. I would much rather have Brown, if we are in a vacuum, or startup draft. Unless you think you can win it all this year, I would make that trade and not think twice about it.
No matter your team, you have to make this trade. If you can get Donald Brown for Ryan Torain, you have to run to the laptop and hit "yes" on the trade offer. They make guys like Torain as a god-send for owners to flip to clueless wannabe contenders in exchange for a legitimately promising prospect.
LMAO@ the bolded. I don't always agree with you F&L, and your style is a bit more caustic than I like, but that is dead on and very funny.
 
Perception, meet reality. Reality, meet perception.
SSOG, I love ya, brother, but I urge you to take a more open-minded look at this situation. Your position on Devin Hester vs. Kenny Britt is preposterous.Re: Britt's "on pace" stats. Come on. You're not even trying to be fair here. Britt has started two games out of six. You sweep this major note under the rug like it's not even a factor. Additionally, his production was clearly hurt Monday night by the exit of Vince Young and the Titans' early lead. He's a 22-year-old 1st round pick with an obvious No. 1 WR skill-set. His value is only going to rise, and the game film on him is excellent. Hester is a 28-year-old converted corner/return specialist who is what he is: Not an NFL caliber starting WR. He actually has started all six games, and he's on pace for fewer yards than Britt. His body won't hold up to the starting role, and he's not good enough to keep Chicago's mediocre backups off the field.
Again, I gotta agree with F &L. And to be fair, I know that SSOG has a healthy respect for Britt and his future. However, it seems to me like you really need to take a hard look at Hester. He has been given every opportunity to succeed and has been put in a good situation, yet he is pretty meh...
 
Well I just pulled the trigger on a big one. After months of arguing for Best over Spiller...I traded Best FOR Spiller...and I got Fred Jackson and Vincent Jackson too. (non-ppr).

The other owner is trying to shore up his RB rotation obviously. And as much as I do like Best's talent...I am a little concerned that 6 games in he's nicked up, not seeing 20 carries a game, hasn't broken the 80 yard mark, etc..

I still think Best is better than Spiller...but if I get VJ and Fred Jackson, I'll take Spiller.

 
Well I just pulled the trigger on a big one. After months of arguing for Best over Spiller...I traded Best FOR Spiller...and I got Fred Jackson and Vincent Jackson too. (non-ppr).The other owner is trying to shore up his RB rotation obviously. And as much as I do like Best's talent...I am a little concerned that 6 games in he's nicked up, not seeing 20 carries a game, hasn't broken the 80 yard mark, etc..I still think Best is better than Spiller...but if I get VJ and Fred Jackson, I'll take Spiller.
Seriously?! Wow. You stole the Jacksons. There is no way Best is that much better than Spiller. Nice trade for you.
 
I will lick my mounds and hope next year he can stay healthy.
NTTAWWT.(Anyone else have visions of Deranged Hermit's avatar dancing through their mind right now?)

I would trade Finley for Gates in a second. I would have before the injury. Antonio Gates is doing special things - league winning things. I would take 4 years of elite production from gates, over 10 years of good production from Finley. I know Finley looks the part, but he is not the athlete that Gates is; he is not as fluid. Finley could put up Gates like numbers, at one point in his career, but I wouldn't bet on it. It is far from a given, at the very least.

Don't get me wrong, he is the clear #2, but Gates is on another level. I think you can make an argument that Gates is the best player in the NFL. The gap bewteen he and the next best TE is bigger than that of any other position.
Nit: If I were setting an EV on how many seasons Gates has left, I'd set it at 3 years, not 4- and the prospect of a lockout could reduce that number further, still. Still, I agree that Finley is unlikely to ever become the TE that Gates is, despite the hype surrounding him. That's mostly based on my opinion that Gates is the best receiving TE in history (yes, over Tony Gonzalez). I can understand why anyone would rank one over the other (I've got them tied in value), and I could possibly see a case for Vernon Davis, but I think at this point those guys are clearly and unequivocally the top 3 dynasty TEs.
SSOG, I love ya, brother, but I urge you to take a more open-minded look at this situation. Your position on Devin Hester vs. Kenny Britt is preposterous.

Re: Britt's "on pace" stats. Come on. You're not even trying to be fair here. Britt has started two games out of six. You sweep this major note under the rug like it's not even a factor. Additionally, his production was clearly hurt Monday night by the exit of Vince Young and the Titans' early lead. He's a 22-year-old 1st round pick with an obvious No. 1 WR skill-set. His value is only going to rise, and the game film on him is excellent.

Hester is a 28-year-old converted corner/return specialist who is what he is: Not an NFL caliber starting WR. He actually has started all six games, and he's on pace for fewer yards than Britt. His body won't hold up to the starting role, and he's not good enough to keep Chicago's mediocre backups off the field.
I feel I'm being very fair to Britt. You want to use the fact that he only started 2 games as a point in his favor, but I view that as a huge negative. He only started 2 games because he got beat out by Nate Washington and Justin Gage. And it's not like he's been tearing it up in his starts, either- he has 4/86 and 2/33. He reportedly has maturity issues and is in Fisher's doghouse. He's flashed talent, but at this point, I don't think he's done a single thing to distinguish himself from the rest of my "prospect with upside" cluster. At this point, he reminds me more of Dwayne Bowe than anyone else. He's got great talent and if he ever puts it together, he'll be a force... but I would hate to find myself in a position where I was relying on Kenny Britt putting it all together.As far as Hester... maybe I'm giving too much credence to the fact that he's still learning the position, but as I said, I was incredibly impressed by how well he played last season, and I can't help but notice how much opposing defenses respect him. He's struggling a ton this year and seeing his playing time cut when I expected him to see his role increase, and that's very troubling to me, but he's a player with sky-high upside who already has a productive season under his belt. It might be stubbornness, but I really think people are far too quick to declare him "worthless".

 
I will lick my mounds and hope next year he can stay healthy.
NTTAWWT.(Anyone else have visions of Deranged Hermit's avatar dancing through their mind right now?)

I would trade Finley for Gates in a second. I would have before the injury. Antonio Gates is doing special things - league winning things. I would take 4 years of elite production from gates, over 10 years of good production from Finley. I know Finley looks the part, but he is not the athlete that Gates is; he is not as fluid. Finley could put up Gates like numbers, at one point in his career, but I wouldn't bet on it. It is far from a given, at the very least.

Don't get me wrong, he is the clear #2, but Gates is on another level. I think you can make an argument that Gates is the best player in the NFL. The gap bewteen he and the next best TE is bigger than that of any other position.
Nit: If I were setting an EV on how many seasons Gates has left, I'd set it at 3 years, not 4- and the prospect of a lockout could reduce that number further, still. Still, I agree that Finley is unlikely to ever become the TE that Gates is, despite the hype surrounding him. That's mostly based on my opinion that Gates is the best receiving TE in history (yes, over Tony Gonzalez). I can understand why anyone would rank one over the other (I've got them tied in value), and I could possibly see a case for Vernon Davis, but I think at this point those guys are clearly and unequivocally the top 3 dynasty TEs.
SSOG, I love ya, brother, but I urge you to take a more open-minded look at this situation. Your position on Devin Hester vs. Kenny Britt is preposterous.

Re: Britt's "on pace" stats. Come on. You're not even trying to be fair here. Britt has started two games out of six. You sweep this major note under the rug like it's not even a factor. Additionally, his production was clearly hurt Monday night by the exit of Vince Young and the Titans' early lead. He's a 22-year-old 1st round pick with an obvious No. 1 WR skill-set. His value is only going to rise, and the game film on him is excellent.

Hester is a 28-year-old converted corner/return specialist who is what he is: Not an NFL caliber starting WR. He actually has started all six games, and he's on pace for fewer yards than Britt. His body won't hold up to the starting role, and he's not good enough to keep Chicago's mediocre backups off the field.
I feel I'm being very fair to Britt. You want to use the fact that he only started 2 games as a point in his favor, but I view that as a huge negative. He only started 2 games because he got beat out by Nate Washington and Justin Gage. And it's not like he's been tearing it up in his starts, either- he has 4/86 and 2/33. He reportedly has maturity issues and is in Fisher's doghouse. He's flashed talent, but at this point, I don't think he's done a single thing to distinguish himself from the rest of my "prospect with upside" cluster. At this point, he reminds me more of Dwayne Bowe than anyone else. He's got great talent and if he ever puts it together, he'll be a force... but I would hate to find myself in a position where I was relying on Kenny Britt putting it all together.As far as Hester... maybe I'm giving too much credence to the fact that he's still learning the position, but as I said, I was incredibly impressed by how well he played last season, and I can't help but notice how much opposing defenses respect him. He's struggling a ton this year and seeing his playing time cut when I expected him to see his role increase, and that's very troubling to me, but he's a player with sky-high upside who already has a productive season under his belt. It might be stubbornness, but I really think people are far too quick to declare him "worthless".
SSOG, I very often find myself getting behind your line of thinking, but you seem to be quite stubborn in your opinion on Britt and seem dug in to show why he's not doing anything. However, you're conveniently leaving out quite a few things.

--You talk about his lack of yards. What do you make of the fact that, AS A ROOKIE, he put up 701 yards last year? And, he wasn't even a "starter" until week 10 when he did this. Also, that's not to mention that he did this in the midst of Chris Johnson putting up a record breaking year on the ground. You've got a rookie WR, on a HEAVILY run-oriented team (28th in the NFL in passing attempts last year), who didn't even start until week 10, and he puts up over 700 yds yet you're harping on the fact that, after only starting TWO whole games this year, he's only on pace for 560 yards? So you ignore a full year's body of work as a rookie and focus on 2 starts during his 2nd year to determine he's overrated? I'm gonna call a foul there.

--You talk about his maturity issues. I, too, am leery of those types of comments. However, there are numerous examples of "maturity" issues that have resulted in productive players. We don't need to discuss Marshall any more. DeSean has had his. Crabtree has had his. And on and on. The fact that, despite those issues, he's NOW the starter, shows that he's able to improve and that the coaching staff wants to see him succeed. He wasn't beat out by Nate Washington and Gage. There are other reasons for his not starting. But now he is so it's mostly a moot point.

--You ignore how he looks on the field. There's a more to this hobby than numbers. He's a 1st round pick that LOOKS like a WR1. That type of player will eventually command more targets than he's currently receiving.

I don't think folks are elevating the guy into top 10 WR status. He's still WR15-20 at best, but he has quite a bit more going for him than most any other prospect in that range. To dismiss his cumulative body of work just isn't right and that's what it looks like it's happening. Now, I know my post (and others) aren't going to really change your mind because, while you do great work, you do seem to really dig your heels in when challenged (lots of us do this as well), but I think you're missing the forest for the trees with him in trying to microscopically dissect what's gone on over just the past few weeks. There are far more positives than negatives. And I think you're confusing the reason for people liking him as being the fact that he's scoring TDs when the TDs likely have very little to do with it.

 
Perception, meet reality. Reality, meet perception.
SSOG, I love ya, brother, but I urge you to take a more open-minded look at this situation. Your position on Devin Hester vs. Kenny Britt is preposterous.Re: Britt's "on pace" stats. Come on. You're not even trying to be fair here. Britt has started two games out of six. You sweep this major note under the rug like it's not even a factor. Additionally, his production was clearly hurt Monday night by the exit of Vince Young and the Titans' early lead. He's a 22-year-old 1st round pick with an obvious No. 1 WR skill-set. His value is only going to rise, and the game film on him is excellent. Hester is a 28-year-old converted corner/return specialist who is what he is: Not an NFL caliber starting WR. He actually has started all six games, and he's on pace for fewer yards than Britt. His body won't hold up to the starting role, and he's not good enough to keep Chicago's mediocre backups off the field.
:kicksrock:
 
I don't know about that. Floyd is top 5 in the league in receiving yards. It's not really reasonable to expect Alexander to match that kind of performance.I don't agree that route running is always "teachable" either. I've said before that I think route running ability is largely a consequence of natural physical talent. Some guys are just naturally smoother and more explosive with a superior ability to make difficult cuts and change direction without losing momentum. The reason that guys like Percy Harvin and Demaryius Thomas have been able to come in and excel immediately is because they're such gifted athletes that they can run many routes effectively even if they didn't have much experience with those patterns in college. I watched Alexander pretty closely at the Senior Bowl and felt he was one of the worst WRs in attendance. Yes, he is tall and reasonably fast in a straight line, but he didn't play with much strength or aggression and really struggled getting separation out of breaks because he doesn't change directions well. It will be interesting to see whether or not any of these shortcomings carry over into the next few weeks. Certainly he will get more opportunities and if he continues to excel, teams will scheme against him. Then we'll see what he's really made of. As for the knee, the fact that it was scary enough to prevent any NFL team from using even so much as a 7th round pick on an alleged top 100 type prospect should be a bit alarming, no?
Top 5 out of the gate? Probably not. However if we consider how long it took Floyd to get to that point and the fact that just last year he was widely thought of as a guy who was only a threat on fade routes and jump balls? He's certainly starting faster than Floyd did (even if you want to eliminate everything before 08 when Floyd started getting meaningful PT). I don't see a huge difference in skillset (although my evaluations of floyd are formulated more on watching him last year than this year, when I haven't seen that much of him).I'm not saying that route-running is necessarily teachable either--hence the use of the word 'theoretically' and the question marks in my first post. My point there was more that the late first-early third grade makes sense absent the injuries as there are more than a few people and organizations that do consider these things teachable.And yes, obviously the knee is more than a bit alarming. If the knee doesn't hold up the point of this conversation is moot. It will take years of healthy play before Alexander can ever shed the 'injury prone' label (and that will keep his trade value well below that ordinarily commanded by his production even if he IS the second coming of Randy Moss). I'm more curious whether there's value to be had if the knee holds up or whether he's a sell-high who will fade back into obscurity in the next couple weeks based on coming out of nowhere and coverages not having adjusted to him.And the other more general dynasty question becomes: As he's a guy who clearly didn't pass your eyeball test despite his astounding measurables, how many weeks/seasons of sustained production (not to say whether they're coming or not, your guess is as good as mine) would it take you to decide/concede he's for real?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG, I very often find myself getting behind your line of thinking, but you seem to be quite stubborn in your opinion on Britt and seem dug in to show why he's not doing anything. However, you're conveniently leaving out quite a few things.

--You talk about his lack of yards. What do you make of the fact that, AS A ROOKIE, he put up 701 yards last year? And, he wasn't even a "starter" until week 10 when he did this. Also, that's not to mention that he did this in the midst of Chris Johnson putting up a record breaking year on the ground. You've got a rookie WR, on a HEAVILY run-oriented team (28th in the NFL in passing attempts last year), who didn't even start until week 10, and he puts up over 700 yds yet you're harping on the fact that, after only starting TWO whole games this year, he's only on pace for 560 yards? So you ignore a full year's body of work as a rookie and focus on 2 starts during his 2nd year to determine he's overrated? I'm gonna call a foul there.

--You talk about his maturity issues. I, too, am leery of those types of comments. However, there are numerous examples of "maturity" issues that have resulted in productive players. We don't need to discuss Marshall any more. DeSean has had his. Crabtree has had his. And on and on. The fact that, despite those issues, he's NOW the starter, shows that he's able to improve and that the coaching staff wants to see him succeed. He wasn't beat out by Nate Washington and Gage. There are other reasons for his not starting. But now he is so it's mostly a moot point.

--You ignore how he looks on the field. There's a more to this hobby than numbers. He's a 1st round pick that LOOKS like a WR1. That type of player will eventually command more targets than he's currently receiving.

I don't think folks are elevating the guy into top 10 WR status. He's still WR15-20 at best, but he has quite a bit more going for him than most any other prospect in that range. To dismiss his cumulative body of work just isn't right and that's what it looks like it's happening. Now, I know my post (and others) aren't going to really change your mind because, while you do great work, you do seem to really dig your heels in when challenged (lots of us do this as well), but I think you're missing the forest for the trees with him in trying to microscopically dissect what's gone on over just the past few weeks. There are far more positives than negatives. And I think you're confusing the reason for people liking him as being the fact that he's scoring TDs when the TDs likely have very little to do with it.
1. 701 yards for a rookie is nice, but it's not like this huge positive or anything. It's a nice rookie season, but it's not anything special. And I don't buy this whole "and he only started 6 games!" thing. People say that as if it's something of a positive. You know what would be a positive? If he started 16 games. I'd rather have a rookie who started 16 games and put up 700 yards than a WR who started 6 games and put up 700 yards, because games started is a positive stat, not a negative stat. Britt had a good rookie season, but it's not like it was amazing or anything. By fantasy points, it was the 6th best rookie season last year, and the 27th best of the last decade. You're partly using his rookie season to rate him above guys like Mike Wallace, who had more yards and more scores as a rookie despite not logging a single start. That seems like an inconsistency to me.2. Yes, some players with maturity issues have gone on to become good pros. Some haven't. It's a risk factor. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's a red flag, it's an additional risk that many of the players around Britt don't have.

I just haven't seen anything from him to distinguish him from my other "prospects with upside". As I'm fond of saying, there are only 20 slots in the top 20, but there are 40 WRs who can make a compelling case for one of those spots. I think a lot of the things you're saying about Britt (he's a former 1st round pick who looks like a WR1, he passes the eyeball test, maturity issues aren't a dealbreaker, etc) could also be said about Dwayne Bowe, who hasn't raised much fuss despite being ranked 33rd (just 3 slots ahead of Britt). Which, of course, gets back to my whole "it's easy to go to bat for someone on a hot streak" point.

Again, it's not that I hate Kenny Britt, it's just that I think he's incredibly overrated. You saying that he belongs in the 15-20 range really just reinforces that opinion. It's the same thing I was saying when Robert Meachem was such a hot commodity late last season- prospects with upside are, along with late 1sts, the most overrated dynasty commodities. Everyone has their favorite and I think they tend to overestimate the difference between their favorites and their least favorites.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG, I very often find myself getting behind your line of thinking, but you seem to be quite stubborn in your opinion on Britt and seem dug in to show why he's not doing anything. However, you're conveniently leaving out quite a few things.

--You talk about his lack of yards. What do you make of the fact that, AS A ROOKIE, he put up 701 yards last year? And, he wasn't even a "starter" until week 10 when he did this. Also, that's not to mention that he did this in the midst of Chris Johnson putting up a record breaking year on the ground. You've got a rookie WR, on a HEAVILY run-oriented team (28th in the NFL in passing attempts last year), who didn't even start until week 10, and he puts up over 700 yds yet you're harping on the fact that, after only starting TWO whole games this year, he's only on pace for 560 yards? So you ignore a full year's body of work as a rookie and focus on 2 starts during his 2nd year to determine he's overrated? I'm gonna call a foul there.

--You talk about his maturity issues. I, too, am leery of those types of comments. However, there are numerous examples of "maturity" issues that have resulted in productive players. We don't need to discuss Marshall any more. DeSean has had his. Crabtree has had his. And on and on. The fact that, despite those issues, he's NOW the starter, shows that he's able to improve and that the coaching staff wants to see him succeed. He wasn't beat out by Nate Washington and Gage. There are other reasons for his not starting. But now he is so it's mostly a moot point.

--You ignore how he looks on the field. There's a more to this hobby than numbers. He's a 1st round pick that LOOKS like a WR1. That type of player will eventually command more targets than he's currently receiving.

I don't think folks are elevating the guy into top 10 WR status. He's still WR15-20 at best, but he has quite a bit more going for him than most any other prospect in that range. To dismiss his cumulative body of work just isn't right and that's what it looks like it's happening. Now, I know my post (and others) aren't going to really change your mind because, while you do great work, you do seem to really dig your heels in when challenged (lots of us do this as well), but I think you're missing the forest for the trees with him in trying to microscopically dissect what's gone on over just the past few weeks. There are far more positives than negatives. And I think you're confusing the reason for people liking him as being the fact that he's scoring TDs when the TDs likely have very little to do with it.
1. 701 yards for a rookie is nice, but it's not like this huge positive or anything. It's a nice rookie season, but it's not anything special. And I don't buy this whole "and he only started 6 games!" thing. People say that as if it's something of a positive. You know what would be a positive? If he started 16 games. I'd rather have a rookie who started 16 games and put up 700 yards than a WR who started 6 games and put up 700 yards, because games started is a positive stat, not a negative stat. Britt had a good rookie season, but it's not like it was amazing or anything. By fantasy points, it was the 6th best rookie season last year, and the 27th best of the last decade. You're partly using his rookie season to rate him above guys like Mike Wallace, who had more yards and more scores as a rookie despite not logging a single start. That seems like an inconsistency to me.2. Yes, some players with maturity issues have gone on to become good pros. Some haven't. It's a risk factor. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's a red flag, it's an additional risk that many of the players around Britt don't have.

I just haven't seen anything from him to distinguish him from my other "prospects with upside". As I'm fond of saying, there are only 20 slots in the top 20, but there are 40 WRs who can make a compelling case for one of those spots. I think a lot of the things you're saying about Britt (he's a former 1st round pick who looks like a WR1, he passes the eyeball test, maturity issues aren't a dealbreaker, etc) could also be said about Dwayne Bowe, who hasn't raised much fuss despite being ranked 33rd (just 3 slots ahead of Britt). Which, of course, gets back to my whole "it's easy to go to bat for someone on a hot streak" point.

Again, it's not that I hate Kenny Britt, it's just that I think he's incredibly overrated. You saying that he belongs in the 15-20 range really just reinforces that opinion. It's the same thing I was saying when Robert Meachem was such a hot commodity late last season- prospects with upside are, along with late 1sts, the most overrated dynasty commodities. Everyone has their favorite and I think they tend to overestimate the difference between their favorites and their least favorites.
1. Starting usually means more opportunity. Putting up decent numbers with less opportunity is a good thing from the standpoint of productivity. That's a completely different issue of a rookie starting 16 games obviously being more of a positive than a rookie starting only 6 games. I'm not sure why you're trying to compare these 2 concepts as they are dissimilar.You've railed against Marshall in the past before because of his receptions by commonly pointing out that a WR putting up 1000 yds on 50 catches is worth more than a WR putting up 1000 yds on 100 catches.

Similarly, a WR putting up 700 yds while only starting 6 games is more impressive than a WR putting up 700 yds while starting 16 games. That is, of course, if you subscribe to the idea that starting provides more opportunity. That may or may not be the case and total targets are a more reliable indicator, but my obvious point was that he did reasonably well DESPITE only starting 6 games.

As you pointed out, a rookie WR starting 16 games is > a rookie WR only starting 6 games. But, that's a completely separate concept. My point was the former, not the latter.

As to me using his rookie season to rate him above Mike Wallace, please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing nor do I have Britt rated above Mike Wallace. I have no idea where that came from but it's simply false and not something I ever said or implied.

2. My opinion on Britt has NOT changed over the last 4 weeks when he's scored a weekly TD. I feel the same way as I did before the season started. My reason for optimism stems from the fact that I was somewhat concerned over the offseason about his maturity and what the coaching staff was saying. As you pointed out, that's a red flag and it was definitely one for me. Now that he's been starting the last 2 weeks and is continuing to receive targets is what's encouraging, not his 4 TDs in 4 games. I think you're assuming that the only reason people like Britt is his TD scoring and that isn't the case.

Finally, I didn't say he belongs in the 15-20 range. Again, you need to reread what I said. I said people have him there AT BEST. Most I know have him rated anywhere from WR20-30. He's NOT in my top 20. But, of the WRs not in the top 20, he has one of the best shots to get there due to a variety of reasons.

 
1. 701 yards for a rookie is nice, but it's not like this huge positive or anything. It's a nice rookie season, but it's not anything special.
Also, let's talk about this.In the last 10 years, only 20 WRs have totaled more rec. yards as a rookie than Britt. That's an average of 2/year. Nothing special but also nothing to sneeze at. When you consider how many rookie WRs there are each year, that's relatively significant. Let's also look at that list of WR's that have accomplished that feat:
Code:
NAME 	POS 	YR 	AGE 	EXP 	G 	REC 	RECYD 	YD/REC 	RECTD 	FANT PT1	Anquan Boldin	wr	2003	23	1	16	101	1377	13.63	8	188.72	Michael Clayton	wr	2004	22	1	16	80	1193	14.91	7	164.33	Marques Colston	wr	2006	23	1	14	70	1038	14.83	8	151.84	Dwayne Bowe	wr	2007	23	1	16	70	995	14.21	5	129.55	Eddie Royal	wr	2008	22	1	15	91	980	10.77	5	138.96	Andre Johnson	wr	2003	22	1	16	66	976	14.79	4	120.67	DeSean Jackson	wr	2008	22	1	16	62	912	14.71	2	117.88	Chris Chambers	wr	2001	23	1	16	48	883	18.40	7	129.29	Lee Evans	wr	2004	23	1	16	48	843	17.56	9	146.810	Santonio Holmes	wr	2006	22	1	16	49	824	16.82	2	95.711	Roy Williams	wr	2004	23	1	14	54	817	15.13	8	129.812	Percy Harvin	wr	2009	21	1	15	60	790	13.17	6	128.513	Hakeem Nicks	wr	2009	21	1	14	47	790	16.81	6	115.814	Larry Fitzgerald	wr	2004	21	1	16	58	780	13.45	8	127.415	Jeremy Maclin	wr	2009	21	1	15	55	762	13.85	4	99.516	Calvin Johnson	wr	2007	22	1	15	48	756	15.75	4	110.817	Mike Wallace	wr	2009	23	1	16	39	756	19.38	6	116.418	Keary Colbert	wr	2004	22	1	15	47	754	16.04	5	105.419	Rod Gardner	wr	2001	24	1	16	46	741	16.11	4	99.720	Antonio Bryant	wr	2002	21	1	16	44	733	16.66	6	113.321	Kenny Britt	wr	2009	21	1	16	42	701	16.69	3	88.1
That's a pretty good looking list of WRs. In fact, that's a very good looking list of WR's. 700 yards is definitely an arbitrary cutoff and it's obviously not a guarantee of anything, but I think it is worth noting nonetheless the company he resides in.
 
And the other more general dynasty question becomes: As he's a guy who clearly didn't pass your eyeball test despite his astounding measurables, how many weeks/seasons of sustained production (not to say whether they're coming or not, your guess is as good as mine) would it take you to decide/concede he's for real?
I can't really answer that question because I don't use any magical formulas or equations to decide when to "flip-flop" about a player. With young players I consider all kinds of variables. Does he look like good player when I watch him play? How much did the pro scouts like him? Was he a great player in college? Does he have exceptional physical talent or at least talent that is on par with productive pro players at his position? Has he impressed when given opportunities? If not, is there any reason to believe that he might improve? Has his team given any indications that they value him highly?I try to develop firm opinions about players before they even step onto the field in the NFL and I'm reluctant to budge from that initial stance unless the player in question gives me some strong reason to change my mind. What constitutes a strong reason? It could be any number of things. Sometimes a player is so ridiculously impressive that his superstar talent becomes undeniable almost immediately in his NFL career. That would be someone like Adrian Peterson or Randy Moss. Those guys are rare though. Most of the time you're looking at ho-hum players who satisfy some of the requirements, but fall short in other categories. This is a constant dilemma in FF. Is Arian Foster a legitimate NFL starter or just a mediocre back capitalizing on a friendly situation? Is Mike Williams a perennial top 20 WR or just a rookie flash-in-the-pan destined for a mediocre career? Is Kyle Orton an elite dynasty QB going forward?These are the kind of questions that we have to answer every year and the solutions are rarely obvious, even if they appear that way in hindsight. I mentioned earlier in this thread that David Terrell, Koren Robinson, and Rod Gardner all had more receiving yards in their rookie seasons than fellow 2001 draftees Santana Moss, Reggie Wayne, and Chad Johnson. Was there anyone on the planet who had Moss, Wayne, and Johnson all ranked above Terrell, Robinson, and Gardner after the 2001 NFL season? I highly doubt it, even though hindsight makes it blatantly obvious that the latter three receivers were vastly superior prospects.In this hobby we have to look at incomplete information and do our best to reach accurate conclusions. There is no obvious formula to facilitate this process. Having said that, I think considering the questions I asked earlier is helpful. I also think it's wise to add a dash of skepticism to your evaluations. Every year I make numerous posts about the folly of letting a small sample size fool you into drawing firm conclusions about a player's long-term future. While it's always nice when players are producing, the reality is that even a whole season's worth of statistics isn't always very meaningful. And yet year after year I see owners making the same mistakes of either overrating or underrating players based on a meaningless set of results. I'm not wildly upgrading Danario Alexander for the same reason that I'm not wildly downgrading CJ Spiller. Nothing that they've done in their NFL careers thus far is remotely significant. As for Alexander having "astounding" measurables, I don't know where that comes from. He didn't work out at the combine or at a pre-draft pro day, so there's no way of knowing how he stacks up. He's tall, but I have said numerous times that I don't automatically equate height with upside, so the fact that he's 6'5" doesn't mean much of anything to me. The one thing I really like about him is his college production. He dominated his competition last season. Then again, Freddie Barnes caught 155 passes for 1770 yards last year and he didn't even make Chicago's roster. There's a reason they call college players amateurs. Something like 95% of them will never see meaningful NFL action. Beating up on a bunch of nobodies is impressive, but it's hardly sufficient for NFL stardom. If it were, Eric Crouch would be a franchise NFL QB.To make a long post short, if I'm going to move Alexander up, he'll have to play well for several weeks. What will be more important than the stats is how he looks compiling them. Virtually any NFL journeyman can catch 4 passes for 72 yards, but Mike Furrey still looks like Mike Furrey even when he's posting stats on par with Andre Johnson's.
 
These are the kind of questions that we have to answer every year and the solutions are rarely obvious, even if they appear that way in hindsight. I mentioned earlier in this thread that David Terrell, Koren Robinson, and Rod Gardner all had more receiving yards in their rookie seasons than fellow 2001 draftees Santana Moss, Reggie Wayne, and Chad Johnson. Was there anyone on the planet who had Moss, Wayne, and Johnson all ranked above Terrell, Robinson, and Gardner after the 2001 NFL season? I highly doubt it, even though hindsight makes it blatantly obvious that the latter three receivers were vastly superior prospects.
The more I think about it, the more I think this argument doesn't work. Both Gardner and Robinson (and possibly Terrell; I don't quite remember why he flopped) failed because of character problems. Specifically, Gardner thought he was "all that" before he really was and lost his focus, and Robinson had major alcohol and drug problems. Even if one could sense such character problems before they affect the player's performance, the requisite evidence would not appear on game tape or in a player's measurables. In all likelihood, absent their respective character problems, both Gardner and Robinson would have been fantasy studs. You can throw Charles Rogers into the mix here as well because he performed well in his brief stints as a rookie before getting injured.The proper question is this: how can we determine the rookie WRs who are not producing or have not played much who will eventually become fantasy stars. For first round picks like Moss and Wayne we usually look beyond the first year stats if they aren't there and rely on college production. More often than not this is a good strategy. For a second round pick like Johnson, one has to consider situational variables. For every Chad Johnson there is a Chad Jackson. But once you get down to third round receivers, it is a crapshoot with more failures than successes.

So why rely on draft position and value a third rounder like LaFell over Danario Alexander? The fact that the Rams are treating Alexander with kid gloves speaks volumes to me. They think he will be a part of their future and they want to protect him. Watch Bradford speak about Alexander in his postgame press conference on Sunday. Count the number of times he shakes his head as he stares into space. Do you think Matt Moore would ever speak about LaFell like that?

I think you're dead wrong with your assessment here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG, I very often find myself getting behind your line of thinking, but you seem to be quite stubborn in your opinion on Britt and seem dug in to show why he's not doing anything. However, you're conveniently leaving out quite a few things.

--You talk about his lack of yards. What do you make of the fact that, AS A ROOKIE, he put up 701 yards last year? And, he wasn't even a "starter" until week 10 when he did this. Also, that's not to mention that he did this in the midst of Chris Johnson putting up a record breaking year on the ground. You've got a rookie WR, on a HEAVILY run-oriented team (28th in the NFL in passing attempts last year), who didn't even start until week 10, and he puts up over 700 yds yet you're harping on the fact that, after only starting TWO whole games this year, he's only on pace for 560 yards? So you ignore a full year's body of work as a rookie and focus on 2 starts during his 2nd year to determine he's overrated? I'm gonna call a foul there.

--You talk about his maturity issues. I, too, am leery of those types of comments. However, there are numerous examples of "maturity" issues that have resulted in productive players. We don't need to discuss Marshall any more. DeSean has had his. Crabtree has had his. And on and on. The fact that, despite those issues, he's NOW the starter, shows that he's able to improve and that the coaching staff wants to see him succeed. He wasn't beat out by Nate Washington and Gage. There are other reasons for his not starting. But now he is so it's mostly a moot point.

--You ignore how he looks on the field. There's a more to this hobby than numbers. He's a 1st round pick that LOOKS like a WR1. That type of player will eventually command more targets than he's currently receiving.

I don't think folks are elevating the guy into top 10 WR status. He's still WR15-20 at best, but he has quite a bit more going for him than most any other prospect in that range. To dismiss his cumulative body of work just isn't right and that's what it looks like it's happening. Now, I know my post (and others) aren't going to really change your mind because, while you do great work, you do seem to really dig your heels in when challenged (lots of us do this as well), but I think you're missing the forest for the trees with him in trying to microscopically dissect what's gone on over just the past few weeks. There are far more positives than negatives. And I think you're confusing the reason for people liking him as being the fact that he's scoring TDs when the TDs likely have very little to do with it.
1. 701 yards for a rookie is nice, but it's not like this huge positive or anything. It's a nice rookie season, but it's not anything special. And I don't buy this whole "and he only started 6 games!" thing. People say that as if it's something of a positive. You know what would be a positive? If he started 16 games. I'd rather have a rookie who started 16 games and put up 700 yards than a WR who started 6 games and put up 700 yards, because games started is a positive stat, not a negative stat. Britt had a good rookie season, but it's not like it was amazing or anything. By fantasy points, it was the 6th best rookie season last year, and the 27th best of the last decade. You're partly using his rookie season to rate him above guys like Mike Wallace, who had more yards and more scores as a rookie despite not logging a single start. That seems like an inconsistency to me.2. Yes, some players with maturity issues have gone on to become good pros. Some haven't. It's a risk factor. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's a red flag, it's an additional risk that many of the players around Britt don't have.

I just haven't seen anything from him to distinguish him from my other "prospects with upside". As I'm fond of saying, there are only 20 slots in the top 20, but there are 40 WRs who can make a compelling case for one of those spots. I think a lot of the things you're saying about Britt (he's a former 1st round pick who looks like a WR1, he passes the eyeball test, maturity issues aren't a dealbreaker, etc) could also be said about Dwayne Bowe, who hasn't raised much fuss despite being ranked 33rd (just 3 slots ahead of Britt). Which, of course, gets back to my whole "it's easy to go to bat for someone on a hot streak" point.

Again, it's not that I hate Kenny Britt, it's just that I think he's incredibly overrated. You saying that he belongs in the 15-20 range really just reinforces that opinion. It's the same thing I was saying when Robert Meachem was such a hot commodity late last season- prospects with upside are, along with late 1sts, the most overrated dynasty commodities. Everyone has their favorite and I think they tend to overestimate the difference between their favorites and their least favorites.
If you knew the way Jeff Fisher operated better, you'd be thinking his starting 6 games WAS a huge positive.
 
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone as I saw two of the worst dynasty trades go down in two different leagues, both involving Desean Jackson. Has his value really sunk this low? (kind of a rhetorical question because I can't beleive it has).

Armstrong, Anthony WR WAS

Branch, Deion WR NE

Ivory, Chris RB NO - Traded from Interstellar Voodoo

Dwyer, Jonathan RB PIT

Jackson, DeSean WR PHI - Traded from Shrieking Violets

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCUSA traded DeSean Jackson WR, PHI

Off Constantly traded Thomas Jones RB, KAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least in the second instance the team that trade away Jackson is a contender that has recently suffered a bunch of injuries but the guy in the first trade is 2-4.

 
He averaged 4+ YPC in his first two years in Buffalo, rushing for 1000 yards in each season. Sure, his 3rd season couldnt have went much worse last year, but between his suspension, and being hurt, not to mention he just wasnt happy in Buffalo, i am willing to give him a mulligan. Being from Buffalo, i am not a big fan of him as a person, but getting to watch him each week, i cant deny he is deifitely talented. He is only 24 and now that he is happy to be out of Buffalo, i feel confident Lynch will be a top 15 fantasy RB for the next several years. ETA spelling :D
Do you think he is more talented than Foster?
Yes
Might want to get your "eyeball test" checked. :unsure:
It's so tough for you to believe a guy drafted 12th overall is more talented than a guy that went undrafted?
 
I honestly dont see any difference in Foster and Ward. Does anyone really think Ward wouldnt be put up similar numbers if Foster were to suffer a season ending injury?
I think you might be the only one who does think this (if you actually do).
Well, Ryan Moats certainly performed very well when given the chance in Houston last season and Ward is a former 1,000 rusher. I'll say that I agree with Go Deep - and I'm not saying it to disparage Foster whatsoever. As some one that has wtached Ward for his entire career, during preseasons with the Jets and then with the Giants, Ward is a very good runner. People have short memories and just remember that he failed msierable last season with the Bucs, but forget why he earned such a big payday when he signed with the Bucs.
 
Perception, meet reality. Reality, meet perception.
SSOG, I love ya, brother, but I urge you to take a more open-minded look at this situation. Your position on Devin Hester vs. Kenny Britt is preposterous.Re: Britt's "on pace" stats. Come on. You're not even trying to be fair here. Britt has started two games out of six. You sweep this major note under the rug like it's not even a factor. Additionally, his production was clearly hurt Monday night by the exit of Vince Young and the Titans' early lead. He's a 22-year-old 1st round pick with an obvious No. 1 WR skill-set. His value is only going to rise, and the game film on him is excellent. Hester is a 28-year-old converted corner/return specialist who is what he is: Not an NFL caliber starting WR. He actually has started all six games, and he's on pace for fewer yards than Britt. His body won't hold up to the starting role, and he's not good enough to keep Chicago's mediocre backups off the field.
:lmao:I have a lot of respect for SSOG's knowledge and love what he brings, but his stubborness on this subject is mind boggling.Birtt's "on pace" statistics is one of the more disingenous arguments I have seen in this thread.
 
I honestly dont see any difference in Foster and Ward. Does anyone really think Ward wouldnt be put up similar numbers if Foster were to suffer a season ending injury?
I think you might be the only one who does think this (if you actually do).
Well, Ryan Moats certainly performed very well when given the chance in Houston last season and Ward is a former 1,000 rusher. I'll say that I agree with Go Deep - and I'm not saying it to disparage Foster whatsoever. As some one that has wtached Ward for his entire career, during preseasons with the Jets and then with the Giants, Ward is a very good runner. People have short memories and just remember that he failed msierable last season with the Bucs, but forget why he earned such a big payday when he signed with the Bucs.
That is ridiculous. He had a good game against Buffalo when they benched Slaton. He was terrible overall though. Terrible games against other bad defenses like Indy and STL. He and Chris Brown were the reason why the Texans drafted Ben Tate - because the team knew they didn't want either of those bozos back.Ward was a nice player. I do think Ward or Jeremiah Johnson would have success in Houston as a starter. But to say there's no difference between Foster or Ward is absurd.

 
I honestly dont see any difference in Foster and Ward. Does anyone really think Ward wouldnt be put up similar numbers if Foster were to suffer a season ending injury?
I think you might be the only one who does think this (if you actually do).
Well, Ryan Moats certainly performed very well when given the chance in Houston last season and Ward is a former 1,000 rusher. I'll say that I agree with Go Deep - and I'm not saying it to disparage Foster whatsoever. As some one that has wtached Ward for his entire career, during preseasons with the Jets and then with the Giants, Ward is a very good runner. People have short memories and just remember that he failed msierable last season with the Bucs, but forget why he earned such a big payday when he signed with the Bucs.
That is ridiculous. He had a good game against Buffalo when they benched Slaton. He was terrible overall though. Terrible games against other bad defenses like Indy and STL. He and Chris Brown were the reason why the Texans drafted Ben Tate - because the team knew they didn't want either of those bozos back.Ward was a nice player. I do think Ward or Jeremiah Johnson would have success in Houston as a starter. But to say there's no difference between Foster or Ward is absurd.
He averaged 4.07 ypc on the season which yes, was inflated by the 5.4 he accrued against Buffalo - but he generally had a few bad and a few good games (looking at ypc) after the monsterous efforts against Buffalo. By no means was I saying he was the answer for Houston - it was evident they needed better.The point though is quite a few very average backs like Steve Slaton, a washed up Ahman Green, Ron Dayne, Samkon Gado and Domick Davis have performed well in that system. I don't see why Derrick Ward (who I think has some talent) wouldn't.

Honestly I'm not sure if he would or wouldn't perfrom as well as Foster, but I do agree that Foster is the better back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets discuss Colt McCoy. I honestly thought he'd go 8 for 25 with 3 int's and get sacked 8 or 9 times. After all it was a road game against the Steelers. His statline shocked me, though I didn't see the game.

It's hard to jump on a bandwagon after one game, but he quickly moves to number 2 in the 2010 QB's after that one. If he plays well against the Saints, then the sky is the limit.

 
Hey guys, sorry for the delay on the rankings update this week, and I hope it wasn't any inconvenience, but the update is now live. Change log available here: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/forums/view...p?f=3&t=151
I see one name quite far down the list that I think is worthy of a bump up. Braylon Edwards. He has been putting up fairly consistent good numbers on a run first offense with a 2nd year QB (even after Santonio came back). He is still young in WR years. He could also potentially be on a new team next year that throws a bunch more. Even if he sticks with the Jets after this year he seems better than a bottom of tier 7 guy (below players like Emmanuel Sanders and Arrelious Benn??In my PPR league he is 18th among WR right now...in non-PPR I suspect he might be even higher due to his longer YPC average and strong TD numbers.

 
Hey guys, sorry for the delay on the rankings update this week, and I hope it wasn't any inconvenience, but the update is now live. Change log available here: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/forums/view...p?f=3&t=151
I see one name quite far down the list that I think is worthy of a bump up. Braylon Edwards. He has been putting up fairly consistent good numbers on a run first offense with a 2nd year QB (even after Santonio came back). He is still young in WR years. He could also potentially be on a new team next year that throws a bunch more. Even if he sticks with the Jets after this year he seems better than a bottom of tier 7 guy (below players like Emmanuel Sanders and Arrelious Benn??In my PPR league he is 18th among WR right now...in non-PPR I suspect he might be even higher due to his longer YPC average and strong TD numbers.
:unsure: I am kicking myself for not trading 2x 2nds for him, when I had a chance earlier this year. He has looked good.

Time to bump Roy Williams up too. I honestly don't know if and/when Dez will be taking his spot. He has been a monster this year.

And I don't know any dynasty owners that would trade Jeremy Maclin or Mike Wallace for Ochocino. Time to drop ole 85 down at least a full tier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets discuss Colt McCoy. I honestly thought he'd go 8 for 25 with 3 int's and get sacked 8 or 9 times. After all it was a road game against the Steelers. His statline shocked me, though I didn't see the game.It's hard to jump on a bandwagon after one game, but he quickly moves to number 2 in the 2010 QB's after that one. If he plays well against the Saints, then the sky is the limit.
I like him (and you have no idea how hard that is to say as a Nebraska fan). I watched all of his throws on NFL Rewind, and I came away impressed. He doesn't have a Stafford-like cannon arm, but he's got better than expected zip on some passes. He has average pocket awareness, which is excellent for this point in his career. For the most part, his passes are extremely accurate, hitting receivers in stride. His first INT in the game was a poor decision, however, as he threw into tight coverage. That said, he placed the ball extremely well in that tight coverage, and an elite possession receiver comes up with that ball. I'm optimistic for his future, but I don't know if he'll ever be a quality, reliable fantasy starter.
 
Lets discuss Colt McCoy. I honestly thought he'd go 8 for 25 with 3 int's and get sacked 8 or 9 times. After all it was a road game against the Steelers. His statline shocked me, though I didn't see the game.It's hard to jump on a bandwagon after one game, but he quickly moves to number 2 in the 2010 QB's after that one. If he plays well against the Saints, then the sky is the limit.
Definitely a solid stat line vs a tough D and in his first start. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to watch the game either. Colt can make some plays with his legs if he needs to, and that is a nice little plus for him.
 
Is it time to restrict the first tier of RBs to CJ and AP?

Rice and MJD simply don't belong on the same level, and I think the gap between the two tiers is growing. We are watching two of the best RBs in NFL history; the gap between legendary and top 5 in today's NFL is huge.

In start up drafts last year, it was thought that the top 4 spots were far superior to the rest of the first round. Next year, it will be the top 2.

For reference, there is not one player I would trade AP/CJ for, even for an additional first round pick, and that includes Rice and MJD. Next year, if I land a top 2 spot in a start up, I would not move the pick (alone) for the 12/13 or 14/15 turn. If I don't land a top 2 pick, there is not much I wouldn't trade to secure one.

Thoughts?

 
I feel like I'm in the twilight zone as I saw two of the worst dynasty trades go down in two different leagues, both involving Desean Jackson. Has his value really sunk this low? (kind of a rhetorical question because I can't beleive it has).

Armstrong, Anthony WR WAS

Branch, Deion WR NE

Ivory, Chris RB NO - Traded from Interstellar Voodoo

Dwyer, Jonathan RB PIT

Jackson, DeSean WR PHI - Traded from Shrieking Violets

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCUSA traded DeSean Jackson WR, PHI

Off Constantly traded Thomas Jones RB, KAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At least in the second instance the team that trade away Jackson is a contender that has recently suffered a bunch of injuries but the guy in the first trade is 2-4.
I wouldn't make it, but I could see a case being made for the first one. The second one is beyond absurd.
 
He averaged 4.07 ypc on the season which yes, was inflated by the 5.4 he accrued against Buffalo - but he generally had a few bad and a few good games (looking at ypc) after the monsterous efforts against Buffalo. By no means was I saying he was the answer for Houston - it was evident they needed better.

The point though is quite a few very average backs like Steve Slaton, a washed up Ahman Green, Ron Dayne, Samkon Gado and Domick Davis have performed well in that system. I don't see why Derrick Ward (who I think has some talent) wouldn't.

Honestly I'm not sure if he would or wouldn't perfrom as well as Foster, but I do agree that Foster is the better back.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but Moats averaged 3.9 ypc last year, which is pretty bad. Even if it was 4.07, that's still not good.I think Ward may be able to do fine as the lead RB in Houston, but there's a difference between performing well and being the #1 FF RB (by a wide margin).

 
It's so tough for you to believe a guy drafted 12th overall is more talented than a guy that went undrafted?
It's so tough for you to believe that I don't use draft position to judge who is more talented?
I'm not saying that it has to be your sole criteria at all - but you acted as if it was an impossibilty that Lynch was the more talented runner. I think it does say something that NFL personnel thought enough of Lynch's talents coming out of college that he was a top 12 pick overall.I personally think he is the better talent as well. I don't think Foster could do any better in Buffalo. You said they weren't bad teams during his first two seasons and that is true, but their o-line was horrible then as well. He and a decent defense was the reason they were a .500 team.I think Foster is a talent - but I also know that based on track record that offense creates productive RBs so it's harder to see juts how talented he is.
 
He averaged 4.07 ypc on the season which yes, was inflated by the 5.4 he accrued against Buffalo - but he generally had a few bad and a few good games (looking at ypc) after the monsterous efforts against Buffalo. By no means was I saying he was the answer for Houston - it was evident they needed better.

The point though is quite a few very average backs like Steve Slaton, a washed up Ahman Green, Ron Dayne, Samkon Gado and Domick Davis have performed well in that system. I don't see why Derrick Ward (who I think has some talent) wouldn't.

Honestly I'm not sure if he would or wouldn't perfrom as well as Foster, but I do agree that Foster is the better back.
Not sure where you're getting your numbers, but Moats averaged 3.9 ypc last year, which is pretty bad. Even if it was 4.07, that's still not good.I think Ward may be able to do fine as the lead RB in Houston, but there's a difference between performing well and being the #1 FF RB (by a wide margin).
I got the 4.07 from Prp Football Reference: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...atRy00/gamelog/, but I see it was a mistake and that was his career average (which was mostly accrued in lmited carries).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's so tough for you to believe a guy drafted 12th overall is more talented than a guy that went undrafted?
It's so tough for you to believe that I don't use draft position to judge who is more talented?
I'm not saying that it has to be your sole criteria at all - but you acted as if it was an impossibilty that Lynch was the more talented runner. I think it does say something that NFL personnel thought enough of Lynch's talents coming out of college that he was a top 12 pick overall.I personally think he is the better talent as well. I don't think Foster could do any better in Buffalo. You said they weren't bad teams during his first two seasons and that is true, but their o-line was horrible then as well. He and a decent defense was the reason they were a .500 team.I think Foster is a talent - but I also know that based on track record that offense creates productive RBs so it's harder to see juts how talented he is.
I didn't act as if it was an impossibility- did you miss this :shrug: in my post? Their O-line was not horrible then, not for run blocking. I've always held the belief that Lynch is a very overrated RB, still do. FJax has outperformed him over their entire careers, and has looked better as well IMO. I'm not just using Foster's production as my basis of his talent, I'm watching him play. Same with Lynch, same with everyone when I'm talking "talent".It's fine if you disagree, I'm not trying to say Foster is head and shoulders above him, but you (Go Deep) lose credibility IMO when you say things like "I see no difference between D. Ward and Foster".
 
Hey guys, sorry for the delay on the rankings update this week, and I hope it wasn't any inconvenience, but the update is now live. Change log available here: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/forums/view...p?f=3&t=151
Thank you for the rankings. Yours are one of two that seem to be updated. I respect your rankings and the site is awesome. Don't take my questions as insults. It takes stones to throw all of your rankings out there, and if I did it, I am sure I would catch a lot more flack than you do. That said, I have a few questions about your rankings.1. Max Hall: How can you have him ranked ahead of Palmer, Tebow, Clausen, Cassel, Garrard, and so on? He has had one NFL start and didn't look great. He doesn't have all the measurables that you look for and there is very little chance he is starting anywhere next season. How can Matt Moore have a value of 4 and Hall have a value of 68? Matt Moore looked just as good in his first pre-season (Cowboys) and has even had flashes in the regular season. What makes you so sure that Hall is anything more than another Matt Moore?

2. Eli Manning at 20?! I don't care that Eli has only put up QB1 numbers twice, he put them up. Not only that, but his weapons are quickly becoming elite, and he is still young. How can he be behind McNabb who is performing worse this year, doesn't know where he will be next year, AND is 4 years older? And there is no way in hell that Kolb should be ahead of Manning. Kolb is not even a starting QB, and we don't if, when, or where he will be. He has had a couple good games, but he had a couple good games last year before looking awful and getting benched. At the very least Manning is much safer, as we know he will be the starting Giants QB for the next 5 years.

3. Ochocinco and Steve Smith (CAR) simply need to drop. They are no longer elite re-draft WRs, let alone dynasty WRs. 85 is not even the #1 option on his team anymore. I don't think anyone values them over guys like Wallace and Maclin.

4. Mario Manningham, Brandon Lloyd, Roy Williams, and Lance Moore are all worth more than guys like Devin Thomas (cut this bum), Antonio Bryant, Donnie Avery and so on. Streaky production is worth much more than no production. Moore and Manningham are both solid WR3; Williams and Lloyd are WR2s this year, at the very least.

5. Tier one is down to two players. MJD and Ray Rice are simply not on the level of AP and CJ, both in talent and FF production.

6. 19 points between Spiller and Best? Best is as close to AP and CJ as he is to Spiller? (opposite directions, obviously)

7. Thomas Jones: One or two years of RB2 production is better than 5-6 years as a handcuff (Snelling, Kuhn, Slaton...)

 
It's so tough for you to believe a guy drafted 12th overall is more talented than a guy that went undrafted?
It's so tough for you to believe that I don't use draft position to judge who is more talented?
I'm not saying that it has to be your sole criteria at all - but you acted as if it was an impossibilty that Lynch was the more talented runner. I think it does say something that NFL personnel thought enough of Lynch's talents coming out of college that he was a top 12 pick overall.I personally think he is the better talent as well. I don't think Foster could do any better in Buffalo. You said they weren't bad teams during his first two seasons and that is true, but their o-line was horrible then as well. He and a decent defense was the reason they were a .500 team.I think Foster is a talent - but I also know that based on track record that offense creates productive RBs so it's harder to see juts how talented he is.
I didn't act as if it was an impossibility- did you miss this :thumbup: in my post? Their O-line was not horrible then, not for run blocking. I've always held the belief that Lynch is a very overrated RB, still do. FJax has outperformed him over their entire careers, and has looked better as well IMO. I'm not just using Foster's production as my basis of his talent, I'm watching him play. Same with Lynch, same with everyone when I'm talking "talent".It's fine if you disagree, I'm not trying to say Foster is head and shoulders above him, but you (Go Deep) lose credibility IMO when you say things like "I see no difference between D. Ward and Foster".
Thier o-line was bad back then as well, just not as bad as now. I don't think Jackson was necessarily better, just better suited for playing behind the bad line since he was quicker and more elusive.I never said that Ward was better (or even the same) as Foster - in fact I clearly agreed Foster was better - just that I think Ward could potentially produce top 10 numbers if Foster went down. I stand by that still. He's a talented back (relatively speaking) that has good speed on his 225 pound frame. He has a 1,000 season to his credit as the lesser back in a RBBC - so I fully see him doing well in Houston if he was needed.
 
1. Max Hall: How can you have him ranked ahead of Palmer, Tebow, Clausen, Cassel, Garrard, and so on? He has had one NFL start and didn't look great. He doesn't have all the measurables that you look for and there is very little chance he is starting anywhere next season. How can Matt Moore have a value of 4 and Hall have a value of 68? Matt Moore looked just as good in his first pre-season (Cowboys) and has even had flashes in the regular season. What makes you so sure that Hall is anything more than another Matt Moore?
I'm not a huge Hall beleiver either, but I'm not sure you can say that. There's a better than average chance that he's the starter in Arizona next season. Whisenhutt likes him and if he performs only adequately this season as a rookie, not sure why he wouldn't get another season.
 
Hey guys, sorry for the delay on the rankings update this week, and I hope it wasn't any inconvenience, but the update is now live. Change log available here: http://www.dynastyrankings.net/forums/view...p?f=3&t=151
Thank you for the rankings. Yours are one of two that seem to be updated. I respect your rankings and the site is awesome. Don't take my questions as insults. It takes stones to throw all of your rankings out there, and if I did it, I am sure I would catch a lot more flack than you do. That said, I have a few questions about your rankings.1. Max Hall: How can you have him ranked ahead of Palmer, Tebow, Clausen, Cassel, Garrard, and so on? He has had one NFL start and didn't look great. He doesn't have all the measurables that you look for and there is very little chance he is starting anywhere next season. How can Matt Moore have a value of 4 and Hall have a value of 68? Matt Moore looked just as good in his first pre-season (Cowboys) and has even had flashes in the regular season. What makes you so sure that Hall is anything more than another Matt Moore?

2. Eli Manning at 20?! I don't care that Eli has only put up QB1 numbers twice, he put them up. Not only that, but his weapons are quickly becoming elite, and he is still young. How can he be behind McNabb who is performing worse this year, doesn't know where he will be next year, AND is 4 years older? And there is no way in hell that Kolb should be ahead of Manning. Kolb is not even a starting QB, and we don't if, when, or where he will be. He has had a couple good games, but he had a couple good games last year before looking awful and getting benched. At the very least Manning is much safer, as we know he will be the starting Giants QB for the next 5 years.
1. I think SSOG must share my QB philosophy in dynasty, to some extent. I find that there's no reason to try for guys like Palmer and Garrard because QB15 is useless. I want guys who can be the absolute top QB, right after guys that ARE the absolute top QBs. Garrard is about a QB15-20 guy, and looks like he always will be that in a best case scenario. Same for Palmer at this point.Now Tebow/Clausen are another matter, as they're just as, if not more, unproven at the NFL level than Hall is. Semantics, but they're all rookie QB prospects to me. You like one more you put him ahead of the others.

2. I also totally disagree with Manning at 20. McNabb should definitely fall behind him IMO, because Eli is younger and performs at least as well if not better than him, and, IMO, has a wealth of weapons to use.

I think Kolb has more potential to be a top guy than Manning, regardless of what has happened with Vick this year. In fact, I think I'll add a Kolb diatribe of sorts after class this afternoon.

Bottom line, if a guy has no potential to jump into the elite a as dynasty QB, then he remains really easy to obtain by trade, isn't better than anyone else I can find easily, and generally is ranked lower. From his rankings, it looks as though SSOG uses a similar philosophy.

 
2. Eli Manning at 20?! I don't care that Eli has only put up QB1 numbers twice, he put them up. Not only that, but his weapons are quickly becoming elite, and he is still young. How can he be behind McNabb who is performing worse this year, doesn't know where he will be next year, AND is 4 years older? And there is no way in hell that Kolb should be ahead of Manning. Kolb is not even a starting QB, and we don't if, when, or where he will be. He has had a couple good games, but he had a couple good games last year before looking awful and getting benched. At the very least Manning is much safer, as we know he will be the starting Giants QB for the next 5 years.
I agree. With all due respect to SSOG, this is just another instance where he starts with a bias and then digs in his heal's and stands pat no matter what changes.Eli has shown improvement each season and the Giants have entrusted more and more of their offense to him. He is now surrounded by very good young talent at the skill positions and as you said, a lock to hold that job for a long time. He never misses time due to injury either which is plus. At the evry worst he should be at or near the top of the QB2 rankings, since he's so solid.He isn't the type of fantasy QB that will win you you're league, but there's something to be said for the solid week in and week out production (and year to year production) that Manning offers. He's the starting QB of my 4-2 dynasty team that is also third in the league in scoring.
 
Instinctive said:
1. I think SSOG must share my QB philosophy in dynasty, to some extent. I find that there's no reason to try for guys like Palmer and Garrard because QB15 is useless. I want guys who can be the absolute top QB, right after guys that ARE the absolute top QBs. Garrard is about a QB15-20 guy, and looks like he always will be that in a best case scenario. Same for Palmer at this point.Now Tebow/Clausen are another matter, as they're just as, if not more, unproven at the NFL level than Hall is. Semantics, but they're all rookie QB prospects to me. You like one more you put him ahead of the others.2. I also totally disagree with Manning at 20. McNabb should definitely fall behind him IMO, because Eli is younger and performs at least as well if not better than him, and, IMO, has a wealth of weapons to use. I think Kolb has more potential to be a top guy than Manning, regardless of what has happened with Vick this year. In fact, I think I'll add a Kolb diatribe of sorts after class this afternoon.Bottom line, if a guy has no potential to jump into the elite a as dynasty QB, then he remains really easy to obtain by trade, isn't better than anyone else I can find easily, and generally is ranked lower. From his rankings, it looks as though SSOG uses a similar philosophy.
Assuming that you are "Swinging for the fences" and don't value QB2s much, this is what I still don't understand: Why Max Hall over Mike Kafka, Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, John Skelton, Dan Lefevour (SP?) and so on and so on? Hall has played one NFL game and didn't look great. What about that start, or Hall as a player places him above guys with more physical tools, who could have performed just as well, if not better? Just becuase the his starting QB was benched?Also, there is a hole in that line of thinking. FF is about value. Even if you would rather have a long shot rookie QB over a guy like Garrard and Cassel, who are career QB2s, long shot rookie QBs are a dime a dozen. There are literally 10-20 rookie/1st year QBs on the waiver wire at ALL TIMES. Guys like Garrard and Cassel are never on the wire, because they have more value. So even if you would rather have a Kafka over a Cassel, you keep Cassel, as Kafka, or other players like him, can literally be picked up at any time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus said:
Concept Coop said:
1. Max Hall: How can you have him ranked ahead of Palmer, Tebow, Clausen, Cassel, Garrard, and so on? He has had one NFL start and didn't look great. He doesn't have all the measurables that you look for and there is very little chance he is starting anywhere next season. How can Matt Moore have a value of 4 and Hall have a value of 68? Matt Moore looked just as good in his first pre-season (Cowboys) and has even had flashes in the regular season. What makes you so sure that Hall is anything more than another Matt Moore?
I'm not a huge Hall beleiver either, but I'm not sure you can say that. There's a better than average chance that he's the starter in Arizona next season. Whisenhutt likes him and if he performs only adequately this season as a rookie, not sure why he wouldn't get another season.
Please explain this to me. Do you think hall looked good? Do you think he looked like a starting NFL QB? I sure as hell didn't. Granted, he is a rookie and should improve. But nothing about him tells me that he is even close to being a starting QB next season. He doesn't have all the physical tools and went undrafted for a reason. He is doing nothing that Matt Moore hasn't already done. He wasn't as impressive as Colt McCoy. Not only that, but the Cards are still a pretty good team, sans the QB spot. If they can get a guy like McNabb, who instantly makes them a legit threat in the playoffs, I don't think they are going to pass that up for Max freaking Hall.

I would put the odds at less than 25% Max Hall is starting anywhere in the NFL next season.

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Thier o-line was bad back then as well, just not as bad as now. I don't think Jackson was necessarily better, just better suited for playing behind the bad line since he was quicker and more elusive.I never said that Ward was better (or even the same) as Foster - in fact I clearly agreed Foster was better - just that I think Ward could potentially produce top 10 numbers if Foster went down. I stand by that still. He's a talented back (relatively speaking) that has good speed on his 225 pound frame. He has a 1,000 season to his credit as the lesser back in a RBBC - so I fully see him doing well in Houston if he was needed.
No, it really wasn't. They were rated 24th in 2007 and 13th in 2008 in run blocking adjusted line yards according to Football Outsiders. They had pro bowl LT Jason Peters playing then. They weren't great, but they weren't horrible either. I think Jackson was better from watching them both, the numbers mostly back that up, and being quicker and more elusive as you call it is part of "better".I did not say you said Ward was the same or better as Foster- I was responding to Go Deep's comments, you then responded to mine.
 
Dr. Octopus said:
Concept Coop said:
2. Eli Manning at 20?! I don't care that Eli has only put up QB1 numbers twice, he put them up. Not only that, but his weapons are quickly becoming elite, and he is still young. How can he be behind McNabb who is performing worse this year, doesn't know where he will be next year, AND is 4 years older? And there is no way in hell that Kolb should be ahead of Manning. Kolb is not even a starting QB, and we don't if, when, or where he will be. He has had a couple good games, but he had a couple good games last year before looking awful and getting benched. At the very least Manning is much safer, as we know he will be the starting Giants QB for the next 5 years.
I agree. With all due respect to SSOG, this is just another instance where he starts with a bias and then digs in his heal's and stands pat no matter what changes.Eli has shown improvement each season and the Giants have entrusted more and more of their offense to him. He is now surrounded by very good young talent at the skill positions and as you said, a lock to hold that job for a long time. He never misses time due to injury either which is plus. At the evry worst he should be at or near the top of the QB2 rankings, since he's so solid.He isn't the type of fantasy QB that will win you you're league, but there's something to be said for the solid week in and week out production (and year to year production) that Manning offers. He's the starting QB of my 4-2 dynasty team that is also third in the league in scoring.
:thumbup: The guy is a threat to post 3 TDs each and every week. I would be just fine with him as my starting QB in a dynasty league. He is steady and has weekly potential. I don't mind the teams around me having a 2-3 point weekly advantage at the QB spot, when the difference in cost will allow me to have advantages elsewhere.
 
Dr. Octopus said:
Concept Coop said:
1. Max Hall: How can you have him ranked ahead of Palmer, Tebow, Clausen, Cassel, Garrard, and so on? He has had one NFL start and didn't look great. He doesn't have all the measurables that you look for and there is very little chance he is starting anywhere next season. How can Matt Moore have a value of 4 and Hall have a value of 68? Matt Moore looked just as good in his first pre-season (Cowboys) and has even had flashes in the regular season. What makes you so sure that Hall is anything more than another Matt Moore?
I'm not a huge Hall beleiver either, but I'm not sure you can say that. There's a better than average chance that he's the starter in Arizona next season. Whisenhutt likes him and if he performs only adequately this season as a rookie, not sure why he wouldn't get another season.
Please explain this to me. Do you think hall looked good? Do you think he looked like a starting NFL QB? I sure as hell didn't. Granted, he is a rookie and should improve. But nothing about him tells me that he is even close to being a starting QB next season. He doesn't have all the physical tools and went undrafted for a reason. He is doing nothing that Matt Moore hasn't already done. He wasn't as impressive as Colt McCoy. Not only that, but the Cards are still a pretty good team, sans the QB spot. If they can get a guy like McNabb, who instantly makes them a legit threat in the playoffs, I don't think they are going to pass that up for Max freaking Hall.

I would put the odds at less than 25% Max Hall is starting anywhere in the NFL next season.
Bringing up Matt Moore isn't helping your argument any. The door has closed on Matt Moore. The Panthers are starting him out of necessity. He has no chance at long term value.Ryan Fitzpatrick is a better example. Fitzpatrick has quietly put up QB1 numbers in his 3 starts on a putrid offense with putrid receiving options. Buffalo clearly doesn't have anyone better. The only positive difference between Hall and Fitzpatrick is Larry Fitzgerald and 2 years. All the other things - actual production, chance to still be a starter, etc. - Fitzpatrick is equal.

I would gladly trade Hall for McCoy or Tebow despite the possible wait for return, but the other "swing for the fences" picks you mentioned - LeFevour, Kafka, etc. - need a lot of breaks to have the chance Hall has now. And the door will not close on Hall after 3 bad starts, let alone 1.

 
Bringing up Matt Moore isn't helping your argument any. The door has closed on Matt Moore. The Panthers are starting him out of necessity. He has no chance at long term value.Ryan Fitzpatrick is a better example. Fitzpatrick has quietly put up QB1 numbers in his 3 starts on a putrid offense with putrid receiving options. Buffalo clearly doesn't have anyone better. The only positive difference between Hall and Fitzpatrick is Larry Fitzgerald and 2 years. All the other things - actual production, chance to still be a starter, etc. - Fitzpatrick is equal.I would gladly trade Hall for McCoy or Tebow despite the possible wait for return, but the other "swing for the fences" picks you mentioned - LeFevour, Kafka, etc. - need a lot of breaks to have the chance Hall has now. And the door will not close on Hall after 3 bad starts, let alone 1.
Matt Moore suits my argument just fine. I am not using him to say he is any better than Hall. I am using him as an example of an un-drafted QB that had a good pre-season and a few starts. I don't get the hype. Arizona is playing him becuase they have nobody else to play the rest of the season. They have no long-term commitment to him. Unless they think he is a future, quality, long-term starting QB, they have no reason not be bring in someone they think is all of those things. As far as how Hall compares to Kafka, LeFevour and so on, sure, Hall has an opportunity. But unless you think he is talented enough to take advantage of that, and be a starting QB in the NFL, what value does 10 games worth of QB30 production have? After this season, he is in the same boat as Kafka and LeFevour, but less talented. And even if we all agreed that Hall is on another tier, a value score of 68? Better than Carson Palmer and Matt Cassel? They have proven they can be QB2, and, at the very least, starting QBs in the NFL. Max Hall has a LONG way to go to even be that...a long way.
 
Bringing up Matt Moore isn't helping your argument any. The door has closed on Matt Moore. The Panthers are starting him out of necessity. He has no chance at long term value.

Ryan Fitzpatrick is a better example. Fitzpatrick has quietly put up QB1 numbers in his 3 starts on a putrid offense with putrid receiving options. Buffalo clearly doesn't have anyone better. The only positive difference between Hall and Fitzpatrick is Larry Fitzgerald and 2 years. All the other things - actual production, chance to still be a starter, etc. - Fitzpatrick is equal.

I would gladly trade Hall for McCoy or Tebow despite the possible wait for return, but the other "swing for the fences" picks you mentioned - LeFevour, Kafka, etc. - need a lot of breaks to have the chance Hall has now. And the door will not close on Hall after 3 bad starts, let alone 1.
Matt Moore suits my argument just fine. I am not using him to say he is any better than Hall. I am using him as an example of an un-drafted QB that had a good pre-season and a few starts. I don't get the hype. Arizona is playing him becuase they have nobody else to play the rest of the season. They have no long-term commitment to him. Unless they think he is a future, quality, long-term starting QB, they have no reason not be bring in someone they think is all of those things.
No. They are playing him because he looked better in camp and preseason then every other QB on their roster - Leinart, Anderson, and Skelton. They liked him enough to cut Leinart and not sign a placeholder guy like Bulger, Brunell, or Garcia even though the team wants to continue to win now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top