Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

What are thoughts on Greg Jennings' value and by extension Jarret Bodkin if Jennings leaves?

I like Jennings more than Bowe, but I don't really like Bowe. I think they both fall into the same boat though, hold for now then re-evaluate once on a new team. I'm more optimistic about Jennings than Bowe right now, but there's risk associated with both. I'm glad I jumped ship when I did, MUCH happier building around Josh Gordon.We'll get a better idea about guys like Bodkin come May. If I remember right Jones is only on a one year deal and could price himself out too if so. If both Jennings and Jones go then we see what the Pack does in the draft, lots of quality complimentary WR's available and with Cobb and Jordy in tow that's all they would need. If they ignore them then Bodkin becomes interesting. Not a bad speculative add, dropping a vet you're not keeping, once your season is over.
James Jones signed a 3-year deal before the 2011 season. He is still under contract in 2013 at a base salary of $2.95M with an additional $100K workout bonus and $200K roster bonus. Given the way he is playing this year, Jones will play a big role in the offense next year, whether due to the departure of Jennings or Finley.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and Cleveland complied only to see Droughns go down the same route as so many other Shannahan backs. The system > the player.

I am fully aware that this system has produced great results with players who did not perform as well outside of it. This is the system Morris is playing in, however, and he is producing in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are thoughts on Greg Jennings' value and by extension Jarret Bodkin if Jennings leaves?

I like Jennings more than Bowe, but I don't really like Bowe. I think they both fall into the same boat though, hold for now then re-evaluate once on a new team. I'm more optimistic about Jennings than Bowe right now, but there's risk associated with both. I'm glad I jumped ship when I did, MUCH happier building around Josh Gordon.We'll get a better idea about guys like Bodkin come May. If I remember right Jones is only on a one year deal and could price himself out too if so. If both Jennings and Jones go then we see what the Pack does in the draft, lots of quality complimentary WR's available and with Cobb and Jordy in tow that's all they would need. If they ignore them then Bodkin becomes interesting. Not a bad speculative add, dropping a vet you're not keeping, once your season is over.
James Jones signed a 3-year deal before the 2011 season. He is still under contract in 2013 at a base salary of $2.95M with an additional $100K workout bonus and $200K roster bonus. Given the way he is playing this year, Jones will play a big role in the offense next year, whether due to the departure of Jennings or Finley.
Oops, thought he signed that deal 3 years ago, not 2. Good note and I think that means both Jennings and Finley are gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and Cleveland complied only to see Droughns go down the same route as so many other Shannahan backs. The system > the player.

I am fully aware that this system has produced great results with players who did not perform as well outside of it. This is the system Morris is playing in, however, and he is producing in it.
...and you and other Morris owners can reap the benefits as long as he is the guy. I will look elsewhere for situations and talents I am more comfortable with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO SABERTOOTH... I saw where you said you don't understand building for the future so much.

My buddy in my league has been patiently 'building a dynasty' since he took over a ####ty team in 2007. He drafts well and doesn't trade a ton. He drafts talent despite the situation and holds. He prefers talent in good situations. But when situation of an average talented player changes you're screwed. For talented players, there's always a chance w/ upside.

We are in 10 team 2QB dynasty league PPR w/KR points etc. He just finished as top seed going into playoffs averaging 219pts a game. Most solid playoff teams average 180-190pts.

QB: Stafford, Freeman, Cutler, Wilson

WR: CJohnson, Marshall, DBryant, Cobb, S.Rice, Gordon, Edelman, DMoore, Sanu, MarvJones.

RB: ADP, RRice, D.Wilson, SVereen, RWilliams, Mendenhall, RHillman, BPowell.

TE: JGraham, D.Allen

K: Sebas

DEF Cincy

Through 13 weeks here are positional rank of his players.

QB6, QB12, QB17 QB24

WR1, WR2, WR3, WR7, WR35, WR42, WR47....

RB1, RB4, RB32...

TE 4

We start 11 skill players. In redraft each team has Top 10 player in each position theoretically. On a good draft you'd get 4 top 10 positional players 1 in each position.

Jeff (the owner) has 8 top 10 players. At least one in each position and a solid core of young talented WRs to build around. Which means he's not going anywhere. HE's also go QB depth which is vital in our league.

He was very patient over the years, not sacrificing young talent and value, while patiently waiting.

He drafted most of these players. Hillman he picked up on waivers just recently. Hillman was a 1st or 2nd round drop in our draft this year. He knows his talent and targets them. Preferable the talent that goes to the best situations. It doesn't always work out right away but when you do enough research and are patient enough the odds are in your favor.

Anyway. I just got 2nd to last in my league for the 2nd year in a row. I'm trying to figure out how to value Bryce Brown and everyone else on my roster or who I should be targetting for 2013 season bc this year was bad.

happy playoffs for those that made it...Happy scouting/drafting for those that didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about looking toward the future or winning now, in a vacuum. It's about maximizing VBD. There are nearly an infinite amount of potential roster moves we can make; each of them is its own collection of potential outcomes. Nothing is black and white and I find those that lean one way or another tend to be lesser owners because of it.

There are countless threads or posts every year, asking questions like: When do you sell a RB? Do you draft a RB or QB in the first? Do you avoid RBs early? Do you trade away your draft picks or keep them?

The answer to each and every one of these questions is: you do what is best for your team, and it is different in every scenario.

Being around the dynasty community for a few years, you start to notice the good owners; the owners who are always in the playoffs, hitting on their draft picks, winning trades, etcetera. They get this. They practice this. They can determine if Frank Gore is more valuable than Jaquizz Rodgers based on every bit of information they have, and project based on that; rather than limiting their information by "bringing walls into wide open spaces (Buddy Wakefield)", and siding with the blanket "older" or "younger" guy.

There is a correct answer, in hindsight, to every potential roster move; those that make your team older, and those that make your team younger, those that net a RB, those that net a WR, those in which you get the best player, those in which you give the best player for depth. Even the "best player in the deal" comments have started to make me laugh, as well as the "quality over quantity" arguments. Every single trade and potential trade is different, and, again, has it's own collection of potential outcomes. The more you limit those based on blanket criteria, the more you limit your potential gains.

It's not about winning now or tomorrow; it's about winning, which can come in forms as unique and infinite as the potential roster moves that lead to it.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO SABERTOOTH... I saw where you said you don't understand building for the future so much. My buddy in my league has been patiently 'building a dynasty' since he took over a ####ty team in 2007. He drafts well and doesn't trade a ton. He drafts talent despite the situation and holds. He prefers talent in good situations. But when situation of an average talented player changes you're screwed. For talented players, there's always a chance w/ upside.We are in 10 team 2QB dynasty league PPR w/KR points etc. He just finished as top seed going into playoffs averaging 219pts a game. Most solid playoff teams average 180-190pts.QB: Stafford, Freeman, Cutler, WilsonWR: CJohnson, Marshall, DBryant, Cobb, S.Rice, Gordon, Edelman, DMoore, Sanu, MarvJones.RB: ADP, RRice, D.Wilson, SVereen, RWilliams, Mendenhall, RHillman, BPowell. TE: JGraham, D.AllenK: SebasDEF CincyThrough 13 weeks here are positional rank of his players.QB6, QB12, QB17 QB24WR1, WR2, WR3, WR7, WR35, WR42, WR47....RB1, RB4, RB32...TE 4We start 11 skill players. In redraft each team has Top 10 player in each position theoretically. On a good draft you'd get 4 top 10 positional players 1 in each position.Jeff (the owner) has 8 top 10 players. At least one in each position and a solid core of young talented WRs to build around. Which means he's not going anywhere. HE's also go QB depth which is vital in our league. He was very patient over the years, not sacrificing young talent and value, while patiently waiting.He drafted most of these players. Hillman he picked up on waivers just recently. Hillman was a 1st or 2nd round drop in our draft this year. He knows his talent and targets them. Preferable the talent that goes to the best situations. It doesn't always work out right away but when you do enough research and are patient enough the odds are in your favor. Anyway. I just got 2nd to last in my league for the 2nd year in a row. I'm trying to figure out how to value Bryce Brown and everyone else on my roster or who I should be targetting for 2013 season bc this year was bad.happy playoffs for those that made it...Happy scouting/drafting for those that didn't.

I'm not saying that it can't work, just that I don't play that way. I generally make the most moves in my leagues. I'm constantly turning over those final spots in an effort to land a gem. You mention talent, but how can we know who is truly talented and who isn't if they don't play? Draft position isn't a great indicator, I don't think Green Bay or New England have a Top 10 draft pick as an offensive player off the top of my head. Talent is just such a tough thing to get your arms around. Jonathan Stewart is supposed talented. And Alfred Morris wasn't highly regarded compared to David Wilson and Isiah Pead. So if you are taking the approach of drafting the most talented player, how do you pick them? It's so inexact. I prefer the Ted Thompson method of throwing a lot of #### at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanahan has been very loyal to his RBs, except when injuries have forced his hand. If feel very comfortable owning Morris for the next 3 years.

Shanahan is loyal in giving his guys jobs and chances. Torain is another example of this. I would question if he is loyal in giving guys the role of starter. Every camp is an open competition unless the player is TD or Portis, which you even imply yourself with the choice of the word "earned" in the Mike Anderson anecdote. They drafted Tatum Bell in the 2nd to take that job, but Tatum Bell ended up being Tatum Bell. Were they being loyal to Mike Anderson or just reacting to Bell's limitations? I definitely read it as the latter. I do believe it's highly likely Morris will be on the Redskins roster for 3 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally make the most moves in my leagues. I'm constantly turning over those final spots in an effort to land a gem. You mention talent, but how can we know who is truly talented and who isn't if they don't play?

Formulate an opinion pre draft and constantly re-evaluate that opinion based on new information. Whether that pre draft opinion is formed by watching them or latch onto some people you trust that watch a lot of college ball and follow the draft process. If you walk into each season not knowing much more about the players selected except for when they were selected and how the team wants to incorporate them into their plan then there is going to be a lot more uncertainty on how to actually value those guys - your opinion will fluctuate a lot more week to week and month to month. If you already have a general baseline to work from I think it makes decision making easier both in-season and offseason.I burn and churn a lot on the end of my roster too so it's not like I'm married to my darts. You can't be hard headed with your evaluations because you will miss opportunities, but I think having a point of reference from the beginning helps significantly when evaluating the young players on your team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about looking toward the future or winning now, in a vacuum. It's about maximizing VBD. There are nearly an infinite amount of potential roster moves we can make; each of them is its own collection of potential outcomes. Nothing is black and white and I find those that lean one way or another tend to be lesser owners because of it. There are countless threads or posts every year, asking questions like: When do you sell a RB? Do you draft a RB or QB in the first? Do you avoid RBs early? Do you trade away your draft picks or keep them? The answer to each and every one of these questions is: you do what is best for your team, and it is different in every scenario. Being around the dynasty community for a few years, you start to notice the good owners; the owners who are always in the playoffs, hitting on their draft picks, winning trades, etcetera. They get this. They practice this. They can determine if Frank Gore is more valuable than Jaquizz Rodgers based on every bit of information they have, and project based on that; rather than limiting their information by "bringing walls into wide open spaces (Buddy Wakefield)", and siding with the blanket "older" or "younger" guy. There is a correct answer, in hindsight, to every potential roster move; those that make your team older, and those that make your team younger, those that net a RB, those that net a WR, those in which you get the best player, those in which you give the best player for depth. Even the "best player in the deal" comments have started to make me laugh, as well as the "quality over quantity" arguments. Every single trade and potential trade is different, and, again, has it's own collection of potential outcomes. The more you limit those based on blanket criteria, the more you limit your potential gains.It's not about winning now or tomorrow; it's about winning, which can come in forms as unique and infinite as the potential roster moves that lead to it.

Well said
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TO SABERTOOTH... I saw where you said you don't understand building for the future so much.

Your team struggled because your QBs fell apart. It's a 2QB league and your best QB are QB19 and QB20 so far. The other guy doesn't know that much more than you, he just got luckier at QB.
I don't play 2 QB leagues, but I think it's very important to lock down a stud at QB. It opens up a lot more flexibility in how you build the rest of your roster since you can feel good that position is locked down for the next decade, plus? The two dyno's I'm in are 5 and 7 years old, I built my teams around Rivers and Romo. Idea was to build around them initially and try to lock down replacements sometime between 2011 and 2013. Enter, RG3 and Luck. I feel comfortable setting and forgetting at QB for a very long time in both leagues. I have absolutely nothing behind RG3, literally, so I will be looking for a backup this offseason after trading away Bradford and Carson at different times this year but I don't have to get a good one if the price isn't right. I can afford to bargain shop until I find that steady backup, but I'm in no hurry. I may be sitting on a gold mine at QB in the Luck league though. Kaepernick, Bradford, and Geno on the way. I will definitely be cutting some deals in that league but no idea what exactly I will be doing. In the end I will feel comfortable if I end up with just one uninteresting backup and have shipped the rest off for upgrades elsewhere.Similar argument for elite WR's, but I think getting that QB should come first. Once accomplished then look for that WR. Or two. I think this is the best way to build a juggernaut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar argument for elite WR's, but I think getting that QB should come first. Once accomplished then look for that WR. Or two. I think this is the best way to build a juggernaut.

If Julio Jones helps you win more than Trent Richardson, it is not because he is a WR. Same with RG3.Every position has it's own pros, cons, trends, etcetera. Every player within those positions offers their own unique potential production, both in coordination with, and despite their position. Every league, based on settings, affects value of said potential production. Every person in your league, and their set of potential actions affects the value of said potential production. Your current roster dictates what time periods said production will lead to wins. I could go on and on. Every single strategy or guideline to building a team is self limiting. There is no best way; but thinking there is the wrong way. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to rant, but to take it a step further:

That is why I hate the "Upside Down" concept, especially how it is discussed in this forum. If, in hindsight, your draft meets "upside down" criteria after doing what will best help you win - great. But so many owners go into a draft having read that article and discussing it on the forum pre-determining their draft picks. There is nothing positive that comes from that. You are taking the thousands of different combinations and cutting them down, when you don't need to.

At each and every pick in the draft, in hindsight, there is a "right" pick. How is it logical to think that you better your odds of making that pick, by cutting down your options? It's not, in my opinion.

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar argument for elite WR's, but I think getting that QB should come first. Once accomplished then look for that WR. Or two. I think this is the best way to build a juggernaut.

If Julio Jones helps you win more than Trent Richardson, it is not because he is a WR. Same with RG3.Every position has it's own pros, cons, trends, etcetera. Every player within those positions offers their own unique potential production, both in coordination with, and despite their position. Every league, based on settings, affects value of said potential production. Every person in your league, and their set of potential actions affects the value of said potential production. Your current roster dictates what time periods said production will lead to wins. I could go on and on. Every single strategy or guideline to building a team is self limiting. There is no best way; but thinking there is the wrong way.
I probably worded my post poorly, I actually had a more detailed one typed out but deleted it because I got way too much into one of my leagues. My whole philosophy is built around flexibility, I think it's easier to be flexible if you have a young stud at QB or one at WR. The whole point of my post was that if you get the studs at positions you can reasonably expect to play for > 10 years it's easier to build. Don't narrow your focus to get those guys because you will miss other opportunities but if you get the opportunity to for the right price then do it. The darts you're stocked with in future years do not necessarily have to be thrown at certain positions if you lock up one of these spots, you're afforded the ability to bargain hunt and be patient with long term projects since you don't need a player to fill a spot sometime in the next 2-4 years. I wouldn't pass on Richardson to get Julio, I had Richardson as the #1 dynasty player overall when he was drafted and only knocked him down to lower in the top 10 because of his lost preseason. i.e. he decreased my ability to win now. With the season wrapping up he will be back to #1 again going into 2013.After trading/flipping Carson, Rivers, and Bradford my QB setup in one dyno is RG3/Mallett/Flynn. Obviously, I need to find a backup, but finding a someone I hopefully only need for one week is not difficult. RG3 affords me the option to look for the right options behind him instead of needing to find someone, it also allows me to feel like the darts I throw in the late rounds and at the end of my roster can be focused on other positions if there aren't any QB's I like. More darts thrown, better shot at connection - easier to build other positions.The other one is much different, I have stumbled upon Luck/Kaep/Bradford/Geno. Obviously I will be shopping, but I also don't HAVE to sell. By having Luck I have opened up a wealth of options. If the market isn't there in January, February, March, etc. I can sit tight and re-evaluate later in the offseason. If it's still not there I can continue to wait into the season. Eventually I will be able to make the right move, not just a move based on a need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to rant, but to take it a step further:That is why I hate the "Upside Down" concept, especially how it is discussed in this forum. If, in hindsight, your draft meets "upside down" criteria after doing what will best help you win - great. But so many owners go into a draft having read that article and discussing it on the forum pre-determining their draft picks. There is nothing positive that comes from that. You are taking the thousands of different combinations and cutting them down, when you don't need to. At each and every pick in the draft, in hindsight, there is a "right" pick. How is it logical to think that you better your odds of making that pick, by cutting down your options? It's not, in my opinion.

Upside Down concept?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably worded my post poorly, I actually had a more detailed one typed out but deleted it because I got way too much into one of my leagues. My whole philosophy is built around flexibility, I think it's easier to be flexible if you have a young stud at QB or one at WR. The whole point of my post was that if you get the studs at positions you can reasonably expect to play for > 10 years it's easier to build. Don't narrow your focus to get those guys because you will miss other opportunities but if you get the opportunity to for the right price then do it. The darts you're stocked with in future years do not necessarily have to be thrown at certain positions if you lock up one of these spots, you're afforded the ability to bargain hunt and be patient with long term projects since you don't need a player to fill a spot sometime in the next 2-4 years.

How is using a strategy that suggests valuing or pursuing a particular criteria, in this case: QB and/or WR, going to make you more flexible? By definition, that is not the case. I like to use career VBD, so I don't think there is any fault in valuing a player's entire projected career; I do. Some only look 3 years down the road, some more or less, and that is all reflective of what they want out of their dynasty leagues. So I don't say this to suggest you are looking too far in advance, or that you need to value current projection more, or anything of the sort; In a vacuum, 20 points a game today, is worth the same as 20 points a game in 5 years. How comfortable we feel determining or projecting that is another story. But, having said all of that: Why do you care what is on your roster in 10 years? Or, to be more specific, why do you value it to the point where it becomes so important that it needs to be addressed first, as you suggested?If you drafted Aaron Rodgers in a startup this year, over a player from another position with matching career VBD, and Andrew Luck falls in your lap, you made a mistake; drafting Aaron Rodgers was a mistake. Now, that is a hypothetical and you can't predict that, but I say it to say this: filling one position so that you can search for others gives you no advantage. You hypothetically drafted Aaron Rodgers so you don't have to worry about the QB spot, but now Andrew Luck is far and away the best player on your board during the rookie draft the following year. What advantage did you gain? So, drafting someone so that you don't have to "worry about" a position for any amount of time is the wrong reason to draft someone, in my opinion. It, again, is limiting.ETA: Another example - you loaded up on WRs, so that you can search for "gems" at the RB spot. Two potential issues:-You now have incentive to value Felix Jones over Victor Cruz or Cecil Shorts (not now, obviously).Or-You have surrendered all advantage you had by being WR heavy when the RB heavy team picks up Short and Cruz. He now has an equal WR core and a clear advantage at RB; have fun digging for gems. These are extreme examples, I know, and I don't make them to suggest going WR heavy is wrong; if each pick was teh best pick for you to make, you did all you can do. But going WR heavy as a blanket rule is wrong. It doesn't offer the advantage some suggest it does. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to rant, but to take it a step further:That is why I hate the "Upside Down" concept, especially how it is discussed in this forum. If, in hindsight, your draft meets "upside down" criteria after doing what will best help you win - great. But so many owners go into a draft having read that article and discussing it on the forum pre-determining their draft picks. There is nothing positive that comes from that. You are taking the thousands of different combinations and cutting them down, when you don't need to. At each and every pick in the draft, in hindsight, there is a "right" pick. How is it logical to think that you better your odds of making that pick, by cutting down your options? It's not, in my opinion.

Upside Down concept?
The upside down draft; waiting on a RB, then "shot gunning" them later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hypothetically drafted Aaron Rodgers so you don't have to worry about the QB spot, but now Andrew Luck is far and away the best player on your board during the rookie draft the following year. What advantage did you gain?

Draft Luck and trade Rodgers when Luck is established. Not many people advocate reaching in rookie drafts based on position. Or at least breaking tiers.

-You now have incentive to value Felix Jones over Victor Cruz or Cecil Shorts (not now, obviously).

I have WR heavy teams where I added Shorts or Danario. I have RB heavy teams where I drafted Bryce.

have fun digging for gems.

It is fun! Thank you, I will! :thumbup:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably worded my post poorly, I actually had a more detailed one typed out but deleted it because I got way too much into one of my leagues. My whole philosophy is built around flexibility, I think it's easier to be flexible if you have a young stud at QB or one at WR. The whole point of my post was that if you get the studs at positions you can reasonably expect to play for > 10 years it's easier to build. Don't narrow your focus to get those guys because you will miss other opportunities but if you get the opportunity to for the right price then do it. The darts you're stocked with in future years do not necessarily have to be thrown at certain positions if you lock up one of these spots, you're afforded the ability to bargain hunt and be patient with long term projects since you don't need a player to fill a spot sometime in the next 2-4 years.

How is using a strategy that suggests valuing or pursuing a particular criteria, in this case: QB and/or WR, going to make you more flexible? By definition, that is not the case. I like to use career VBD, so I don't think there is any fault in valuing a player's entire projected career; I do. Some only look 3 years down the road, some more or less, and that is all reflective of what they want out of their dynasty leagues. So I don't say this to suggest you are looking too far in advance, or that you need to value current projection more, or anything of the sort; In a vacuum, 20 points a game today, is worth the same as 20 points a game in 5 years. How comfortable we feel determining or projecting that is another story. But, having said all of that: Why do you care what is on your roster in 10 years? Or, to be more specific, why do you value it to the point where it becomes so important that it needs to be addressed first, as you suggested?If you drafted Aaron Rodgers in a startup this year, over a player from another position with matching career VBD, and Andrew Luck falls in your lap, you made a mistake; drafting Aaron Rodgers was a mistake. Now, that is a hypothetical and you can't predict that, but I say it to say this: filling one position so that you can search for others gives you no advantage. You hypothetically drafted Aaron Rodgers so you don't have to worry about the QB spot, but now Andrew Luck is far and away the best player on your board during the rookie draft the following year. What advantage did you gain? So, drafting someone so that you don't have to "worry about" a position for any amount of time is the wrong reason to draft someone, in my opinion. It, again, is limiting.
You're either taking my posts out of context or I am writing very poorly.A young elite QB is something I WANT to try to get first. I don't NEED to get it first. A young elite WR is something I WANT to try to get second. I don't NEED to get it after the elite QB or after failing to get an elite QB. I'm always looking for opportunities to get these guys, I have a list and if I see a point in their career in which they could be purchased at value I go get it. I didn't need to with Luck because I took him in a developmental draft. I also didn't with RG3, but for different reasons. I lucked into pick #5 from a team I traded with and three of the teams in front of me were locked in with QB's and had needs elsewhere, knowing those owners I knew either Luck or RG3 would fall. Since I am already set at QB I have directed my attention to WR. My list is Calvin, AJ Green, Julio, Harvin, and Demaryius with Fitz, Cruz, Dez, and Marshall a notch below for varying reasons. I was able to land Fitz one place (I have Harvin in the other) and with a slow December/January I am optimistic I can get Julio too. Missed buying windows for both Demaryius and Dez and don't see them open for the others either. If they open I'll take a look.I believe having these pieces offers more flexibility because the more starting spots I can lock in the less needs I have to fill. I seem to always mine for WR's on the cheap and then end up with too many good, young ones but feel I need to keep 5-6 of them because I don't know which ones will pan out and which ones won't. I'm constantly turning down trade offers because I'm often offered similar darts at other positions but I don't see the upgrade since the darts they're offering fill the same use as mine. By locking in starting spots at WR I can be more selective on when to sell those young underdeveloped types, I don't have to keep > 5 but if the market's not there I can wait. If I'm offered those TE and RB darts I can feel better letting the WR go because I don't need him and I'm confident I will be able to find another dart too.I guess my take on WR's is because I am confident in my abilities to mine for cheap replacements. Wallace, Welker, Cruz, Collie, Antonio Brown, Decker, Garcon, Austin, Stevie, Laurent, now Gordon, and Alexander, hopefully next year Vincent Brown and others. As I mine for them I want to flip more of them for upgrades at RB and TE because that's where my weakness usually lies. If I already have QB locked in then I can throw even more of these WR darts at RB and TE instead, I'm not looking at Cutler/Big Ben and being offered one of but not both Tannehill and Hillman. I'm looking at Luck and choosing to dart throw Hillman. Throw 3-4 Hillman-like darts and 1-2 will hit, filling what I think is the hardest position to fill in our game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to rant, but to take it a step further:That is why I hate the "Upside Down" concept, especially how it is discussed in this forum. If, in hindsight, your draft meets "upside down" criteria after doing what will best help you win - great. But so many owners go into a draft having read that article and discussing it on the forum pre-determining their draft picks. There is nothing positive that comes from that. You are taking the thousands of different combinations and cutting them down, when you don't need to. At each and every pick in the draft, in hindsight, there is a "right" pick. How is it logical to think that you better your odds of making that pick, by cutting down your options? It's not, in my opinion.

Upside Down concept?
The upside down draft; waiting on a RB, then "shot gunning" them later.
Oof, for a startup I hate that strategy, it's basically punting years 1 and 2 unless you blindly stumble upon RB gold. I'm all for going lean at RB in a startup (2, maybe 3 deep in the top 10 rounds) then throwing darts later but not relying on finding this year's Morris in order to compete now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hypothetically drafted Aaron Rodgers so you don't have to worry about the QB spot, but now Andrew Luck is far and away the best player on your board during the rookie draft the following year. What advantage did you gain?

Draft Luck and trade Rodgers when Luck is established. Not many people advocate reaching in rookie drafts based on position. Or at least breaking tiers.

-You now have incentive to value Felix Jones over Victor Cruz or Cecil Shorts (not now, obviously).

I have WR heavy teams where I added Shorts or Danario. I have RB heavy teams where I drafted Bryce.

have fun digging for gems.

It is fun! Thank you, I will! :thumbup:
:goodposting:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote fail. Thrifty, you don't really argue my broad point at all. You simply took a few counter arguments out of context. If you think there is value in doing what I suggested was faulty practice, lets discuss it.

He more concisely gave examples pretty exactly saying what my strategy is and how I run my team, which is why I kept saying you're either taking me out of context or I'm writing very poorly. Having Rodgers allows you to be more flexible, if Luck falls to a value you snatch him up and once he develops you shop both and see what's offered. You don't have to take a strong backup though, that's the flexibility. If you draft Rodgers and there is no QB of value then you simply wait until late and pick up a Carson-type, throw darts elsewhere. If I take an Eli instead then I will feel the need to throw more darts at QB. I may be tempted to take a Tannehill sooner than I want to, it's a domino effect on how the team is built.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're either taking my posts out of context or I am writing very poorly.

I don't intend to take them out of context; if I am, it is due to me misunderstanding you. To put some context on the conversation, let's use a startup draft. It is as close to a vacuum as we are going to get, I think. It sounded to me like you suggested targeting a QB and WR with a projected 10 years left, so that you don't have to worry about those positions. I don't see the value in that, personally. Is my understanding of your stance? Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morris is likely to produce a 1,300/8 season. I don't see incentive for Shanny to replace him, especially considering that the Redskins are low on picks as it is.

What was his incentive to replace Mike Anderson (1700/15), Olandis Gary (1300/7), or Reuben Droughns (1600/4)?I honestly don't remember the circumstances, but all of those guys were young and coming off good/great seasons and weren't the starter the next year.
Anderson could never stay healthy; same with Gary. I don't really recall what happened with Droughns; I'll look it up. But in the case of Gary/Anderson, Shanny didn't simply replace them for fun, out of spite, or anything like that. They both had bad stretches of injuries. I am not claiming that Morris is Foster, in terms of talent. But a lot of these arguments were made against Foster during his monster season. Then again the following, while Tate had a few nice games. Again, I know Morris isn't as safe, because he isn't as talented. But there is reason to believe he finishes next year as he will this year.ETA: Wiki says Droughns asked for a trade when he was not assured the starting job. They brought him in originally to play FB.
...and Cleveland complied only to see Droughns go down the same route as so many other Shannahan backs. The system > the player.
Droughns rushed for 1200 in Cle. Portis was great in Washington. System backs my foot. I guess Larry Fitzgerald is a system WR, because he produced better in the Kurt Warner system than he did in the John Skelton system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote fail. Thrifty, you don't really argue my broad point at all. You simply took a few counter arguments out of context. If you think there is value in doing what I suggested was faulty practice, lets discuss it.

He more concisely gave examples pretty exactly saying what my strategy is and how I run my team, which is why I kept saying you're either taking me out of context or I'm writing very poorly. Having Rodgers allows you to be more flexible, if Luck falls to a value you snatch him up and once he develops you shop both and see what's offered. You don't have to take a strong backup though, that's the flexibility. If you draft Rodgers and there is no QB of value then you simply wait until late and pick up a Carson-type, throw darts elsewhere. If I take an Eli instead then I will feel the need to throw more darts at QB. I may be tempted to take a Tannehill sooner than I want to, it's a domino effect on how the team is built.
How does having Rodgers make you more flexible? Regardless of where your dynasty value is placed, you're drafting Andrew Luck. How does drafting him into a situation where his primary value is trade bait a plus? For the record, I am not saying that any specific pick is wrong (I'd happy take Rodgers in the first round of a startup in most formats), just that having Rodgers doesn't make you any more flexible than having Arian Foster. Less, if anything, since you can start more than one RB in most formats; not the same for QB. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thrifty, you don't really argue my broad point at all. You simply took a few counter arguments out of context. If you think there is value in doing what I suggested was faulty practice, lets discuss it.

I don't really have an argument because it's an inexact science. Both methods can work. Both have +/-. From my standpoint a key selling point to Upside Down is reducing risk on your early picks - more stability and a bigger window. However if we look back at 2012 it doesn't really bare that out.Here's the 1st 2 rounds in DLFMOCK from Feb 20121: Rice, Calvin, McCoy, Foster, Rodgers, Newton, MJD, Brees, Nicks, Stafford, Forte, AJG2: Julio, Fitz, Gronk, Andre, Graham, CJ1K, Mathews, Charles, TR, Jennings, ADP, Wallaceworth considerably more now: TR, ADP, AJGworth a little more now: Gronk, Calvinworth the same: Rodgers, Newton, Brees, Charles, Julio, Rice, Grahamworth a little less now: Foster, McCoy, Stafford, Forteworth considerably less now: MJD, Fitz, Andre, Mathews, Wallace, Jennings, CJ, NicksA lot of the players that fell off were RBs who facepalmed and WRs who either got older, hurt or more situation dependent (Fitz, Jennings, Wallace). The marquee RBs who you might avoid with upside down only fell off gradually, with the "it was obvious this was going to happen" MJD being the main exception. Of course "bigger window" is a big part of it, and that gradual decline definitely had a noticeable gradation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having Rodgers allows you to be more flexible, if Luck falls to a value you snatch him up and once he develops you shop both and see what's offered. You don't have to take a strong backup though, that's the flexibility. If you draft Rodgers and there is no QB of value then you simply wait until late and pick up a Carson-type, throw darts elsewhere. If I take an Eli instead then I will feel the need to throw more darts at QB. I may be tempted to take a Tannehill sooner than I want to, it's a domino effect on how the team is built.

That applies equally to every position. The older, less stable, less productive players you pick to start, the more you should invest in replacements or backups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're either taking my posts out of context or I am writing very poorly.

I don't intend to take them out of context; if I am, it is due to me misunderstanding you. To put some context on the conversation, let's use a startup draft. It is as close to a vacuum as we are going to get, I think. It sounded to me like you suggested targeting a QB and WR with a projected 10 years left, so that you don't have to worry about those positions. I don't see the value in that, personally. Is my understanding of your stance?
In the context of a start up that list of WR's earlier still applies, projected ADP will impact what I do because I want to leave the 3rd one with 1-2 of those WR's. I don't know who I will take and when, but I expect to leave round 3 with 1-2 of them unless some ridiculous value falls. QB's different because more than half of the teams will have an elite QB. I won't be the guy drafting Brady or Brees in round 2 (Cam too), but I will strongly consider a QB by round 3 if I don't think an elite one is there in round 4.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thrifty, you don't really argue my broad point at all. You simply took a few counter arguments out of context. If you think there is value in doing what I suggested was faulty practice, lets discuss it.

I don't really have an argument because it's an inexact science. Both methods can work. Both have +/-. From my standpoint a key selling point to Upside Down is reducing risk on your early picks - more stability and a bigger window. However if we look back at 2012 it doesn't really bare that out.Here's the 1st 2 rounds in DLFMOCK from Feb 20121: Rice, Calvin, McCoy, Foster, Rodgers, Newton, MJD, Brees, Nicks, Stafford, Forte, AJG2: Julio, Fitz, Gronk, Andre, Graham, CJ1K, Mathews, Charles, TR, Jennings, ADP, Wallaceworth considerably more now: TR, ADP, AJGworth a little more now: Gronk, Calvinworth the same: Rodgers, Newton, Brees, Charles, Julio, Rice, Grahamworth a little less now: Foster, McCoy, Stafford, Forteworth considerably less now: MJD, Fitz, Andre, Mathews, Wallace, Jennings, CJ, NicksA lot of the players that fell off were RBs who facepalmed and WRs who either got older, hurt or more situation dependent (Fitz, Jennings, Wallace). The marquee RBs who you might avoid with upside down only fell off gradually, with the "it was obvious this was going to happen" MJD being the main exception. Of course "bigger window" is a big part of it, and that gradual decline definitely had a noticeable gradation.
The upside down draft, as I understand it, is the deliberate practice of reducing your options. I don't see that having any value. Now, if I ended up with a team matching that criteria in hindsight, that's fine. You can tell when a dynasty owner goes out of their way to make their roster meet a pre-determined criteria based on position characteristics. They prevent balance, reduce options, and hurt the owners chances at winning. So often I see the upside down draft, in dynasty formats, in the startup thread and think "replace one of the WRs you drafted as a surplus because you are so worried about 5 years from now, and maybe you would compete during those 5 years."And, again, if value dictated me drafting in ANY way, I would do it. I would happily draft a WR in the first 5 rounds straight if that is what value dictated and that is what will best help me win. Now, there aren't many scenarios where that is the case, but I wouldn't rule it out. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morris is likely to produce a 1,300/8 season. I don't see incentive for Shanny to replace him, especially considering that the Redskins are low on picks as it is.

What was his incentive to replace Mike Anderson (1700/15), Olandis Gary (1300/7), or Reuben Droughns (1600/4)?I honestly don't remember the circumstances, but all of those guys were young and coming off good/great seasons and weren't the starter the next year.
Anderson could never stay healthy; same with Gary. I don't really recall what happened with Droughns; I'll look it up. But in the case of Gary/Anderson, Shanny didn't simply replace them for fun, out of spite, or anything like that. They both had bad stretches of injuries. I am not claiming that Morris is Foster, in terms of talent. But a lot of these arguments were made against Foster during his monster season. Then again the following, while Tate had a few nice games. Again, I know Morris isn't as safe, because he isn't as talented. But there is reason to believe he finishes next year as he will this year.ETA: Wiki says Droughns asked for a trade when he was not assured the starting job. They brought him in originally to play FB.
...and Cleveland complied only to see Droughns go down the same route as so many other Shannahan backs. The system > the player.
Droughns rushed for 1200 in Cle. Portis was great in Washington. System backs my foot. I guess Larry Fitzgerald is a system WR, because he produced better in the Kurt Warner system than he did in the John Skelton system.
If you think Droughns was a success in Cleveland then I cannot help you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Droughns rushed for 1200 in Cle. Portis was great in Washington. System backs my foot.

I guess Larry Fitzgerald is a system WR, because he produced better in the Kurt Warner system than he did in the John Skelton system.

A true statement, but perhaps a little misleading in that Droughns was not quite the fantasy stud that the rushing numbers alone imply. I happen to specifically remember this because I acquired him in trade and was disappointed with his output.

Below is something from a faceoff between Sigmund Bloom and Chase Stuart following Droughn's 2005 season:

Bloom: Droughns averaged 100 total yards a game, no small feat, but his fantasy profile was kept low by his microscopic total of two touchdowns.

Stewart:

It's easy to say that Reuben Droughns ranked 14th last year, and 8th in the NFL in yards from scrimmage...But not so fast.

Droughns ranked 21st last year in FP/G among RBs with at least 8 games played, and that doesn't include any RBs from New Orleans, New York (Jets), Miami or Detroit. Droughns ranked 14th last year because he stayed healthy, not because he's a great RB. No RB with more carries or touches than Droughns scored less FPs, but four guys with fewer carries and a fifth with fewer touches scored more FPs. And Willie Parker scored .1 fewer FPs despite 75 fewer touches.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06faceoff-DrouRe00.php Edited by squistion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote fail. Thrifty, you don't really argue my broad point at all. You simply took a few counter arguments out of context. If you think there is value in doing what I suggested was faulty practice, lets discuss it.

He more concisely gave examples pretty exactly saying what my strategy is and how I run my team, which is why I kept saying you're either taking me out of context or I'm writing very poorly. Having Rodgers allows you to be more flexible, if Luck falls to a value you snatch him up and once he develops you shop both and see what's offered. You don't have to take a strong backup though, that's the flexibility. If you draft Rodgers and there is no QB of value then you simply wait until late and pick up a Carson-type, throw darts elsewhere. If I take an Eli instead then I will feel the need to throw more darts at QB. I may be tempted to take a Tannehill sooner than I want to, it's a domino effect on how the team is built.
How does having Rodgers make you more flexible? Regardless of where your dynasty value is placed, you're drafting Andrew Luck. How does drafting him into a situation where his primary value is trade bait a plus? For the record, I am not saying that any specific pick is wrong (I'd happy take Rodgers in the first round of a startup in most formats), just that having Rodgers doesn't make you any more flexible than having Arian Foster. Less, if anything, since you can start more than one RB in most formats; not the same for QB.
If Luck is the last player in a given tier then he is my pick, I will figure out what to do with him (and Rodgers) later. If I end up with 4 or 5 QB's via this method then my valuation of QB's is probably flawed and needs revisited. Always pick BPA, I just think it's easier to manage a roster when you have an elite QB and an elite WR. Maybe it's because of my past WR mining and that's why you're resisting my take. I don't know because I don't know what you've done to be successful and what mistakes you've made. Most of the mistakes I have made have centered around uncertainty at QB and WR. When I've had it I have made mistakes, when I haven't my team is stacked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The upside down draft, as I understand it, is the deliberate practice of reducing your options. I don't see that having any value.

You didn't really reply to what I wrote, but that's fine. If I deliberately avoided RB in the first 2 rounds of 2012 out of strategy, I didn't really improve my chances because 5 non-RB have gone down in value and WRs were as likely to lose value. The key is still to pick the right players - I agree. But if you value a top 15 WR over a top 8 RB you should follow your heart.
. You should not pick a RB because of expected expected career VBD if you question that expected remaining career VBD. If BPA in 2012 startup were MJD, Dez, and Harvin, the right pick was to reach for a WR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Droughns ranked 14th last year because he stayed healthy, not because he's a great RB.

http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/06faceoff-DrouRe00.php

That's awesome digging, and funny to draw some similarities to the most recent converted FB, but that quote has a heavy fantasy lean, and that Browns team was probably a typically futile Browns team (Dilfer QB, 19 total TDs on the year).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having Rodgers allows you to be more flexible, if Luck falls to a value you snatch him up and once he develops you shop both and see what's offered. You don't have to take a strong backup though, that's the flexibility. If you draft Rodgers and there is no QB of value then you simply wait until late and pick up a Carson-type, throw darts elsewhere. If I take an Eli instead then I will feel the need to throw more darts at QB. I may be tempted to take a Tannehill sooner than I want to, it's a domino effect on how the team is built.

That applies equally to every position. The older, less stable, less productive players you pick to start, the more you should invest in replacements or backups.
Yes it does, and I find it difficult to draft potential replacements at RB unless I use a top 15 pick. Too much variance in TE though. Pettigrew and Gresham have done about what I thought they'd do, tease but aren't bad starters, Vernon Davis too but I think his may be more situation driven. Gronk and Graham were 2 of about 10-15 upside TE's I've liked in the last few years, but didn't feel strong enough about to make a priority. Keep taking fliers on the wrong guys and am not sure how to adjust my evaluation method to better identify these types. I underestimated father time vs. Gonz, but thankfully I didn't with Witten and got him for value. Unfortunately father time beat Dallas Clark and Gates though. There also seems to be a lot more TE's crop out of nowhere too - Myers is the newest example, others included Chandler and Celek. The only TE I've ever felt comfortable about panning out and seems to be coming to fruition is Rudolph and I didn't have a shot at him. I think Eifert may be better, so hopefully I can lock him up and he treats me as well as Rudolph owners look like they will.Having typed all of this out throughout today, I think the reason I have the opinion that I do is I feel more comfortable with my talent acquisition methods for top QB's and WR's and mining for cheap WR's. I don't with RB and TE. I have done a good job avoiding RB hazards, but without using a high pick it is difficult to identify and land a quality RB so more darts are needed and the ability to shift focus to them early on is essential. If I see a WR or a QB I like I'm not going to take an inferior RB or TE, but if I don't see that QB or WR I want to be able to lean towards RB then TE and to be able to do that I need to be strong and stable at QB and WR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always pick BPA, I just think it's easier to manage a roster when you have an elite QB and an elite WR. Maybe it's because of my past WR mining and that's why you're resisting my take. I don't know because I don't know what you've done to be successful and what mistakes you've made. Most of the mistakes I have made have centered around uncertainty at QB and WR. When I've had it I have made mistakes, when I haven't my team is stacked.

I'm made plenty of mistakes and I am sure some of those reading this - who I am, or have been in leagues with - can tell you that. But I am in the playoffs year in, year out, largely. I make money from the hobby. I am sure there are many here who are better than me who don't agree with me on this stance. But, largely, it has set me apart, or at least kept me in the hunt in all of my leagues. If you can understand how VBD applies to the dynasty format, you can do well. Anything above and beyond that is icing on the cake. Many owners don't understand how, in many formats, 2 years of Adrian Peterson production can be worth 4+ years of Calvin Johnson production. They judge trades based on how many "big pieces" each side got. They couldn't tell you the baseline age for RBs or WRs, just that WRs last longer. So they value a 23 YO WR more than an equally productive 23 YO RB, despite the fact that the RB is further below the baseline age for RBs, thus more valuable, based on age alone. Look at how similar the ADP is between league formats, even when scoring or lineup dictates it should be very different. Look how many owners are overvaluing young WRs and undervaluing older RBs, when trends suggest a migration the other way; the league is becoming more and more a pass happy league. This hurts the WR value; it is creating more value WR options, thus, less value over replacement for almost all in the field. And now I sound like a preachy ###. But, it was kind of fun typing out, so...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If BPA in 2012 startup were MJD, Dez, and Harvin, the right pick was to reach for a WR.

In hindsite, sure. Replace MJD with Adrian Peterson, and in many formats, the right pick was to take the RB. But I don't want it to sound like I am arguing for RBs, or against WR. I am arguing against the limitation of your options. I don't think you are advocating it, so I don't think there is much for us to debate. To be cliche, each position has a spot in your dynasty portfolio. RBs are riskier, but have higher production over replacement. WRs are safer, but easier to find, thus, have less peak and medium value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like we have similar end game strategies, just completely different ways of going about it. I agree that veterans are usually significantly under valued in dynasty formats, especially relative to younger QB's and WR's since there are so many of them. It's why I burn and churn them, I just make sure to retain the best at those positions whereas my understanding is you won't hesitate to move them if VBD dictates.

I have never practiced VBD and never will, so I'm guessing that's another reason we tend to disagree week in and week out. Make informed opinions on players, not just skill positions either, and coaches too and constantly re-evaluate them based on new info - good decisions are usually made if you have a good idea about all of the chess pieces at play. In such a subjective sport like football in which most of the data is flawed and unreliable I think that method is much more successful than a statistical tool like VBD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like we have similar end game strategies, just completely different ways of going about it. I agree that veterans are usually significantly under valued in dynasty formats, especially relative to younger QB's and WR's since there are so many of them. It's why I burn and churn them, I just make sure to retain the best at those positions whereas my understanding is you won't hesitate to move them if VBD dictates.I have never practiced VBD and never will, so I'm guessing that's another reason we tend to disagree week in and week out. Make informed opinions on players, not just skill positions either, and coaches too and constantly re-evaluate them based on new info - good decisions are usually made if you have a good idea about all of the chess pieces at play. In such a subjective sport like football in which most of the data is flawed and unreliable I think that method is much more successful than a statistical tool like VBD.

If you understand (or even attempt to) how 200 points for a WR relates to 200 points for a RB in X league - you use VBD. It can be as simple or in depth as we want to make it. But I suggest you - who I have no doubt is a good owner - absolutely use it on a bigger level than you think.ETA: Most use it on a yearly, basic level. But when you can start to understand how valuable 2 years worth of RB production is compared to 2 years of TE production, that is when you have an advantage in dynasty formats. Honestly, I would say I am only average at talent evaluation in my leagues, dispite a very favorable collection of W/L records. I get lost watching the games as a fan, rather than an owner, and I am too content with that to be great, like some guys in my league. But if I can trade those guys 124% VBD for 275% VBD based on the packaging, I more than make up for that. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many owners don't understand how, in many formats, 2 years of Adrian Peterson production can be worth 4+ years of Calvin Johnson production.

I won't sit here and let you talk about Calvin like that. In the middle of his pursuit for 2000, no less. Calvin is on pace for 96 VBD this year. He had 149 last year. In STANDARD SCORING no less. That 2 year stretch is as good as any 2 year stretch ADP has had. Look it up. I'll wait. See. As good as any 2 year stretch ADP has had. You can apologize now. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If BPA in 2012 startup were MJD, Dez, and Harvin, the right pick was to reach for a WR.

In hindsite, sure. Replace MJD with Adrian Peterson, and in many formats, the right pick was to take the RB. But I don't want it to sound like I am arguing for RBs, or against WR. I am arguing against the limitation of your options. I don't think you are advocating it, so I don't think there is much for us to debate. To be cliche, each position has a spot in your dynasty portfolio. RBs are riskier, but have higher production over replacement. WRs are safer, but easier to find, thus, have less peak and medium value.
Using thrifty's example my pick was Harvin by a landslide, no hindsight. Imho the only risk with Harvin has ever been the migraines. The risks with the others were too strong to justify passing on Harvin.AD's a different animal though, he's consistently recovered from injuries quicker than he should so I'm not surprised he did with the ACL too. I am surprised he has been THIS great, but I wasn't worried about him not being a top 5-10 back for the next 3+ years. Just may have come with a slow September this year. I'd have taken him before Harvin.Great examples here to show why I don't use VBD in football. There's nothing in VBD to accurately quantify the risks and rewards associated with these 4.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If BPA in 2012 startup were MJD, Dez, and Harvin, the right pick was to reach for a WR.

In hindsite, sure. Replace MJD with Adrian Peterson, and in many formats, the right pick was to take the RB.
That's fine. Peterson and (potentially?) Richardson are special cases that MJD, (potentially?) McCoy, and Foster are not. Any generational talent should be upgraded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like we have similar end game strategies, just completely different ways of going about it. I agree that veterans are usually significantly under valued in dynasty formats, especially relative to younger QB's and WR's since there are so many of them. It's why I burn and churn them, I just make sure to retain the best at those positions whereas my understanding is you won't hesitate to move them if VBD dictates.I have never practiced VBD and never will, so I'm guessing that's another reason we tend to disagree week in and week out. Make informed opinions on players, not just skill positions either, and coaches too and constantly re-evaluate them based on new info - good decisions are usually made if you have a good idea about all of the chess pieces at play. In such a subjective sport like football in which most of the data is flawed and unreliable I think that method is much more successful than a statistical tool like VBD.

If you understand (or even attempt to) how 200 points for a WR relates to 200 points for a RB in X league - you use VBD. It can be as simple or in depth as we want to make it. But I suggest you - who I have no doubt is a good owner - absolutely use it on a bigger level than you think.
It can help make sense of what happened in the past, but it is a poor way of predicting what will happen in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can help make sense of what happened in the past, but it is a poor way of predicting what will happen in the future.

I think you misunderstood; I am not predicting anything in this example. It's all hindsight, simple math. If you can understand how valuable each point is based on league specs, you have an advantage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine. Peterson and (potentially?) Richardson are special cases that MJD, (potentially?) McCoy, and Foster are not. Any generational talent should be upgraded.

Even outside of that context. $1 isn't worth more than a 50% chance at $2. Even if the 50/50 bet fails, that doesn't mean the original valuation was off. That is a silly, simple example, but valid to the point I was trying to make. The dynasty community seems to be so fearful and so prone to "safety" that they are making poor bets in the interest stability, in the form of safe non-RBs. They are willing to take the $1 over 60-70% bets for $2, even. Again, silly and simple, but my point. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many owners don't understand how, in many formats, 2 years of Adrian Peterson production can be worth 4+ years of Calvin Johnson production.

I won't sit here and let you talk about Calvin like that. In the middle of his pursuit for 2000, no less. Calvin is on pace for 96 VBD this year. He had 149 last year. In STANDARD SCORING no less. That 2 year stretch is as good as any 2 year stretch ADP has had. Look it up. I'll wait. See. As good as any 2 year stretch ADP has had. You can apologize now. Thanks.
I play in a MOX league: 14 team, standard, QRRWWFF (TE=FL) Plug that into the FBG app and see what you get. And you are not applying VBD to a dynasty format. Every year of production from a RB is worth more than that of a WR, based on VORP. So 100 blanket WR VBD <> 100 blanket RB VBD.
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...