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.
Doesn't matter where he ends up, I'm taking Bowe over Britt.
Nice call
Excellent list - particularly where the 3rd tier ends and the 4th begins - for me that is a cliff fall from the players I really like to those that I have questions about.
Excellent list - particularly where the 3rd tier ends and the 4th begins - for me that is a cliff fall from the players I really like to those that I have questions about.I'd have to say that list is quite weak, unless you are a dynasty team rebuilding to win in 5 years. It totally discounts any WRs with age and gives way too much credit for young WRs. Josh Gordon ranked ahead of WRs like Welker and Andre Johnson?
Good post. Not sure about top 6, but I do think he will likely be underrated in most rankings. I want to say that Seattle opened up the offense starting in week 8; can any Seahawks homers confirm that timing?Anyway, consider his splits through week 7 and after week 7:Through week 7 (7 games): 104/175 (59.4%), 1230 passing yards (175.7 ypg, 7.03 ypa), 8 passing TDs, 7 interceptions, 79.5 passer rating, 35/119/0 rushing (17 ypg, 3.4 ypc)After week 7 (10 games): 187/280 (66.8%), 2460 passing yards (246 ypg, 8.79 ypa), 21 passing TDs, 4 interceptions (including that season ending Hail Mary), 113.4 passer rating, 74/497/5 rushing (49.7 ypg, 6.7 ypc)Those are ridiculous splits. He made a huge improvement in every single category. His passing attempts were 25 per game in the first 7 games, 28 per game thereafter, only a slight uptick... but they blew out 4 of 10 opponents during the last 10 games, which likely depressed his attempts a bit.I think some of the change was Carroll opening up the offense, both adding in some read option and also putting more trust in Wilson through less conservative playcalling. And some of it was likely just due to Wilson getting better and he and his OL and receivers gaining chemistry with more reps.By all appearances, he is a guy who will work his ### off throughout the offseason to get better. Even moreso than the typical hardworking NFL players. I think it is very possible he will finish in the top 10 in fantasy next year.Now imagine that they improve his targets...'EBF said:
I liked Hunter alot before the achilles injury, but now as you imply the situation is a but more muddied now. Gore actually still looks like a strong runner to me - and I was ready to bury him two offseasons ago - so I do think even at 30 he'll be the main ball carrier next season. James and Hunter could be worked in a little more than this season though.It's possible the Niners address RB in the draft again and maybe this time with a higher pick. I've taken a flyer on Jewel Hampton in one league with deep rosters as he seems like he has the skillset to step into the Gore role - but that's far from a given of course.This probably wasn't all that helpful of a post - but I think that speaks to the uncertainty of the situation and not sure anyone will really have a true grasp on it.'BeTheMatch said:
I am an owner of all three of these guys in various leagues, though not more than one of them in either.Gore- holding onto him and using him as long as I can. Nobody is willing to give anything remotely valuable for him, but I expect him to put together another season.Hunter- his injury is one that makes me very suspect of him going forward. Will trade him if I can get anything for him at all, even a late round pick. He was good this year, but I don't think he is as talented as James.James- I have been trying to pick him up in leagues where I can, though owners normally value him highly. I don't anticipate he would be a guy that is going to get 16-20 carries a game, but I think he can get 10-12 carries a game and 2-4 catches out of the backfield, and be a valuable PPR flex guy with huge homerun potential. More-so, I think James is a back that is very well suited to match up with Kaepernick in unique formations.Edit: Additionally, I think that having James on their roster will really dampen the dynasty prospects of other RBs on the roster that may get added in post-Gore. I don't think James will be the bell-cow, but he's too good to not be used for 20 or so snaps per game.'BeTheMatch said:
Deckers a guy I own in one of my main leagues and I know how helpful he was the past year. I guess I subconciously feel he's more dependent on situation than some of the other players ahead of him, and unlike players like Cobb, his QB doesn't have as long left.Someone like DT or Julio or even Wallace (speed) have such great athletic traits that they'll put up numbers regardless. I just don't see Decker having same physical gifts and that's why I'd be cautious having him in the top 15.
I think people are underestimating Decker's ability. Sure, it helps a lot to have Manning. But he's not simply a product of Manning. He's a very good player.
Pretty confident Decker would have broken out a year earlier if they had a QB that could actually hit him when he was running wide open downfield. I believe even without Manning, Decker is a FF WR2.
I would probably agree. I've just got him at the lower end of WR2
Thought this post from FF Ninja in another thread was relevant here, so I'm copying it over to perpetuate the argument here on Vereen.
Vereen is quite a quandry to me. I would assume most could acquire him fairly cheaply, though less so after his game this past weekend. Still, most owners are viewing this as a selling opportunity to get rid of Vereen for anything of value, so it's possible the window isn't completely closed. Here's the thing - considering the data FF Ninja puts forth above, it would appear Vereen was quite possibly the best goalline back on the team this season. Additionaly, we all saw what he could do as a receiver last game. Is it possible the team lets DW walk, allows Vereen to assume that Faulk-esque role in the offense, and he ALSO contributes at the GL? Evan Silva over at Rotoworld also had this to say via Twitter:
Concerns with Vereen are obvious. There's multiple capable RBs in the backfield, including Ridley, Bolden, and the possibility they bring back DW and/or add talent in the draft. There's the chance that Vereen's big game was no more of a blip than Bolden's game against the Bills. And there's certainly the game-to-game consistency issues that BB suddenly shifts the gameplan completely away from Vereen any given week, even IF he's given a much bigger role.But I think the upside is obvious -- potential for Woodhead's receiving role plus 1/3 of the rushing production and scores. Plus after the formations used this past weekend, you have to think he could almost become another chess piece for BB in the slot, out wide, etc.It's a connundrum, but I'd kick the tires to see what the price is. May surprise you how cheaply you can acquire his potential upside.
Let me first of all say that I don't fancy myself a scout, and rely on a lot of scouting reports from others about players - then see if they match up with what my eye tells me.I largely agree with what was said above on James, and have been quitely trying to acquire him as well in my dynasty format. When I watched the SF/GB game, I noticed the 49ers using James on some drives completely on his own, almost working him in for entire series to give Gore a break. And I didn't notice a substantial drop-off in their offensive production during those series.Gore's probably not going away next year, but I could easily see James carve out 10-12 carries and a handful of catches per game, with the upside for much more. While the achilles tear isn't a death sentence for Hunter -- not like it used to be, I still wouldn't be shocked to see James move ahead of him in the pecking order.I must admit I'm intrigued... but I would certainly welcome other opinions on James.
Perhaps he is one of those Dynasty owners that you call "short sighted" who looks at a 2-3 year timeline and is more concerned with winning in the next couple years rather than having the prettiest team in his league. I can't remember specifically Chris Wesseling's Dynasty philosopy, but the above would be an indication that it is more shorter term (2-3 years) than longer term (3-5+ years).'EBF said:'SSOG said:
Those are fantasy football rankings. He finished the season sixth in my league and it's a ppr league. I actually traded Morris away this offseason (for Fitzgerald and a second rounder), but people need to stop dismissing him without really assessing his game and his situation. I still think people are spooked by his draft status and false perceptions about Shanahan, and they really shouldn't be.'Steed said:
That's a nice year, doesn't mean he does it again and again.
What, that's ludicrous. You could say that every year about any player. He did it this year, and there's no reason to think he won't next year, what so hard to understand? Hey, trent Richardson had a good year, but he won't do it again next year.
Couldn't agree with this post more. I play mostly dynasty leagues, but rarely post in this thread because I already know I'm miles apart from where most of you guys are in terms of philosophy. Plenty of these rankings confuse me with people constantly valuing potential over production. In fact, I would even argue that many dynasty players would be closer to being correct if they just pretended it was a redraft league than they are now with their extreme overvaluing of young players. Most of the people will disagree with this and point to long-term success using their current ranking philosophies. Personally, I believe anybody who is pouring over this site, posting on here, making their own rankings, and more is going to be successful in spite of whether they are right or wrong about how to value players. Ultimately, the #1 driver of success in fantasy is commitment to the hobby.Just my 2cents on the topic. I do appreciate those who take the time and effort to post rankings and thoughts here as it does help. I don't want to come across as "I'm right and everyone else is wrong". I just generally think their is a huge slant towards the future throughout this thread.Perhaps he is one of those Dynasty owners that you call "short sighted" who looks at a 2-3 year timeline and is more concerned with winning in the next couple years rather than having the prettiest team in his league. I can't remember specifically Chris Wesseling's Dynasty philosopy, but the above would be an indication that it is more shorter term (2-3 years) than longer term (3-5+ years).'EBF said:'SSOG said:
I think you can swing for the fences with youth, and you can swing for the fences with veterans. Wesseling also has had very high rankings on Luck, RG3, and Cobb since last offseason, so I think to say he doesn't favor youth is wrong. He favors extreme upside (IMO?). He took ADP at 2.11 in a mock startup last offseason :nostalker: and has always been high on him returning to greatness.I don't know if he is necessarily low on Richardson, but he did promote drafting both Luck and RG3 over TR last year, and with the fact that TR's first year had some warts, I'm not too surprised to see him favor AP.Perhaps he is one of those Dynasty owners that you call "short sighted" who looks at a 2-3 year timeline and is more concerned with winning in the next couple years rather than having the prettiest team in his league. I can't remember specifically Chris Wesseling's Dynasty philosopy, but the above would be an indication that it is more shorter term (2-3 years) than longer term (3-5+ years).'EBF said:'SSOG said:
I agree that he probably shouldn't be the first back picked in a dynasty league but I think your stance here is a little too rigid. He actually could be worth more than Martin or Richardson to people that approach team building a little different.I'm sure that you'd agree Peterson is likely (not guaranteed of course) to outscore Martin and Richardson over the next two seasons and personally I doubt he becomes worthless at age 30 and 31 and maybe even 32 - he's proven to be a physical freak above everyone else.There is plenty of "value" and "worth" in having a safer bet for production over a two year span. Taking Peterson in Round 1, doesn't stop that owner from taking a younger back in Round 2 or Round 3, etc. that can carry their team once Peterson ultimately slows down. Once you take Peterson it doesn't mean that you're taking Gore and Steven Jackson to round out your RB depth - plus there are trade avenues and rookie drafts over the next several seasons to acquire a young RB as well.I'm with you, in that I'd rather not do it - but I surely don't think it's the kiss of death if some one does. I take Richardson, Rice, McCoy and maybe Foster (and a few WRs or QBs as well) over Peterson at least. I probably take him over Martin who I don't really see as special (not saying he'll bust long term, but I think this may be a high watermark season for him). I understand the sentiment though and your way works just as well.
Your post kind of illustrates the downside of relying on old players though. The fact that Peterson can only be relied on for 2-3 more years means you will have to find some way to replace him between now and the time when he expires. Yes, you can use rookie picks and trades to fill that hole and you might be successful. However, the fact that you have to spend those resources to fill that need means you aren't able to spend them on other areas of your team. This is why a guy like Julio Jones is more valuable than a guy like Brandon Marshall. Over the next three years, they might score the same amount of points. But three years from now you won't be able to trade Marshall for a sack of potatoes. Meanwhile you'll probably be able to trade Julio for almost anyone. And thus you're able to use all of your picks and resources to add value to your team instead of being forced to spend them merely treading water. Old players need to be replaced. Young players replace themselves. That is the critical difference. This is not to say that Peterson doesn't have value. He's still a great option, but there are younger players with similar redraft potential who offer a lot more value on the back end. A guy like Richardson is a riskier pick than ADP in some respects because he's not as proven, but in this case the potential value that you'll get back deeper in his career offsets the higher risk of him busting outright.
As far as spending resources (picks) to fill needs, isn't that what they are there for? Either way they are getting used to (hopefully) strengthen a part of your team.
This isn't really the same issue - there isn't anyone that would argue that if we have two players that will score the same amount of points over a three year span, they'd prefer the older one. People taking Peterson over Richardson or Martin are surely thinking Peterson will score MORE than the younger backs over a three year span - or at the very least he's the much safer bet to do so.
Yes, a typical strawman argument that I have learned to expect from this poster.
Yea, I understand the reasoning. It's a case by case thing. Sometimes the math favors the old guy. Sometimes the math favors the young guy. I wouldn't advocate trading Adrian Peterson for Shane Vereen just because Vereen is younger. However, in the case where you have a super elite prospect like Richardson who has a realistic shot to outscore Peterson next year and in every subsequent year, I think the math favors the young guy. You're talking about a guy who is six years younger. That's like getting two careers instead of one. I'll take those odds on a guy like Trent who checks every box and was touted as one of the best RBs ever. That's exactly the type of player you hope to get in exchange for an aging star like Peterson. Just like how when Tomlinson was getting long in the tooth, you would've been happy to move him for ADP.
When you have to spend your draft picks to replace lost assets, you are not improving your team. You are just sustaining its current level of performance. When you are able to use your picks to ADD to your team, you are increasing its total value and actually getting better (rather than just maintaining). There's a huge difference there. A team that is just treading water will eventually fall behind a team that is steadily accumulating value every year.
Here's your error. Peterson is a proven beast capable of single-handedly delivering his owners a title in any given year. Richardson is a very good RB, but the fact is he just finished RB9 purely on usage, and it appears very likely that the Browns will continue bumbling along (Chudzinski, really?) and holding Trent's stats down. And even one or two years of ridiculous #1 overall scoring is absolutely worth WAY more than many years of decent fantasy starter scoring in terms of putting trophies on the mantle.
It's not an error; it's his projections. If he's right; Richardson will double Peterson's value from this point on. Double. If he's wrong, he will have missed out on 2-3 years of elite production.But none of us know exactly what is going to happen and have to give it our best projection; just because yours is different than EBF, doesn't mean he is wrong. He is more sure that Richardson will produce than you are and that's fine.
The first thing that popped into mind when I read this post:http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/randymoss.jpgHistory repeats itself. I've heard all of these arguments before. No one is denying that Peterson is an awesome player. However, step back and get some perspective. He just had the best season of his career by a long shot. The "Moss in New England" season that causes people to overlook the obvious warning signs and chase a legend's career year. Peterson is not going to rush for 2000 yards every year. Even if he's able to maintain his career averages for three more years (unlikely), I'm not convinced that the value justifies passing on younger players like Martin and Richardson who have a realistic shot to outscore him now and indefinitely (and also have a much more durable trade value because of their youth). People can do whatever they want, but my advice is to avoid Peterson as a top 5 dynasty startup pick. It's the perfect example of overvaluing the past and not putting enough emphasis on the future. Redraft thinking in a dynasty league.As for Richardson, the guy just put up a top 10 season on broken ribs with a horrible supporting cast. Unless his knee proves to be a long term impediment, what we saw this year was probably pretty close to a worst case scenario. And that shows you why he's such a golden asset.
You are making 2 separate cases against ADP here IMO. One, you're arguing that Richardson might be just as good in the short term anyway. The value of the 2 players next yr or the next 2 yrs is just a matter of opinion. I happen to think ADP is a much better bet, but everybody projects things differently.The 2nd case is probably more relevant and that is that the case that even if Peterson is the better bet short-term, he still isn't the right pick in a dynasty league. I would argue that points projected to happen 5 years from now are less likely to actually happen than value projected for 2013 or 2014. I would also argue that even if those points happen, I would rather have the points now unless my team composition was in an extreme situation. There are many reasons for this. Not the least of which is the fact that dynasty leagues sometimes don't last for years 6-8 which Richardson might still be producing and ADP won't be. Besides that, there is a reason that in the NFL a 2013 2nd rounder costs a 2014 1st rounder in most cases. Production now is simply worth more than a likelihood of production later.Another tangent I think would be interesting is the angle that many of these dynasty leagues have contract and salary cap components. If they carry the same price tag, I would rather get my value packed into the next few years rather than pay that contract and hold that roster spot for several more years in order to get a similar ROI. My original post wasn't specific to Peterson/Richardson, but I think the case for ADP is similar to the case for a proven stud in general. Besides that, all of my post explains why I might be OK with ADP over Richardson even in the event that Richardson doesn't bust... which he still might. The risk component is legit here and for every Randy Moss falling off a cliff example, there is equally an example of a rookie RB who had a great season and then faded off.
I'm not as comfortable assuming that he can stay great indefinitely. A lot of athletes start to lose a little something around 29-30. And the NFL is not very forgiving for players who have lost a step, especially at the RB position. I've said elsewhere that I expect 1.5-2 more peak seasons from Peterson and then maybe 1-2 years of journeyman performance. To me that's just not worth a top 5 dynasty pick. And that's without even factoring in trade value considerations.
Broken. Ribs.Trent's rookie year was a disappointment overall. And yet he still had a top 10 RB season. His hype as a prospect does matter. He has special qualities. That's why he was touted as the best player in the draft by some scouts and garnered a top 3 pick in a draft that wasn't short on impact players. We haven't seen his best football yet and I think he'll render this "debate" silly so long as he can stay healthy (my only real concern with him at the moment).
I don't think anyone would deny that all of these factors should be considered. However, I think people would disagree about the extent to which they should be considered and weighted. I agree that there's more uncertainty in the future. However, I've played in something like 10 dynasty leagues and I've only had one fold prematurely (and that was run by a total crook). I tend to assume that my leagues will be around for a while and that I'll keep participating indefinitely, which is probably part of the reason why I don't discount future seasons as much as others might. When you look down the road, you are talking about probabilities, not certainties. Julio Jones could get in a motorcycle accident tomorrow and never play a down of football again in his life. That doesn't change the fact that he's more likely to still be in the NFL and still be contributing to your FF squad in five years than someone like Brandon Marshall who is nearing his 30th birthday.
I think taking Peterson over Richardson today is roughly akin to taking Moss over Calvin or Tomlinson over Peterson when those guys were first arriving on the scene. Big mistake from my standpoint. I think it's a good example of overvaluing security and past production. Like the opposite of the youth-crazed owner who trades Julio Jones for Marqise Lee. Overvaluing youth comes at the expense of risk.
He had broken ribs for something like half the season. Makes it hard to assess what he accomplished. I don't think the Trent we saw this year is the best way to predict how he'll look when he's fully healthy. I don't think he's going to be a 3.6 YPC guy when the dust settles. He's capable of much more. He did show some nice flashes though before he got hurt:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-cZPMB-p4I never felt that Trent was the next Peterson. Different style of player. I think he's like a better Ray Rice. Bigger and stronger with the same elusiveness and swivel. I only play in PPR leagues. In that format backs that catch passes are gold. Trent caught 51 balls this year, which is more than Peterson has had in any single season of his career. If he can remain a threat in the passing game and improve his effectiveness as a rusher, he should be able to match Peterson's career ppg average.
