What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

Dynasty Rankings (6 Viewers)

Sometimes better? Sure. Frequently? Good luck arguing that. If you take a sample of casual players you'll probably get a positive response to your hypothesis, but most people in dynasty leagues (and especially those active in this thread year round) are not casual players. According to the formulas I'm sure I was supposed to bid heavily on Robert Meachem this past offseason. Former 1st rounder, progressively improved in New Orleans, signed big contract in San Diego to be their #1 with another proven QB slinging the rock to him. My eyes said stay the hell away from Meachem, it's a trap.

Stats lie to me a lot more frequently than my eyes do...ok, to be fair it's at least very close, I'm sure I have some perception bias...so, I would rather be wrong with what I see than what a piece of paper tells me. I'm rarely comfortable making decisions based on data, much more likely to tinker with my lineup and roster too much if the data tells me one thing but my head says another and I listen to the data (I call this Beanie Wells syndrome when I see it being done by my friends). I'm much more comfortable with my decisions when I'm making them based off what I'm seeing - less likely to tinker and miss opportunities in other weeks because player A had a couple of bad statistical games.

In general, for people that follow this game like most of us do - your gut >>>>> some flawed formula.

 
'FreeBaGeL said:
'Kree said:
Rice carried the ball 16 times per game, good for =19th in the league.Methinks the next offensive coordinator won't attempt to put the ball into Flacc's hands nearly as often. Cameron was a poor playcaller who didn't take advantage of the clear assets Rice offered over Flacco.
Click to expand...
You think that Rice's limit in usage came from Cam and not the organization? All we heard all offseason was about how the organization wanted to give the ball to Flacco more. You think an OC who has historically used his RBs like crazy suddenly just decided not to do it this year?For fantasy running backs, Cam is just about the best thing that can happen to them. He's had a 2000 yard RB in 6 of his 10 seasons (7 if you consider that Ronnie Brown was well on his way when he got hurt in his only year with Cam) and a top 5 fantasy RB in every season but two. Every running back he's called plays for has almost instantly become a top 3 dynasty asset. His system completely revolves around the running back. One year away from that with pressure from up above and suddenly everyone forgets that.
Click to expand...
Do't get me wrong, Cam is normally conducive to RB success. I was simply suggesting that a drop to 8th-12th is unlikely IMO based on the fact that Rice maintained his usual high output (4th iny main dynasty PPR) DESPITE the unusually low amount of carries. Despite facing stronger teams, the Ravens would have been better off using Rice more still. I can't see the FO continuing to play the 'Let Flacco Win' game if it didn't actually help this year, and it certainly didn't, with most pundits having no faith in them whatsoever.
 
'MAC_32 said:
Sometimes better? Sure. Frequently? Good luck arguing that. If you take a sample of casual players you'll probably get a positive response to your hypothesis, but most people in dynasty leagues (and especially those active in this thread year round) are not casual players. According to the formulas I'm sure I was supposed to bid heavily on Robert Meachem this past offseason. Former 1st rounder, progressively improved in New Orleans, signed big contract in San Diego to be their #1 with another proven QB slinging the rock to him. My eyes said stay the hell away from Meachem, it's a trap.Stats lie to me a lot more frequently than my eyes do...ok, to be fair it's at least very close, I'm sure I have some perception bias...so, I would rather be wrong with what I see than what a piece of paper tells me. I'm rarely comfortable making decisions based on data, much more likely to tinker with my lineup and roster too much if the data tells me one thing but my head says another and I listen to the data (I call this Beanie Wells syndrome when I see it being done by my friends). I'm much more comfortable with my decisions when I'm making them based off what I'm seeing - less likely to tinker and miss opportunities in other weeks because player A had a couple of bad statistical games. In general, for people that follow this game like most of us do - your gut >>>>> some flawed formula.
Click to expand...
First off, we need to be clear what we're talking about here. There's no magical fantasy football supercomputer named HAL out there where you plug in numbers from PFR and it tells you how best to run your team while singing Daisy Bell. "The formulae" or "the stats" are not literal formulas with arbitrary inputs and outputs. They're attempts to model behavior in a chaotic system by identifying key variables and calculating their impact. You can use stats to identify aging trends among top players (they suggest that age is far more important than mileage). You can use stats to identify who is likely to still break out (underperforming WRs), and whose play is just a harbinger of things to come (underperforming QBs). Often, the stats can't be used as a substitute for subjective judgments, because the variables are themselves subjective. Sometime the formulae return a result that you know isn't relevant due to extenuating circumstances that a simple algorithm couldn't possibly comprehend. At the end of the day, though, a lot of these patterns and trends are far more reliable than our own subjective judgments. Our judgments are faulty and flawed, the outcomes of overly simplistic heuristics prone to seeing patterns among the noise and noise among the patterns. Our judgments are intuitive, emotional, subject to countless unconscious biases, and unlikely to be checked by our own conscious reasoning processes, which are largely lazy. Formulas and statistics have a lot of weaknesses, but at least they aren't subject to bias. As an example of a fun cognitive bias, there's one called the "mere exposure effect" that says that mere exposure to a name is enough for you to view it more favorably. Seriously, if I just started ending every one of my posts with the name "Virgil Green", by the time next year rolled around, everyone in here would be drafting him higher than they otherwise would have. People who read my posts would compose more favorable scouting reports about him, praising his physical skills more, glossing over his weaknesses. Even if I never said anything positive about him- even if I just posted his name without any context or analysis- just contemplating his name compared to other, less familiar names would produce a sense of calm, a more pleasant thought process known as "cognitive ease". If I can make you rate a player higher just by randomly posting his name, then you have to wonder what other players you might be overrating based on factors that have no relevance to them as players. Introducing a little bit of objectivity from time to time is a good way to rebalance the evaluation process and clear a lot of the extraneous junk from the mechanisms.
 
Have to shield out the white noise and make your own opinion. Heard of that effect, it's real, can't let it cloud your decision making though. It's why I just let others pick Brian Quick last year. Unknown WR, small school, good measurables, first pick of day 2 - everyone jumped. I never read a single glowing report about any of his specific workouts and the clips I was able to dig up were...a'ight. Pass. His stock got inflated because there wasn't a 4th WR in last year's class and it's a premium position in today's game, they were all flawed but since Quick was the unknown he artificially shot up. No on the field reasons for the jump though.

 
'MAC_32 said:
Have to shield out the white noise and make your own opinion. Heard of that effect, it's real, can't let it cloud your decision making though. It's why I just let others pick Brian Quick last year. Unknown WR, small school, good measurables, first pick of day 2 - everyone jumped. I never read a single glowing report about any of his specific workouts and the clips I was able to dig up were...a'ight. Pass. His stock got inflated because there wasn't a 4th WR in last year's class and it's a premium position in today's game, they were all flawed but since Quick was the unknown he artificially shot up. No on the field reasons for the jump though.
Click to expand...
You can't just "not let it cloud your decision making", though. It's an unconscious bias. It lies beyond the farthest reaches of our awareness. We cannot attribute anything to mere exposure effect, because our conscious reasoning processes are designed to take credit for ideas that weren't theirs in the first place. We can't blame any single decision on any single bias, because we have other biases designed solely to obscure the extent of our own bias (that's the "bias blind spot"). I mean, look at the field of science. Current scientific practices are designed with an acute awareness of bias, taking painstaking efforts to rise above it. The Popperian scientific method, the process of peer review- these are massive inconveniences, stumbling blocks intentionally placed in the way of eager scientists lest their zeal for discovery outpace their prudence and attention to detail. And yet, despite all of these painstaking efforts to avoid bias, a large number of studies illustrate just how pervasive bias remains in the scientific literature. Journals are biased towards novelty. Scientists are biased against attempting to replicate previous experiments. A 95% confidence threshold (the industry standard for statistical significance) indicates that 1/20 "statistically significant" findings are likely false positives that occurred strictly through chance.

If a field such as science- a field so obviously aware of the existence of bias and so steadfastly dedicated to countering its effects- still can't rise above our own human biases, then what hope do we, the humble fantasy football players, truly have? That's why numbers are so important. My mind can spin any story it wants, tell me whatever it wants about whomever it wants, and I have no choice but to accept it. The numbers can be misleading, they can be irrelevant, they can be incorrect... But they can never be biased. Interpretations of them can be subjective, but the numbers themselves are always objective. Often the only bit of objective reality we have to hold on to.

 
^^^That's going to work in both positive and negative ways though, just have to make sure negative doesn't outweigh the positive. Yeah, you will miss on some guys you had a negative opinion on and found reasons to continue that opinion and while some may burn you, not all of them well. Vice versa.

 
So what's the consensus - if there is one - on Desean Jackson going forward? Is he just done? I've always been a fan and felt like he's gotten a bum rap at times.

But Vick is likely gone and Foles is terrible, IMO. Regime change coming, so the team passing 70% of the time is probably done. Injuries. The one league I have him in is just a 10-man league with pretty small rosters, and I'm starting to wonder if he's cuttable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'BeTheMatch said:
Foles is terrible,
Click to expand...
Not every rookie QB is going to dominate out of the box. Foles actually looked outstanding in the preseason and settled down nicely after a terrible first NFL start. I think he'll be at least an average NFL starter - but with a little seasoning I think he could be more.
 
'Dr. Octopus said:
'BeTheMatch said:
Foles is terrible,
Click to expand...
Not every rookie QB is going to dominate out of the box. Foles actually looked outstanding in the preseason and settled down nicely after a terrible first NFL start. I think he'll be at least an average NFL starter - but with a little seasoning I think he could be more.
Click to expand...
I realize that, but he doesn't pass the eyeball test in any way. He seems confused, fat, slow and apathetic.
 
'wdcrob said:
I'd take Spiller over McCoy because he's a better back.I forget if it was Chase or Drinen who looked at this, but the best (though still low confidence) result they came up with is that 800 carries was worth about one year of age in terms of what drives the end of a career.
Click to expand...
Spiller still has protection issues, still bounces his carries outside too much, etcetera. Don't get me wrong, Gailey was an idiot for not using Spiller more than he did. But there were valid reasons for TRUSTING Jackson more than Spiller in many situations. I am not ready to call Spiller the better back yet. There are things he does better than McCoy, but McCoy's 2011 season showed that he is very special in his own right. I place far more value in age than mileage. With the exception of "overworked" seasons, like Foster just had, a season is a season in my eyes. Nothing that I have read has convinced me to look at it otherwise.
 
'BeTheMatch said:
'Dr. Octopus said:
'BeTheMatch said:
Foles is terrible,
Click to expand...
Not every rookie QB is going to dominate out of the box. Foles actually looked outstanding in the preseason and settled down nicely after a terrible first NFL start. I think he'll be at least an average NFL starter - but with a little seasoning I think he could be more.
Click to expand...
I realize that, but he doesn't pass the eyeball test in any way. He seems confused, fat, slow and apathetic.
Click to expand...
He looks a little slow when making his handoffs, and he has very little mobility - but personally I'd disagree with the rest of your assesments. At 6'6" and 240 pounds, I'm not sure where "fat" is coming from. I'm not sure he is the answer for the Eagles, but if I were an Eagles fan I'd want to look at him next season after what I've seen so far.To address your original point, I've been a Desean Jackson fan as well - and I couldn't see just dropping him outright without seeing what a new staff and/or new QB brings to the table.
 
'BeTheMatch said:
'Dr. Octopus said:
'BeTheMatch said:
Foles is terrible,
Click to expand...
Not every rookie QB is going to dominate out of the box. Foles actually looked outstanding in the preseason and settled down nicely after a terrible first NFL start. I think he'll be at least an average NFL starter - but with a little seasoning I think he could be more.
Click to expand...
I realize that, but he doesn't pass the eyeball test in any way. He seems confused, fat, slow and apathetic.
Click to expand...
I really don't have a strong opinion on Foles, but it seems very premature to pass judgement.Confused? Yep. He was a rookie thrown in before he was ready in a pretty complex passing offense.Fat and slow? Not super relevant in a QB. His arm and head will be the determining factors.Apathetic? Not sure how he stood out when the entire team pretty much mailed it in.Granted I wasn't watching particularly closely, but Foles looked pretty much exactly how anyone should have reasonably expected all things considered. All that I'm willing to say at this point is "he wasn't ready to turn that mess around as a rookie."
 
Getting ready for my off-season work and putting some rankings and VBD information together. The QB position is really sticking out to me and I'd like to get others thoughts?

The average VBD of the top 5 QBs:

2011: 173 (high of 203)

2012: 84 (high of 120)

That measures a strong shift in value away from the QB. Passing numbers returned to the mean and the number of quality starters increased. Manning, Brady, and Brees are a all a year older, but the 2012 class provided RG3, Luck, Wilson, and a couple more guys with potential. Kaepernick came onto the scene in a major way. Matt Ryan made a case for a top 5 dynasty ranking. Andy Dalton showed some promise, especially early on, as AJ Green established himself. Newton bounced back after a slow start to finish in the top 5 again, giving him the highest VBD total ever for a QB in his first 2 seasons.

All of that is to say this: The QB position is slipping back to what it was before 2011's burst. Last off season saw Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton going top 3 often, in startups - those dynasty teams are likely suffering some for that. Surely those that drafted Stafford in the first 2 rounds are.

This off season SHOULD reflect this trend; owners should be willing to wait and get value on their top 2 QBs. Kaepernick/Romo combinations could provide more value than Newton/RG3/Luck/Rodgers, and likely have a punchers chance to equal production. Peyton/Dalton is a nice mix of production/upside. Those feeling like a gamble could double/triple up on the young options and there is a fair chance than one hits - Tannehill/Wilson, for example.

If the hobby isn't catching up - those willing to wait will be rewarded in their startups. RG3/Newton/Rodgers/Luck are all special players. But they are QBs in a potenial "golden era" for the position. Their value simply isn't what it would have been a year ago, and I hope to adjust and take advantage of that.

 
i look forward to reading any info that you have to share, CC!

i have a feeling the first 3 weeks of 2012 with the replacement refs stifled the QBs a bit... just an observation, but it seemed the DBs were getting away with more. We may never see another 2011, but there is no denying an fundamental offensive shift in philosophy towards passing (and maybe you will have the data to back up a rising tide lifts all boats)

 
'Dr. Octopus said:
'BeTheMatch said:
'Dr. Octopus said:
'BeTheMatch said:
Foles is terrible,
Click to expand...
Not every rookie QB is going to dominate out of the box. Foles actually looked outstanding in the preseason and settled down nicely after a terrible first NFL start. I think he'll be at least an average NFL starter - but with a little seasoning I think he could be more.
Click to expand...
I realize that, but he doesn't pass the eyeball test in any way. He seems confused, fat, slow and apathetic.
Click to expand...
He looks a little slow when making his handoffs, and he has very little mobility - but personally I'd disagree with the rest of your assesments. At 6'6" and 240 pounds, I'm not sure where "fat" is coming from. I'm not sure he is the answer for the Eagles, but if I were an Eagles fan I'd want to look at him next season after what I've seen so far.To address your original point, I've been a Desean Jackson fan as well - and I couldn't see just dropping him outright without seeing what a new staff and/or new QB brings to the table.
Click to expand...
I just think that passing opportunities will go down no matter who replaces Reid. If McCoy goes there, I would feel a lot better as an owner of any Eagles offensive player. But still. Jackson is pretty inconsistent due to the nature of his game. If he's not an every-week starter in this small league, is he worth rostering as an occasional fill-in, or would you rather roll the dice on a flier like a Rod Streater or someone just to see if you can hit a home run and find an every-week starter? I can pick up bye-week fill-in WRs off the waiver wire all the time in that league, so I'm just wondering if Jackson is worth filling a crucial spot of my roster.And that I'm considering it at all seemed to indicate to me that his value has obviously dropped a lot lately. So much so that I'm wondering if he'll be one of those dead spots on my roster for a few more years just because he used to be an every-week starter.And obviously I would try to trade him instead of just cutting him if I did decide I didn't want him anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Kree said:
'FreeBaGeL said:
'Kree said:
Rice carried the ball 16 times per game, good for =19th in the league.Methinks the next offensive coordinator won't attempt to put the ball into Flacc's hands nearly as often. Cameron was a poor playcaller who didn't take advantage of the clear assets Rice offered over Flacco.
Click to expand...
You think that Rice's limit in usage came from Cam and not the organization? All we heard all offseason was about how the organization wanted to give the ball to Flacco more. You think an OC who has historically used his RBs like crazy suddenly just decided not to do it this year?For fantasy running backs, Cam is just about the best thing that can happen to them. He's had a 2000 yard RB in 6 of his 10 seasons (7 if you consider that Ronnie Brown was well on his way when he got hurt in his only year with Cam) and a top 5 fantasy RB in every season but two. Every running back he's called plays for has almost instantly become a top 3 dynasty asset. His system completely revolves around the running back. One year away from that with pressure from up above and suddenly everyone forgets that.
Click to expand...
Do't get me wrong, Cam is normally conducive to RB success. I was simply suggesting that a drop to 8th-12th is unlikely IMO based on the fact that Rice maintained his usual high output (4th iny main dynasty PPR) DESPITE the unusually low amount of carries. Despite facing stronger teams, the Ravens would have been better off using Rice more still. I can't see the FO continuing to play the 'Let Flacco Win' game if it didn't actually help this year, and it certainly didn't, with most pundits having no faith in them whatsoever.
Click to expand...
The biggest difference will likely come in Rice's passing game use; Cam is one of the few OC's whose primary RB is always in the 60 - 70 (or more) reception range. Those touches are twice as valuable as carries even in non-PPR. If Rice falls into the "normal good receiving RB" range of 40 - 50, and / or the new guy wants to share the workload more, then Rice takes a hit. Rice is a Pro Bowl talent, no doubt, but not every offense calls for one guy to threaten 350+ touches every year.
 
'DexterDew said:
i look forward to reading any info that you have to share, CC!i have a feeling the first 3 weeks of 2012 with the replacement refs stifled the QBs a bit... just an observation, but it seemed the DBs were getting away with more. We may never see another 2011, but there is no denying an fundamental offensive shift in philosophy towards passing (and maybe you will have the data to back up a rising tide lifts all boats)
Click to expand...
I think you are right. I haven't looked at the numbers, but it seems a lot of QBs started off slowly. Rodgers, Stafford, Newton, Peyton all did much better after the initial few weeks. I think the VBD could be adjusted for that, and I'd look in to that. But, in general, there is also the increase of young starting QBs. In the last 2 drafts, 3 top 5 dynasty QBs have been added to the field. On top of that, there are at least 5 who offer potential to be top 10 one day as well. I think it will be very important for owners not to think "Luck vs. Charles", but instead, "WHERE will I get the best value at QB/RB". I am as big a fan of RG3/Newton as you will find, and was on record last year calling Newton my dynasty #1 (overall) last season in most formats. But I didn't expect Luck/RG3 to join him so fast, didn't expect Wilson, Kaepernick, Ryan, Dalton, etc, all to exceed my expectations in the way they did. The field is stacked, much the way the WR crops looked to be last year (and still might be). Just based on my initial thoughts, Gronk/Graham and the top 5-8 RBs should all go very early in start-ups. That is where the VORP is. Of course Calvin and Green should be exceptions. This off seasons looks to offer you the ability to wait until round 3 for a WR1 (Cruz/Neson) and even later for a QB1 (Brady/Manning/Wilson/Kaepernick/Romo etc). I'm excited to see all the drafts come in.
 
'Coeur de Lion said:
'Kree said:
'FreeBaGeL said:
'Kree said:
Rice carried the ball 16 times per game, good for =19th in the league.Methinks the next offensive coordinator won't attempt to put the ball into Flacc's hands nearly as often. Cameron was a poor playcaller who didn't take advantage of the clear assets Rice offered over Flacco.
Click to expand...
You think that Rice's limit in usage came from Cam and not the organization? All we heard all offseason was about how the organization wanted to give the ball to Flacco more. You think an OC who has historically used his RBs like crazy suddenly just decided not to do it this year?For fantasy running backs, Cam is just about the best thing that can happen to them. He's had a 2000 yard RB in 6 of his 10 seasons (7 if you consider that Ronnie Brown was well on his way when he got hurt in his only year with Cam) and a top 5 fantasy RB in every season but two. Every running back he's called plays for has almost instantly become a top 3 dynasty asset. His system completely revolves around the running back. One year away from that with pressure from up above and suddenly everyone forgets that.
Click to expand...
Do't get me wrong, Cam is normally conducive to RB success. I was simply suggesting that a drop to 8th-12th is unlikely IMO based on the fact that Rice maintained his usual high output (4th iny main dynasty PPR) DESPITE the unusually low amount of carries. Despite facing stronger teams, the Ravens would have been better off using Rice more still. I can't see the FO continuing to play the 'Let Flacco Win' game if it didn't actually help this year, and it certainly didn't, with most pundits having no faith in them whatsoever.
Click to expand...
The biggest difference will likely come in Rice's passing game use; Cam is one of the few OC's whose primary RB is always in the 60 - 70 (or more) reception range. Those touches are twice as valuable as carries even in non-PPR. If Rice falls into the "normal good receiving RB" range of 40 - 50, and / or the new guy wants to share the workload more, then Rice takes a hit. Rice is a Pro Bowl talent, no doubt, but not every offense calls for one guy to threaten 350+ touches every year.
Click to expand...
To further expand on that point:Receptions per season.LT under Cam: 80LT otherwise: 43Ronnie Brown under Cam: 90 (pace, injured after 7 games)Ronnie Brown otherwise: 29
 
'Concept Coop said:
Getting ready for my off-season work and putting some rankings and VBD information together. The QB position is really sticking out to me and I'd like to get others thoughts?The average VBD of the top 5 QBs:2011: 173 (high of 203)2012: 84 (high of 120)That measures a strong shift in value away from the QB. Passing numbers returned to the mean and the number of quality starters increased. Manning, Brady, and Brees are a all a year older, but the 2012 class provided RG3, Luck, Wilson, and a couple more guys with potential. Kaepernick came onto the scene in a major way. Matt Ryan made a case for a top 5 dynasty ranking. Andy Dalton showed some promise, especially early on, as AJ Green established himself. Newton bounced back after a slow start to finish in the top 5 again, giving him the highest VBD total ever for a QB in his first 2 seasons.All of that is to say this: The QB position is slipping back to what it was before 2011's burst. Last off season saw Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton going top 3 often, in startups - those dynasty teams are likely suffering some for that. Surely those that drafted Stafford in the first 2 rounds are. This off season SHOULD reflect this trend; owners should be willing to wait and get value on their top 2 QBs. Kaepernick/Romo combinations could provide more value than Newton/RG3/Luck/Rodgers, and likely have a punchers chance to equal production. Peyton/Dalton is a nice mix of production/upside. Those feeling like a gamble could double/triple up on the young options and there is a fair chance than one hits - Tannehill/Wilson, for example. If the hobby isn't catching up - those willing to wait will be rewarded in their startups. RG3/Newton/Rodgers/Luck are all special players. But they are QBs in a potenial "golden era" for the position. Their value simply isn't what it would have been a year ago, and I hope to adjust and take advantage of that.
Click to expand...
I think you're underrating the value of 84 VBD. 84 VBD would rank 17th overall. 84 VBD is what AJ Green got in a very good year. 84 VBD is about what Calvin has averaged over the last 5 years. If all those top QBs get you is 84 VBD a season over the next 5 years, they will have more than justified the pick, regardless of where you took them- even #1 overall. I think a first for Aaron or Cam still represents good value in a startup.
 
'Concept Coop said:
Last off season saw Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton going top 3 often, in startups - those dynasty teams are likely suffering some for that. Surely those that drafted Stafford in the first 2 rounds are.
Click to expand...
That's pure conjecture. I was only in one startup last year, but the team that drafted Stafford got a bye. The team that drafted Cam won the league (ok it was me). The team that drafted Rodgers didn't fail because of Rodgers but because he had no taste in RB/WR/TE (Chris Johnson, Lloyd, Gates). Only one playoff team punted on QB and they're suffering just as much as anyone trying to fill that void (Schaub/Vick). Someone at DLF did a survey of playoff teams in dynasties and found you were better off having a stud QB. I don't want to speak to the statistical rigors of that study, of course, but take it as anecdotal. There are many reason to take a QB early. The fact that VBD went down is minor. Sure you can find QB late every year. You can find TE late every year. You can find RB late every year. Let me know if you've decided taking a low risk player with 10 years left of elite production is bad strategy.
 
'SSOG said:
I think you're underrating the value of 84 VBD. 84 VBD would rank 17th overall. 84 VBD is what AJ Green got in a very good year. 84 VBD is about what Calvin has averaged over the last 5 years. If all those top QBs get you is 84 VBD a season over the next 5 years, they will have more than justified the pick, regardless of where you took them- even #1 overall. I think a first for Aaron or Cam still represents good value in a startup.
Click to expand...
It depends of format. In a 12 team PPR format with a flex or two (most common league, I would guess), that number isn't nearly as high. In a non-PPR 12-14 team league with no flex spots - sure, it's pretty damn good. But looking at raw on-paper VBD numbers won't tell us the whole story. I use it to show how far "back to earth" they came down. But it was my rankings that really drove the point home for me.Tony Romo is now a replacement level dynasty QB at best. Eli and Big Ben are likely below that mark. That shows what has happened to the QB position; it's flooded with talent. 4 of the best rookie seasons in history have taken place in the last 2 seasons. Every year is providing us with QBs who offer potential to add points on the ground. Every year more offenses shift away from a traditional running game. That 84 VBD number isn't going to hold, assuming these trends do. Count the number of top 15 QBs under the age of 27; now how rare are they, in that context? In startup drafts, RG3/Luck/Newton/Rodgers are all going to go in the first round. If your league starts 12 QBs a week - that 25%. 1/4 of your league will have used their first round startup pick on a QB. That might not be so telling if the 2nd tier wasn't so great too; Brees/Brady/Ryan/Stafford. And the 3rd tier wasnt' so promising; Peyton, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'thriftyrocker said:
That's pure conjecture. production is bad strategy. I was only in one startup last year...
Click to expand...
Not at all. It will be very easy to objectively draw that conclusion after these startups come in. Sure, Stafford owner had a bye. But what if he used that pick Doug Martin and drafted Luck, RG3, Romo, Dalton, Wilson...much later? Just because he made the playoffs doesn't mean the Stafford pick didn't hurt him; it VERY clearly did.
'thriftyrocker said:
I don't want to speak to the statistical rigors of that study, of course, but take it as anecdotal. There are many reason to take a QB early. The fact that VBD went down is minor. Sure you can find QB late every year. You can find TE late every year. You can find RB late every year. Let me know if you've decided taking a low risk player with 10 years left of elite production is bad strategy.
Click to expand...
As I said above (after you posted this, so you didn't see it), VBD for 2012 is not even the biggest reason I think the way I do about this. It's not that drafting a QB is bad, it's that drafting them where you would have in 2011 is faulty, in my opinion.ETA: I drafted Cam in a startup last year, and treated him as the most valuable player in the hobby. But now that we add 2 more QBs to the tier, his value has to drop some. Cam can't be treated as the #1 overall player if he is on the same tier as players drafted at the end of round 1. I can't draft Cam #1 knowing that one of Rodgers/Luck/RG3 will likely last until #11 or 12; I give up too much value. I won't say drafting Cam was wrong. Again, I love him and I don't think you or I will regret it longterm; a player doesn't have to be THE highest producing player over his career at a given draft spot to be worth that draft spot. But, this year, I doubt I'll end up with him in any startups. And you know how big of a fan of his I am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Concept Coop said:
In somewhat related news: What happens to RG3's value if the ACL/PCL tear rumors are true?
Click to expand...
I'm in a bit of a pickle. Went hard to the hole for RG3 in a number of leagues last year and actually own him, Wilson and Rodgers together in one. Was looking at moving Rodgers in that league but will be holding off for now.That out of the way, while the short term hit would obviously suck and a lot of RG3s value this year has come from rushing, I don't think long term he would rely on running to be a productive NFL and fantasy QB. One of the things that was frequently pointed out was that he's not a run first QB and is a strong pure passer. I don't see any reason why he can't have a great career even if he only has the mobility of a guy like Brady.
 
'Concept Coop said:
In somewhat related news: What happens to RG3's value if the ACL/PCL tear rumors are true?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all in my opinion. The increased risk for an injury such as this due to his style of play should already have been accounted for in his current value. It should have been understood that all quarterbacks have the chance to suffer a major knee injury (see Tom Brady 2008), but RG3 had an increased chance due to the frequency with which he carries the ball as a runner. However, with what we have seen from recoveries of ACL injuries in recent years, particularly this year, it doesn't cause me any more pause than to wonder how much of a short term hit it will have (he will likely miss some of this upcoming season). His long term prognosis is the exact same as it was 2 days ago before this injury, at least for me.
 
'Donsmith753 said:
'Concept Coop said:
In somewhat related news: What happens to RG3's value if the ACL/PCL tear rumors are true?
Click to expand...
I'm in a bit of a pickle. Went hard to the hole for RG3 in a number of leagues last year and actually own him, Wilson and Rodgers together in one. Was looking at moving Rodgers in that league but will be holding off for now.That out of the way, while the short term hit would obviously suck and a lot of RG3s value this year has come from rushing, I don't think long term he would rely on running to be a productive NFL and fantasy QB. One of the things that was frequently pointed out was that he's not a run first QB and is a strong pure passer. I don't see any reason why he can't have a great career even if he only has the mobility of a guy like Brady.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, but am not of the belief that RG3 suddenly will need to stop running or will have the mobility of a guy like Brady. It's a torn ACL- that doesn't strike near the fear in my mind that it did 10 years ago. I fully expect RG3 to be physically and athletically the same player he was this year after a year or so of recovery.Whether he retains the same usage as a runner following the injury is another discussion, but I find it hard to believe he will be kept out of the running game given how good of a weapon he is in it.

 
Sorry I should have been more clear. I have no idea how the injury will affect his ability or usage. Just that if it did have that effect I believe he has the passing skills to be productive regardless.

 
'Herm23 said:
'Concept Coop said:
In somewhat related news: What happens to RG3's value if the ACL/PCL tear rumors are true?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all in my opinion. The increased risk for an injury such as this due to his style of play should already have been accounted for in his current value. It should have been understood that all quarterbacks have the chance to suffer a major knee injury (see Tom Brady 2008), but RG3 had an increased chance due to the frequency with which he carries the ball as a runner. However, with what we have seen from recoveries of ACL injuries in recent years, particularly this year, it doesn't cause me any more pause than to wonder how much of a short term hit it will have (he will likely miss some of this upcoming season). His long term prognosis is the exact same as it was 2 days ago before this injury, at least for me.
Click to expand...
Sure, you account for an increase, but you don't discount him as though it is fact. And lets not pretend this was anything but a freak accident. RG3 was 33rd in the NFL in carries. 32 players ahead of him didn't tear a knee ligament. There were about 13,000 carries by NFL players this season. RG3 accounted for less than 1% of them, yet accounts for a great deal of the knee ligaments torn on said runs.RG3 needed to change his running style and was going to get hurt if he didn't. But he would have been hurt from the hits, like Michael Vick has been. Again, this is a freak accident.
 
If it's true, I think the others in tier 1 are clearly ahead of him: Newton, Rodgers, Luck. Where on tier 2 does he land, if in fact he does? Behind Ryan or Stafford? Would you take Brees over him now?

I would need to put some thought into it, myself.

 
ACL, I don't change his value much unless I'm a competitor whose window is closing.

PCL gets in the mix though...that's another thing. I'd have to put a lot of thought into it.

 
'Concept Coop said:
If it's true, I think the others in tier 1 are clearly ahead of him: Newton, Rodgers, Luck. Where on tier 2 does he land, if in fact he does? Behind Ryan or Stafford? Would you take Brees over him now? I would need to put some thought into it, myself.
Click to expand...
It really depends on the roster. If I have Romo in tow then I'm not worried about upgrading RG3, let him simmer. If I have Brees I am absolutely not moving him. If I have depth elsewhere I'll try to use it to get a Ryan or Stafford type. If the RG3 owner has nothing and I have Brees + Big Ben I try to take advantage of him and get RG3 for Big Ben + change.
 
'Concept Coop said:
It's not that drafting a QB is bad, it's that drafting them where you would have in 2011 is faulty, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Each QB offers his own expected production, risk, upside, and window. For most QBs there's a reason why they go where they do. Value QBs like Dalton and Romo are value QBs for a reason. Brees goes 1 to 4 rounds after Luck for a reason, even though Brees may outscore Luck each or any year until he retires.
Cam can't be treated as the #1 overall player if he is on the same tier as players drafted at the end of round 1.
Click to expand...
2 years ago your 1.1 player was McCoy and even in the middle of his career year that didn't stand firm. Is there a player that's markedly better than Cam? Who would you take at 1.1? In a RB heavy league you can say TR, but his CTD production is putting thorns in any "defacto 1.1" crown. You can say AP or Rice, but the issues there are big.Cam can be treated as the #1 overall player if he's on the same tier as all the players drafted in round 1; if it all breaks down to personal preference. I think there's about 15 cornerstone players right now and I have little preference where to pick in a startup. 4 QB, 2 TE, 4 WR, and 5 RB. 2 years ago it was very cut and dry who the top 5 or 6 picks are. I don't see that right now. (Further: my preference at 1.1 is Calvin as it has been for about 4 years and is probably the only player I would trade up for, but I would not Kentucky Derby slot 1 just to get him at this point.)
 
'Concept Coop said:
'Herm23 said:
'Concept Coop said:
In somewhat related news: What happens to RG3's value if the ACL/PCL tear rumors are true?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all in my opinion. The increased risk for an injury such as this due to his style of play should already have been accounted for in his current value. It should have been understood that all quarterbacks have the chance to suffer a major knee injury (see Tom Brady 2008), but RG3 had an increased chance due to the frequency with which he carries the ball as a runner. However, with what we have seen from recoveries of ACL injuries in recent years, particularly this year, it doesn't cause me any more pause than to wonder how much of a short term hit it will have (he will likely miss some of this upcoming season). His long term prognosis is the exact same as it was 2 days ago before this injury, at least for me.
Click to expand...
Sure, you account for an increase, but you don't discount him as though it is fact. And lets not pretend this was anything but a freak accident. RG3 was 33rd in the NFL in carries. 32 players ahead of him didn't tear a knee ligament. There were about 13,000 carries by NFL players this season. RG3 accounted for less than 1% of them, yet accounts for a great deal of the knee ligaments torn on said runs.RG3 needed to change his running style and was going to get hurt if he didn't. But he would have been hurt from the hits, like Michael Vick has been. Again, this is a freak accident.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood me. I had him ranked very, very highly already while accounting for the fact that he frequently touches the ball as a runner instead of just a passer, thus increasing the number of hits he will take and increasing the likelihood for injury, freak or not. The more you touch the ball in a position to be hit, the more likely you are to take a freak hit that will cause a freak injury. That's simple logic at work. However, I'm not trying to use it as any kind of negative whatsoever. I think it is a very small point and really not worth even considering when factoring rankings (at least for me. I don't base my rankings on potential for freak accidents/injuries). However, for those that do, this type of possibility should already have been accounted for otherwise they were doing themselves a disservice in their rankings.I don't think this injury changes his ranking one bit. He should still be ranked in the exact same place- very, very highly with little to no movement. I find it unlikely this is going to be any kind of career threatening or career altering injury, given the way modern medicine seems to be trivializing these kind of injuries more and more on a yearly basis. I expect him to retain the exact same speed and athleticism that makes him so dangerous as a runner and to continue to improve his pocket presence and throwing maturity, making him even more dangerous as a passer.
 
'thriftyrocker said:
Each QB offers his own expected production, risk, upside, and window. For most QBs there's a reason why they go where they do. Value QBs like Dalton and Romo are value QBs for a reason. Brees goes 1 to 4 rounds after Luck for a reason, even though Brees may outscore Luck each or any year until he retires.
Click to expand...
I agree.
'thriftyrocker said:
2 years ago your 1.1 player was McCoy and even in the middle of his career year that didn't stand firm.
Click to expand...
The odds of a player remaining your #1 dynasty option for even 365 days are slim. It is very fluid. That said, the off season AFTER I drafted McCoy 1.01 and called him the #1 player, his ADP in startups was HIGHER than it was when I made the claim. If fact, even after those 365 days, the only player I valued more (Newton) was in college the year I called McCoy #1. Otherwise, McCoy would have been my #1 two years in a row.
'thriftyrocker said:
Is there a player that's markedly better than Cam? Who would you take at 1.1? In a RB heavy league you can say TR, but his CTD production is putting thorns in any "defacto 1.1" crown. You can say AP or Rice, but the issues there are big.
Click to expand...
Very good point and my answer is no. But that doesn't always dictate value, especially in a startup. We are not measuring Newton vs. Richardson; we are measuring Newton and the rest of your draft against Richardson and the rest of mine. The value at RB is early (though, not 1.01). The value at QB is later. 12 Months ago, Newton would have been my pick. But I cant justify taking him 1.01 when (before RG3 news) the QB1 tier accounted for 25% of the first round, and knowing my league mates can get a player close in value at the end of the round. Drafting 1.01, the player you pick had better be in another teir than the player #12 picks. As fow who would I take #1 - tough call. A lot depends on system, but I would very likely go Calvin, Green, or a RB.
'thriftyrocker said:
(Further: my preference at 1.1 is Calvin as it has been for about 4 years and is probably the only player I would trade up for, but I would not Kentucky Derby slot 1 just to get him at this point.)
Click to expand...
I agree with you. And here is why I think Calvin is worth more than Newton - in most formats - and should go before him in a startup: Calvin is 1/36 or 48. Newton is 1/12. The top WR tier is 5% of the starting WRs. And this is with a very talented group of WRs. The top tier of QBs is 25% of the starting QBs. 1/4 of your league will have them. The rest will be "stuck" with Brees, Brady, Manning, Ryan, Stafford or combinations of Romo, Kaepernick, Dalton, Eli, Ben, Wilson, Tanny, Geno, Flacco, etcetera.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Herm23 said:
'Concept Coop said:
In somewhat related news: What happens to RG3's value if the ACL/PCL tear rumors are true?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all in my opinion. The increased risk for an injury such as this due to his style of play should already have been accounted for in his current value. It should have been understood that all quarterbacks have the chance to suffer a major knee injury (see Tom Brady 2008), but RG3 had an increased chance due to the frequency with which he carries the ball as a runner. However, with what we have seen from recoveries of ACL injuries in recent years, particularly this year, it doesn't cause me any more pause than to wonder how much of a short term hit it will have (he will likely miss some of this upcoming season). His long term prognosis is the exact same as it was 2 days ago before this injury, at least for me.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. In my mind anyway, the injury concerns surrounding RG3 have grown exponentially. Yes, I think we all knew there was a higher degree of risk. Until a player actually gets hurt though its hard to downgrade him too significantly. We don't know what is wrong with RG3's knee as of yet. But we do know he's already torn 1 ACL in college. It would seem likely that there is serious damage to his knee again, and it may even factor into his 2013 season. Now we have to compare that new greater risk to the increasingly good options at QB. What if he loses a step after this injury? If his rushing totals decline, can he make up for it as a passer? That's a risk there that needs to be accounted for. I think he's still a solid top 10 option, but I know I'd rather have Rodgers, Newton and Luck certainly. Factoring in age is always difficult, but Brady, Brees and Manning are all studs, and it would be hard to blame anyone looking within a 3 year window preferring them. Then there's Ryan, Stafford, and Wilson. You could make a case for all three of them being ahead of RG3 too.
 
I may or may not catch hell for this, but I think my #1 overall dynasty player today would be Gronkowski. He's 3rd in fantasy points over the last two years out of all pass catchers... Despite missing five games. He's less than 2 points behind the #2 (Welker). He scored 385.9 over the last two years, and if you pro-rate this year, he'd have 450. Here's a complete list of players in the last decade who have topped 385.9 over a 2-year span: 03-04 Holt, Moss, Harrison. 04-05 Harrison. 05-06 Smiff, Harrison. 06-07 Owens, Wayne. 07-08 Moss, Fitzgerald, Owens. 08-09 Andre, Fitzgerald. 09-10 (none). 10-11 Calvin. 11-12 Calvin, Welker. And here's the complete list of players who have topped 450: 07-08 Moss (454), 10-11 Calvin (452), 11-12 Calvin (492).

Look at those names for a second. Holt, Moss, Harrison, Smiff, Owens, Wayne, Fitz, Andre, Calvin, Welker. Those are the only guys to put up a two-season stretch like Gronk's- and only Calvin and Moss could match his pace if you pro-rate for the missed games. He's 23, a beastly talent (man among boys), and he's already performing on par or above the best fantasy WRs in history. As crazy as it sounds, I think people are holding the fact that he's a TE against him- no one wants to spend a high first on a TE. Which is insane. Remember when Yahoo gave Marques Colston TE eligibility, how many leagues he won? Gronk is basically like giving Randy Moss TE eligibility.

Meanwhile, who are the other contenders for #1? Rice is a rock, but he's 26 and has never been as dominant as a Tomlinson, Faulk, or Holmes. Peterson has, but he's 28. McCoy had his backup burst onto the scene and faces the specter of a new system and potential timeshare. Richardson is young and talented, but the Browns are a mess and might Steven Jackson him. Green is a young stud, but Gronk is out scoring him straight up. Maybe Rodgers or Cam, but as Coop pointed out, QB is deep. Calvin's a fantastic choice, but right now Gronk is essentially matching his production from a higher-leverage position, and is 4 years younger to boot.

I can't really argue with anyone who goes Rice, Calvin, Cam, Rodgers, or Green at #1... but looking at it, if it were me, I'm becoming more and more convinced that Gronk would be the play.

Edit: actually, trading down in the first and grabbing Gronk later would be the play. But if it were a no-trade league, then Gronk would be my guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'SSOG said:
I may or may not catch hell for this, but I think my #1 overall dynasty player today would be Gronkowski.
Click to expand...
I like the call. I think Gronkowski is underrated and consider him a tier 1 player. In this crop of players, getting Gronkowski late in the 1st sets you up very nicely. A lot depends on league setup, but I couldn't pull the trigger on Gronk 1.01, however. I simply worry about his production post-Brady. Of course it will still be great and he'll still be one of the best TEs in the league. But there is a big difference between "typical TE1 (overall)" points and what Gronk has done the last coulpe years. VBD supports your call as well. At least supports Gronkowski being in the conversation.
 
I agree that he's in the top 5, at least. Not to give too many details and make this about me, but I'm currently trying to move Foster and Witten in a deal for Gronk +.

 
The depth at WR and QB really suggests RB should be the position to land early this coming year. But the crop is flawed. SSOG covered most of the arguments against each high-end RB and I agree.

I think my strategy will be drafting as late as I can and hoping to come away with 2 of these guys: Gronk, Graham, Spiller, Charles, McCoy, Martin. I'd trade up if I could and down if I missed out.

I love Calvin and Green and TRich is promising. But this is not a very good year to be drafting 1.01-1.04 in my opinion.

 
Agree that Gronk has a very strong case as #1 overall. His numbers are absolutely staggering -- he's destroying everything that's ever been done at the position. As SSOG mentioned, it's like being able to start prime Randy Moss at TE.

 
I just ran a 16-game VBD for 2012 in one of my leagues and came up with this:

Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 161

Martin, Doug TBB RB 125

Foster, Arian HOU RB 114

Johnson, Calvin DET WR 102

Rice, Ray BAL RB 97

Marshall, Brandon CHI WR 94

Gronkowski, Rob NEP TE 87

Richardson, Trent CLE RB 85

Lynch, Marshawn SEA RB 83

Considering age and expected career length I think you can narrow this list down to...

Martin

Calvin

Gronk

Trent

Which was nice because those would intuitively be the first four players I'd take in a dynasty startup.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'wdcrob said:
I just ran a 16-game VBD for 2012 in one of my leagues and came up with this:Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 161 Martin, Doug TBB RB 125 Foster, Arian HOU RB 114 Johnson, Calvin DET WR 102 Rice, Ray BAL RB 97 Marshall, Brandon CHI WR 94 Gronkowski, Rob NEP TE 87 Richardson, Trent CLE RB 85 Lynch, Marshawn SEA RB 83 Considering age and expected career length I think you can narrow this list down to...MartinCalvinGronkTrentWhich was nice because those would intuitively be the first four players I'd take in a dynasty startup.
Click to expand...
What settings did you use? That seems low for Gronk if we take only his games played. No-PPR QRRWWWTF?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Concept Coop said:
'SSOG said:
I may or may not catch hell for this, but I think my #1 overall dynasty player today would be Gronkowski.
Click to expand...
I like the call. I think Gronkowski is underrated and consider him a tier 1 player. In this crop of players, getting Gronkowski late in the 1st sets you up very nicely. A lot depends on league setup, but I couldn't pull the trigger on Gronk 1.01, however. I simply worry about his production post-Brady. Of course it will still be great and he'll still be one of the best TEs in the league. But there is a big difference between "typical TE1 (overall)" points and what Gronk has done the last coulpe years. VBD supports your call as well. At least supports Gronkowski being in the conversation.
Click to expand...
Even if his VBD drops to 50 a year, 8 years of 50 VBD still works out to 400. And one or two more monster years could really run that up.
'Concept Coop said:
'wdcrob said:
I just ran a 16-game VBD for 2012 in one of my leagues and came up with this:Peterson, Adrian MIN RB 161 Martin, Doug TBB RB 125 Foster, Arian HOU RB 114 Johnson, Calvin DET WR 102 Rice, Ray BAL RB 97 Marshall, Brandon CHI WR 94 Gronkowski, Rob NEP TE 87 Richardson, Trent CLE RB 85 Lynch, Marshawn SEA RB 83 Considering age and expected career length I think you can narrow this list down to...MartinCalvinGronkTrentWhich was nice because those would intuitively be the first four players I'd take in a dynasty startup.
Click to expand...
What settings did you use? That seems low for Gronk if we take only his games played. No-PPR QRRWWWTF?
Click to expand...
Using PFR's VBD numbers, a pro-rated Gronk would have been 6th with 112. He'd be behind Peterson, Martin, Foster, Lynch, and Morris, ahead of Rice, and 10 points better than Calvin.
 
Should have said it's not a TE required league. TEs are mixed with WRs. Also 1.5PPR for TEs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

eighsse2
General Dynasty Strategy: "Evergreen"
Replies
9
Views
930
Tonycarpenter
Tonycarpenter
Hot Sauce Guy
Dynasty Startup Draft Strategy - what’s yours?
Replies
49
Views
2K
Lunaticum
L
Tonycarpenter
Dynasty 2024 Draft pick Candidates Mid 2023 Season ranking
Replies
0
Views
1K
Tonycarpenter
Tonycarpenter

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top