Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

The parts of the equation that caused ADP and C.Johnson to fall in the rankings (both are still inside the top 10) is that they have a good number of touches already in their career - and in terms of running backs, they are not spring chickens when you consider the life of an NFL RB. In those two categories they take a hit to the players above them.

I think your calculation is penalizing touches too much if guys like ADP and Chris Johnson take a hit due to touches in their careers.
Agreed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just AP or just AD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rant:

:banned:With all of the acronyms and nicknames that float around the sharkpool ADP is just fine in here. I always know immediately that we are talking about Adrian Peterson whenever I use or see 'ADP'. And I really don't care what Peterson fans think of me or anyone else when they see him referred to as ADP.If you really want to tweak me back then you can just refer to him as 'purple Jesus'. I really hate that nickname.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just AP or just AD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :help:

does it really matter ??It's not like people are walking around going "Who is this ADP guy?"
ADP already has a meaning. Average Draft Position. I think it's funny that people are shorting a name and then making it longer for no reason at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just AP or just AD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :help:

does it really matter ??It's not like people are walking around going "Who is this ADP guy?"
ADP already has a meaning. Average Draft Position. I think it's funny that people are shorting a name and then making it longer for no reason at all.
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished up the RB rankings (as of now, obviously off-season moves can shift things a little + rookies). They are ranked based on:Talent 40%O-line 5% (this can change as well depending on stability of the lineup from 2010, additions, departures, etc.)Rushing 9% (metrics to account for production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)Receiving 3% (metrics of production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)Wear/Tear 10% (overall load of their touches in NFL career)Age 10% (based on the shelf life of running backs)Injury Risk 3% (wanted it to be a factor, but not one to skew the rankings very much as injuries are definitely unpredictable)Bell Cow 20% (odds that they will be a full-time starter like ADP as an example has a score of 5.0, while R.Bush has a score of 1.0 as I never see him being a bell cow).All categories are 1-5 on a sliding scale within the category, so 5.0 would be a perfect score.Here is the top 5 based on that breakdown....Charles - 4.79Foster - 4.57McFadden-4.53Stewart - 4.40ADP - 4.38ADP is in the #5 spot because he has more wear and tear than the others, the top 3 have the edge in REC metrics and all have him in age. The top 2 have a better O-line as well. Thoughts?

I like what you're trying to do but why do you have such a specific formula when the majority of your input is subjective? Also, it seems like you might be adjusting the formula and your inputs to meet a predetermined view of what the output should look like. It seems like it would be better to come up with your weights and inputs first and accept whatever outputs you get until next year. At that point, look back and make adjustments to your formula, if needed (unless you did this last year, then just make adjustments to the formula from last year and apply it to your inputs this year). Trying to match the outputs to a predetermined subjective ranking doesn't seem very helpful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADP came about when separation from the other AP was needed in his rookie year. And the other issue was some called him AD, which some struggled with since they didnt know his nickname. Everyone understands who is being mentioned when ADP is being used. "All Day" Peterson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did some work on WRs last night....based on:60% talent12% age10% Target stat's, offensive involvement 7% QB skill/production 5% Red zone production/involvement 4% Efficiency metrics with the touches they do receive 2% Injury flags/concernsTop 3 turned out : Calvin, Fitz, AJ.more of a drop off after those 3 to the #4 slot - Nicks....

QB skill has to be worth more than anything other than talent. Mark CLayton had done nothing and then suddenly he gets Bradford and he is one of the best WRs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did some work on WRs last night....based on:60% talent12% age10% Target stat's, offensive involvement 7% QB skill/production 5% Red zone production/involvement 4% Efficiency metrics with the touches they do receive 2% Injury flags/concernsTop 3 turned out : Calvin, Fitz, AJ.more of a drop off after those 3 to the #4 slot - Nicks....

QB skill has to be worth more than anything other than talent. Mark CLayton had done nothing and then suddenly he gets Bradford and he is one of the best WRs?
Could have something to do with his offensive involvement. Age is less of a factor except this is dynasty. I think his weights are fairly accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its just AP or just AD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :kicksrock:

does it really matter ??It's not like people are walking around going "Who is this ADP guy?"
Wait, ADP is a guy? I always thought people were referring to "average draft position".
Context means everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished up the RB rankings (as of now, obviously off-season moves can shift things a little + rookies). They are ranked based on:Talent 40%O-line 5% (this can change as well depending on stability of the lineup from 2010, additions, departures, etc.)Rushing 9% (metrics to account for production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)Receiving 3% (metrics of production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)Wear/Tear 10% (overall load of their touches in NFL career)Age 10% (based on the shelf life of running backs)Injury Risk 3% (wanted it to be a factor, but not one to skew the rankings very much as injuries are definitely unpredictable)Bell Cow 20% (odds that they will be a full-time starter like ADP as an example has a score of 5.0, while R.Bush has a score of 1.0 as I never see him being a bell cow).All categories are 1-5 on a sliding scale within the category, so 5.0 would be a perfect score.Here is the top 5 based on that breakdown....Charles - 4.79Foster - 4.57McFadden-4.53Stewart - 4.40ADP - 4.38ADP is in the #5 spot because he has more wear and tear than the others, the top 3 have the edge in REC metrics and all have him in age. The top 2 have a better O-line as well. Thoughts?

I like what you're trying to do but why do you have such a specific formula when the majority of your input is subjective? Also, it seems like you might be adjusting the formula and your inputs to meet a predetermined view of what the output should look like. It seems like it would be better to come up with your weights and inputs first and accept whatever outputs you get until next year. At that point, look back and make adjustments to your formula, if needed (unless you did this last year, then just make adjustments to the formula from last year and apply it to your inputs this year). Trying to match the outputs to a predetermined subjective ranking doesn't seem very helpful.
Something like what he is doing here might be useful as a rating tool to be administered by numerous raters. So while subjective, if it is precise and accurate, it might end up being a decent tool. But then it will only be as good as the people who use it. Edited by pghrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fdctrumpet - Thanks for sharing your thinking process. That's much more helpful than the end results.

I'm probably doing my rankings today because I want to get my conscious and subconscious thoughts based on this season before it fades. My approach is to make a set of 2011 redraft rankings that I would use if I had a bet with the devil and my life depended on it. And then I'm going to tweak it for keeper/dynasty. I want to compare the two lists and use that to extrapolate rough estimates of % various factors caused me to change from redraft to dynasty. Was I more influenced by time horizon (I use 3 years), age, team situation, injury history, supporting cast, contract uncertainty, homerism, etc.?

I mention this because you may want to give it a try. Come up with a list that passes your sniff test and then reverse engineer the factors that led to the ranking. It may help you divine the percentages for a more consistent formulaic approach in the future and will also help you evaluate blind spots and process flaws. In the end, you want to find out if this is a good process, even if the outcomes are good or bad.

And of course, please share! Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fdctrumpet - Thanks for sharing your thinking process. That's much more helpful than the end results.I'm probably doing my rankings today because I want to get my conscious and subconscious thoughts based on this season before it fades. My approach is to make a set of 2011 redraft rankings that I would use if I had a bet with the devil and my life depended on it. And then I'm going to tweak it for keeper/dynasty. I want to compare the two lists and use that to extrapolate rough estimates of % various factors caused me to change from redraft to dynasty. Was I more influenced by time horizon (I use 3 years), age, team situation, injury history, supporting cast, contract uncertainty, homerism, etc.?I mention this because you may want to give it a try. Come up with a list that passes your sniff test and then reverse engineer the factors that led to the ranking. It may help you divine the percentages for a more consistent formulaic approach in the future and will also help you evaluate blind spots and process flaws. In the end, you want to find out if this is a good process, even if the outcomes are good or bad.And of course, please share! Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

All of the factors are definitely going to be incorporated in some fashion that you mentioned above. I posted my initial rough draft of the percentages on the thread because I was really excited about the project and wanted to get it online to receive feedback as I was doing all the numbers/charts. I will continue to post the progress, or evolution of this project because it seems to have sparked some discussion about many offshoots of the subject as general as "2011 player rankings". In response to some of the "you are trying to make the statistical rankings support what your feeling rankings say" or something to that regard - the whole point of delving into the rankings to this level is to take some of the subjective nature out of the equation. When you do that, you may be surprised that some players that you support to no end may be a lot lower (and should be) on your cheatsheets - and some are constantly undervalued by yourself. There are already (regardless of my future tweaking) a few players at each position (have not started tight ends at all yet) that fit into each category.Also, this is the perfect time to do this because the season is just about over so you can have everything from this season fresh in your mind (also I like to use any stats from the 2010 season only through 15 games because there are so many variables in week 17 that can make stats more inaccurate than they already inherently are with some teams dialing in the final game, sitting starters, etc.). I feel if you make your first rankings for the following season in the summer, there are lots of factors that can have too big a change to your rationale for changing the rankings. Doing it now means you can change things based on FA signings, the draft, coaching moves, etc. but I believe those changes will be less than if you were doing them for the 1st time in July/August.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know more about a person's "process" when they throw around Player X is higher in my rankings than player Y statements. Since August, I can recall only one short conversation about something like that on this thread and it was basically "what percent of your rankings or thoughts on dynasty rankings are based on talent." That was it. I would like A LOT more discussion on if talent is 50% or 60% or whatever - what are the other factors and how would you weight them. That has opened my eyes to thinking about these things more in the past week than most of the other things in this thread combined over the last 5 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished up the RB rankings (as of now, obviously off-season moves can shift things a little + rookies). They are ranked based on:

Talent 40%

O-line 5% (this can change as well depending on stability of the lineup from 2010, additions, departures, etc.)

Rushing 9% (metrics to account for production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)

Receiving 3% (metrics of production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)

Wear/Tear 10% (overall load of their touches in NFL career)

Age 10% (based on the shelf life of running backs)

Injury Risk 3% (wanted it to be a factor, but not one to skew the rankings very much as injuries are definitely unpredictable)

Bell Cow 20% (odds that they will be a full-time starter like ADP as an example has a score of 5.0, while R.Bush has a score of 1.0 as I never see him being a bell cow).

All categories are 1-5 on a sliding scale within the category, so 5.0 would be a perfect score.

Here is the top 5 based on that breakdown....

Charles - 4.79

Foster - 4.57

McFadden-4.53

Stewart - 4.40

ADP - 4.38

ADP is in the #5 spot because he has more wear and tear than the others, the top 3 have the edge in REC metrics and all have him in age. The top 2 have a better O-line as well. Thoughts?

Wow. Looking at that list I would say your system is flawed. I know he had a bad year compared to last year but I have a hrad time seeing Chris Johnson out of the top 5.
+1 Dropping AD to 5th because he has more "wear and tear" is fine, but it's flawed logic when 3 out of the 4 above him have had multiple injuries of their own leading to multiple missed games. I would say more injuries = more wear and tear. Edited by ROYALWITCHEESE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that AP should be higher than #5 because he is a consensus #1 or #2 in every form of fantasy league (crazy scoring modes excluded), so yes, that does indicate that something is wrong with the system. Outside of that, I think people need to explain their method of rankings more than just throwing out random stats that support what they are saying or poking holes in another person's argument.

Here is a question for everyone....if you were assigning a number value on RBs for their wear/tear (outside of injuries because they are a separate category) from 1 (highest wear/tear factor) to 5 (lowest wear/tear risk), what would be the cutoffs from their carries/touches, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fdctrumpet - Thanks for sharing your thinking process. That's much more helpful than the end results.I'm probably doing my rankings today because I want to get my conscious and subconscious thoughts based on this season before it fades. My approach is to make a set of 2011 redraft rankings that I would use if I had a bet with the devil and my life depended on it. And then I'm going to tweak it for keeper/dynasty. I want to compare the two lists and use that to extrapolate rough estimates of % various factors caused me to change from redraft to dynasty. Was I more influenced by time horizon (I use 3 years), age, team situation, injury history, supporting cast, contract uncertainty, homerism, etc.?I mention this because you may want to give it a try. Come up with a list that passes your sniff test and then reverse engineer the factors that led to the ranking. It may help you divine the percentages for a more consistent formulaic approach in the future and will also help you evaluate blind spots and process flaws. In the end, you want to find out if this is a good process, even if the outcomes are good or bad.And of course, please share! Thanks for your contribution to the thread.

All of the factors are definitely going to be incorporated in some fashion that you mentioned above. I posted my initial rough draft of the percentages on the thread because I was really excited about the project and wanted to get it online to receive feedback as I was doing all the numbers/charts. I will continue to post the progress, or evolution of this project because it seems to have sparked some discussion about many offshoots of the subject as general as "2011 player rankings". In response to some of the "you are trying to make the statistical rankings support what your feeling rankings say" or something to that regard - the whole point of delving into the rankings to this level is to take some of the subjective nature out of the equation. When you do that, you may be surprised that some players that you support to no end may be a lot lower (and should be) on your cheatsheets - and some are constantly undervalued by yourself. There are already (regardless of my future tweaking) a few players at each position (have not started tight ends at all yet) that fit into each category.Also, this is the perfect time to do this because the season is just about over so you can have everything from this season fresh in your mind (also I like to use any stats from the 2010 season only through 15 games because there are so many variables in week 17 that can make stats more inaccurate than they already inherently are with some teams dialing in the final game, sitting starters, etc.). I feel if you make your first rankings for the following season in the summer, there are lots of factors that can have too big a change to your rationale for changing the rankings. Doing it now means you can change things based on FA signings, the draft, coaching moves, etc. but I believe those changes will be less than if you were doing them for the 1st time in July/August.
We're not that far apart. I'm saying that after you do your subjective rankings, question the shifts to make sure that the objective criteria underlying the subjective rankings are being used consistently.For example, if you dock Torain X% for his injury history but don't dock a player with a similar injury history the same amount, you revisit and make the percentage consistent across the board. That may result in you having Torain higher than you would have expected or the other player lower. Similarly, if you give Torain extra points for playing in a ZBS, but dock Foster for being a "system RB", then you revisit and re-apply.I am trying really hard NOT to look at statistics right now. I want my subconscious thoughts put to paper because they are fresh. After the Super Bowl, those thoughts will be gone, but the stats will be there. I can compare and contrast my January 1, 2011 rankings against stats during the off-season. And I err on the side of not too much movement in the rankings (e.g., players can move within a tier, but it's hard to jump or drop a tier), I think I'll end up with rankings that are less skewed by off-season news.This is my first time putting this approach down in writing, so we'll see how it goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this is stemming from the fact that prepping for the 2010 season, my rankings were based on doing all the projection/draft dominator stuff from this site and (despite doing well this season) don't like it as "the way" I do rankings/draft prep in the future because it seems too much about projecting numbers for me. This skeleton I have been talking about on this thread for the past few days is the way I think will work very well to merge the feeling rankings with the statistical rankings to give a more complete and balanced picture. Just to reiterate, to me all the serious stat gathering needs to happen now because week 17 changes things for a lot of players depending on their team situation this week and after Sunday, it will far more difficult and time-consuming to gather that information in the coming months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this is stemming from the fact that prepping for the 2010 season, my rankings were based on doing all the projection/draft dominator stuff from this site and (despite doing well this season) don't like it as "the way" I do rankings/draft prep in the future because it seems too much about projecting numbers for me. This skeleton I have been talking about on this thread for the past few days is the way I think will work very well to merge the feeling rankings with the statistical rankings to give a more complete and balanced picture. Just to reiterate, to me all the serious stat gathering needs to happen now because week 17 changes things for a lot of players depending on their team situation this week and after Sunday, it will far more difficult and time-consuming to gather that information in the coming months.

I agree that the stat gathering has to happen now before sites shut down their tools and stat pages. But I'm hoping that I have the will power to not analyze those stats until after I've done rankings without a heavy does of stats analysis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know more about a person's "process" when they throw around Player X is higher in my rankings than player Y statements. Since August, I can recall only one short conversation about something like that on this thread and it was basically "what percent of your rankings or thoughts on dynasty rankings are based on talent." That was it. I would like A LOT more discussion on if talent is 50% or 60% or whatever - what are the other factors and how would you weight them. That has opened my eyes to thinking about these things more in the past week than most of the other things in this thread combined over the last 5 months.

OK, but the debate over talent versus situation is ongoing and goes to the basis of one's Dynasty philosophy and strategy. There really is no right or wrong answer here (although some would like to think there is). It depends on the type of league you play in (free or money) and what you are trying to accomplish (win in the short term or the long term).

Yes, I am in complete agreement with the concept that if you play long enough, talent will win out over situation. Talent is permanent, while situation is temporary/transitory - I understand that fully. The problem is, I play exclusively in money leagues and I have a shorter term outlook on things (I use a 3 year projected time frame and I count the current season for any year as representing 50% of a player's value). Consequently, for me, the forseeable future for any player trumps what they may be doing in 3-5 years.

I think a lot of the problems with the advice given here is that many of the regular posters in this thread have a one size fits all philosopy and while their strategy may be a winning one for what they are trying to accomplish, it is of lesser value to those who have a different approach. It would be nice to see a disclaimer as to what one's dynasty philosophy/strategy is in context with what they are saying, but obviously that is not workable as we don't need to clutter up this thread with more verbiage.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that AP should be higher than #5 because he is a consensus #1 or #2 in every form of fantasy league (crazy scoring modes excluded), so yes, that does indicate that something is wrong with the system. Outside of that, I think people need to explain their method of rankings more than just throwing out random stats that support what they are saying or poking holes in another person's argument.Here is a question for everyone....if you were assigning a number value on RBs for their wear/tear (outside of injuries because they are a separate category) from 1 (highest wear/tear factor) to 5 (lowest wear/tear risk), what would be the cutoffs from their carries/touches, etc.?

Let me preface by saying I am skeptical that any formulaic approach will work here. The problem with a formula is that context is often needed to determine how heavily to weight a given formula element, but formulas typically do not vary how an element is weighted based on different conditions/factors/context.Another problem is that using a formula attempts to quantify an objective ranking, but elements of the formula are subjective, not objective. For example, how does one ensure a good scoring of talent? And if that scoring is off base, doesn't that skew the rankings?All that said, with regard to this issue, I think it may be that the "wear and tear" element should be ignored or weighted very low until a player reaches a certain age (e.g., say, when a RB turns 28), and then the weight could go up. But this is probably just another way of bringing up the oft debated question about whether it is really carries/usage, age, accumulated injuries, or some combination (and what combination?) of all of them that matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem is that using a formula attempts to quantify an objective ranking, but elements of the formula are subjective, not objective. For example, how does one ensure a good scoring of talent? And if that scoring is off base, doesn't that skew the rankings?All that said, with regard to this issue, I think it may be that the "wear and tear" element should be ignored or weighted very low until a player reaches a certain age (e.g., say, when a RB turns 28), and then the weight could go up. But this is probably just another way of bringing up the oft debated question about whether it is really carries/usage, age, accumulated injuries, or some combination (and what combination?) of all of them that matters.

From everything I've read both career carries/touches and age are factors with running back longevity. I used both in my rankings so that both are given credit. A 30 yr. old RB with limited carries for their years in the league is still a 30 yr. old RB (more likely to disappoint) as is a 27 yr. old RB with a ton of use so far in their career. It's just playing the odds in my perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One interesting stat I worked with a little today was Fantasy Pts. per Target in the Red Zone for WRs. It shows their efficiency around the goal line not only to score TDs with their opportunities, but have a good catch % in the small spaces in the red zone.

Did you know according to this stat - Dez Bryant was the highest rated WR in the entire NFL? He was over 12% better than the #2 WR in fact. Collie was top 5 in this metric and D.Jackson was near the bottom of the barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished with WR rankings for now....here is the breakdown of factors....60% talent10% QB 7% Targets per game 6% Age 5% Receiving Efficiency Metrics 5% Red Zone Opportunity/Involvement 5% Red Zone Fantasy Pts. Per Target 2% Injury History/History of missed games

All of these calculations and here were some changes in the rankings (from where I had ranked them originally based on feelings alone)Jennings moved upV.Jackson moved upWallace moved downR.White moved downB.Lloyd moved up (still outside the top 15)Benn moved up (I thought I valued him highly before...)S.Rice moved down (lower than I thought he would)Meacham moved upBess moved downMcCluster moved down (I've always thought his football value will be far more than his fantasy football value)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: My wear/tear numbers for RBs were the problem - I rechecked what went into that category for me and found it was not as accurate as it should be. That changed the AP/AD/ADP situation in the rankings quite a bit (not my goal of going back into the numbers).

Here are the factors into the RB rankings:

50% - Talent

16% - Bell Cow Factor (odds of having the primary back role on team/carry % on team)

9% - Rushing Efficiency metrics

6% - Goal Line Efficiency/Opportunity Metric (What % of goal line carries they get on the team/how well they do with those opportunities)

5% - Wear/Tear

5% - Age

3% - O-line performance

3% - Receiving Efficiency metrics

3% - Injury history/games missed

I feel this breakdown allows for a good mix of a RB's talents/skills and opportunities to be accounted for.

Top 5 are as follows....

AD/AP/ADP....4.64

MJD...............4.57

Charles..........4.56

Foster............4.56

C.Johnson......4.50

#2 through #5 are basically interchangeable as there is a pretty nice gap down to #6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you deciding the "age" metric?

I know, 1 to 5, but is 20 a 5? 21? 22? What age is a "perfect" score. I feel like for a RB, you would need to almost have an even scale from 21 to 31, which would give I believe ten steps, allowing you to just take off a half step for every year? Otherwise it seems subjective - is 24 as young as 23, or as old as 25? Is there a difference for players who are all born in 1987, but one in January, one in June, and one in December?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: My wear/tear numbers for RBs were the problem - I rechecked what went into that category for me and found it was not as accurate as it should be. That changed the AP/AD/ADP situation in the rankings quite a bit (not my goal of going back into the numbers).Here are the factors into the RB rankings:50% - Talent16% - Bell Cow Factor (odds of having the primary back role on team/carry % on team) 9% - Rushing Efficiency metrics 6% - Goal Line Efficiency/Opportunity Metric (What % of goal line carries they get on the team/how well they do with those opportunities) 5% - Wear/Tear 5% - Age 3% - O-line performance 3% - Receiving Efficiency metrics 3% - Injury history/games missedI feel this breakdown allows for a good mix of a RB's talents/skills and opportunities to be accounted for.Top 5 are as follows....AD/AP/ADP....4.64MJD...............4.57Charles..........4.56Foster............4.56C.Johnson......4.50#2 through #5 are basically interchangeable as there is a pretty nice gap down to #6.

Can we see you full (or top 25 or so) rankings for RBs and WRs?The discussion about the formula and percentages is interesting and all but I'd love to see what the results are looking like with your latest tweaks. TIA :hey:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are you deciding the "age" metric?I know, 1 to 5, but is 20 a 5? 21? 22? What age is a "perfect" score. I feel like for a RB, you would need to almost have an even scale from 21 to 31, which would give I believe ten steps, allowing you to just take off a half step for every year? Otherwise it seems subjective - is 24 as young as 23, or as old as 25? Is there a difference for players who are all born in 1987, but one in January, one in June, and one in December?

Yes, it is a sliding scale for age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we see you full (or top 10 or so) rankings for RBs and WRs?The discussion about the formula and percentages is interesting and all but I'd love to see what the results are looking like with your latest tweaks. TIA :ptts:

1 ADP 4.643 MJD 4.574 Charles 4.566 Foster 4.562 CJ3 4.509 McFadden 4.447 Rice 4.375 Stewart 4.3410 Mendenhall 4.18Rank Org.Rank Player Score1 1 Calvin 4.492 2 AJ 4.453 4 Fitz 4.334 10 Jennings 4.335 5 Nicks 4.236 9 V.Jax 4.227 6 D.Bryant 4.208 3 R.White 4.199 8 D.Jackson 4.1210 15 Bowe 4.09For WRs, the Org.Rank is the original rank I had them at just on feelings and using the "would I take this player or that player" line of thought each step of the way.Also, the difference between the #10 spot at WR and #16 is .05 pts. so it's pretty much take your pick/favorite. So if someone is left out, they may be right there for the top 10 in terms of pts Edited by fdctrumpet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on Peyton Hillis' future? Is he a sell high this offseason? Not sure all that much can be had for him in dynasty...

I think the 2nd portion of your post says it all to me "Not sure all that much can be had for him in dynasty." That makes him a BUY in dynasty as opposed to a sell. If people are not believing the hype, not believing the story that they would disregard a breakout player who scored in the top 5 as far as RBs go, then it seems he is being undervalue tremendously.Of course there are question marks in Hardesty, but there are also tons of positives. I may attempt to make a move for him after my draft next year (i don't play in dynasty, but a keeper where we keep 6 at no cost and i don't have Peyton in that league), as I think that would be a perfect time to go after him for me. I'm probably a lot higher on Hillis than most. In my opinion people get too cute, what you see on the field and in present holds a lot more power in my mind than assumptions/predictions and the like. I love Cleveland for next year, they are a team on the up (yes, I like Mccoy very much), they have a great offensive line and running is their strength. Hillis also is a great pass catcher which gives him a lot of extra value, kind of like a Blount but with an extra 5-7 points per game due to the receiving. Hardesty has not proven he can stay healthy, he has not proven he can even produce at the NFL level. Hillis has proven both. A lot also depends on who is coaching. If the Mangidiot is in, I think Hillis' role is safe, albeit a bit reduced.
What would you feel comfortable selling him for? I.e., what would you consider a "fair" price as a buyer and a seller?
That's a very tough thing to say....as far as RBs go, I would "fairly" put him around 10-13 or so. I'd take Hillis over Forte for instance. But I think it is "close" and fiar value. I'd probably put him higher than a guy like Deangelo Williams, but then again, it is very close in my book. I'm a huge Blount fan, and Blount is a rookie, but I'd probably rather have Hillis, although they are in the same area to me.Basically, I'd rather have Hillis than all the RB's i mentioned above, but would consider it a "fair deal" to trade either of them for HIllis. I'd be on the getting Hillis side of course, lol. Edited by plyka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finished up the RB rankings (as of now, obviously off-season moves can shift things a little + rookies). They are ranked based on:Talent 40%O-line 5% (this can change as well depending on stability of the lineup from 2010, additions, departures, etc.)Rushing 9% (metrics to account for production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)Receiving 3% (metrics of production, efficiency, etc. from 2010)Wear/Tear 10% (overall load of their touches in NFL career)Age 10% (based on the shelf life of running backs)Injury Risk 3% (wanted it to be a factor, but not one to skew the rankings very much as injuries are definitely unpredictable)Bell Cow 20% (odds that they will be a full-time starter like ADP as an example has a score of 5.0, while R.Bush has a score of 1.0 as I never see him being a bell cow).All categories are 1-5 on a sliding scale within the category, so 5.0 would be a perfect score.Here is the top 5 based on that breakdown....Charles - 4.79Foster - 4.57McFadden-4.53Stewart - 4.40ADP - 4.38ADP is in the #5 spot because he has more wear and tear than the others, the top 3 have the edge in REC metrics and all have him in age. The top 2 have a better O-line as well. Thoughts?

I would take ADP over everyone one that list. Charles at #1? I think that's ridiculous myself. Stewart at #4? That's probably even more ridiculous. I love Foster as #2, and that's where I personally would rate him, or perhaps at 3. My top 7 for dynasty PPR would go:1) ADP2) Lesean Mccoy3) Foster4) CJ5) Ray Rice6) MJD7) CharlesPlease don't start with me and Rice, let's just say that I'm a big believer in his talent. I stood away from a lot of the arguments on this board regarding Rice for a reason. My ranking is based on:50%: my personal opinion5%: my talent's "eye"15%" my "gut feeling"30%: my "coaches itch."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To whoever does the dynastyrankings.net site. Has JerMichael Finley shown you enough to warrant the number 1 tight end ranking? He hasn't played a full season yet. Has shown to be injury prone to this point. Has put up some good games point wise but didn't exactly light the league on fire early in the season either.

Link to comment
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...