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.
TRich said recently that he has trouble laying flat or on his side. His rib injury was that bad and he was playing professional football as a running back. I'm amazed he even played. I would be shocked to see him not taken in the top 5 in a dynasty start-up. I think he has a very bright future as that offense grows.
Even early in the year his per-touch metrics were nothing special, and the TD production is tough to count on year to year on a crappy team.I agree that TRich is probably more talented than Rice (or Foster, McCoy, etc), and if he had Baltimore's line and defense and Cam Cameron I'd be on board taking him at 1.01. I think that RB value is more tied to situation than any other position though, and think that the most likely outcome has Cleveland continuing to be a joke, and Richardson suffering.
No, winning is about winning.
I presume this is traditional, non-PPR? As someone that only plays PPR, I saw the ranking of Sproles and assumed this must be traditional.
Hmm, no this is PPR. I don't know why I keep dropping him. For some reason he's just always an after thought to me. I just checked and he finished RB9 in our league. Perhaps I should move him much higher on my list.
The tiers seem a bit arbitrary to me. I like like Luck as much as anyone, but I don't see why Wilson is two whole tiers behind. I think you could make a case for any number of guys as QB2 behind Rodgers. A certain type of owner is going to covet Brady and Brees, but you're potentially looking at a pretty low shelf life there. Same with the WRs. I don't see Dez and Thomas being a tier behind Green and Julio. You can make a decent case that they're actually better players and the age gap is fairly thin.
Not super high on all of these guys, but I think most of them should be higher.I don't want to bang the drum too loud for Floyd and Roberts. Just realize that neither of them was in a position to be productive this season. I think they both have compelling talent.
He's pretty much been going in the RB16-20 range in every PPR mock and startup I've seen, 4th-5th rounder. About where I'd put him, as I'd expect another 2 years of borderline RB1 numbers.
Because Reid's starting RBs have averaged 76 catches a year over the last eight years?
Winning is about having the best players. Acquiring the best players is mainly about stockpiling value through drafting, trading, and waivers. What tends to happen in dynasty leagues is that the teams start out on relatively equal footing, but the good owners gradually monopolize all of the top players until the majority of the most valuable assets are concentrated on a small number of rosters. This back-to-back champion from one of my 14 team dev leagues is a good example:Robert Griffin--------------Ray RiceJonathan StewartVick Ballard---------------Calvin JohnsonAJ GreenDez BryantJulio JonesGreg JenningsTY HiltonJeremy Maclin---------------Keenan AllenRobert WoodsJustin Hunter1.01 dev pickMost of my dynasty leagues have teams like this. The way you build a roster like this is by making good assessments and steadily accumulating value, which in turn gives you the flexibility to acquire whatever picks/players that you want. And thus winning is all about value. Value is the currency that allows you to buy wins.'Christo said:
It's mind boggling to think some people are still hating this kid. To be fair, I jumped aboard the wagon almost immediately after he was named the starter so I am biased. But there's no reason I can see to think he's a fluke or won't repeat a strong performance. The touchdowns might be lower but he looks fantastic and Shanahan really has been pretty straightforward with his rb's - when a guy has been healthy and productive, he's gone with him long as possible.
Wesseling doesn't really focus on windows. He focuses on difference makers and talent, but he gets far more heat for overvaluing rooks than he does for overvaluing vets. Peterson, Calvin, Luck, Griffin, and others of their ilk have all debuted in the top 5 of his positional rankings before ever playing a down. With that said, I'm with EBF on this one. I own Peterson, and in my eyes, he's arguably the third most valuable RB on my own team (Rice, Charles).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:
And I have a team that looked like this in 2007 and 2012:
2007 2012E. Manning E. Manning C. Kaepernick ('11 Draft)F. Gore F. GoreS. Jackson S. JacksonR. Bush R. Bush D. Murray ('11 Draft)S. Smith S. SmithG. Jennings D. Thomas ('10 Draft) T. Holt M. Williams ('10 Draft)M. Jenkins H. Nicks ('09 Draft) K. Winslow J. Finley ('08) Draft)Z. Miller J. Cook ('09 Draft) Z. MillerIn other words, your team wins because you consistently find value in the draft. You don't need to make a lot of trades if your team crushes it every year in the draft. Likewise, you don't need to make any draft picks if you're constantly crushing it every year in trades and waivers. Doesn't change the fact that building a winning team is mainly a matter of accumulating value.
You're in good shape now because your RBs were so young and lasted 5+ years.
So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works.
I'm not changing the definitions. There are really only two kinds of value that we need to worry about.Functional Value - The actual advantage that a player gives you. The kind of thing that VBD attempts to quantify. Trade Value - The trade value that a player carries. When you say that you win because you consistently draft the best player available, it's just another way of saying that you excel at finding players with a high functional value. When I say that winning is all about value, it's because teams win games by having players with a high functional value and by acquiring players with a high trade value that they can then convert into functional value. Functional value is the only thing that actually impacts the box scores, but trade value is one of the primary means by which you acquire functional value. This is where the "pretty roster" critics really have a blind spot. A good owner doesn't acquire a pretty roster because he likes the way it looks on paper. He does so because he knows that having the most total trade value on his roster gives him the flexibility to build whatever team that he desires.So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works.
The problem is that trade value only matters when you convert it into functional value. If you don't do that, the trade value was completely meaningless. And typically the people with pretty rosters aren't all that interested in cashing in on the trade value of their assets, because they believe the trade value is commensurate to the functional value, and no advantage is to be gained by making the trade. It's like buying a house, or investing in a 401k. It doesn't matter what happens to it's "perceived value" 99% of the time. All that matters is what it cost when you bought it, what it was worth when you sold it, and what actual value it provided to you in between. Or, in other words, it doesn't matter whether Trent Richardson's trade value is higher than Peterson's, since no one is trading Trent Richardson. The fact that his trade value will be higher 3 years from now is only relevant if I plan on trading him in 3 years. If he lives up to the hype, then I won't feel like trading him. If he doesn't live up to the hype, then his trade value won't be off the charts, anyway. That's the problem with factoring trade value into rankings. Most of the players being ranked highly won't get traded while they are ranked highly.I'm not changing the definitions. There are really only two kinds of value that we need to worry about.Functional Value - The actual advantage that a player gives you. The kind of thing that VBD attempts to quantify. Trade Value - The trade value that a player carries. When you say that you win because you consistently draft the best player available, it's just another way of saying that you excel at finding players with a high functional value. When I say that winning is all about value, it's because teams win games by having players with a high functional value and by acquiring players with a high trade value that they can then convert into functional value. Functional value is the only thing that actually impacts the box scores, but trade value is one of the primary means by which you acquire functional value. This is where the "pretty roster" critics really have a blind spot. A good owner doesn't acquire a pretty roster because he likes the way it looks on paper. He does so because he knows that having the most total trade value on his roster gives him the flexibility to build whatever team that he desires.So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works.
Gonna disagree with this. A lot of the good owners in my leagues are constantly making trades to shake up their rosters. I'm more of a "draft and hold" type myself, but a lot of the big winners in my most competitive leagues take a different approach. If you're good at assessing value and you're good at pushing deals through, you can accumulate a pretty big advantage over time by winning trade after trade. It's not death by a thousand paper cuts. More like getting rich by a dozen fleecings. Like trading a penny for a nickel, a nickel for a dime, a dime for a quarter, and so on until you're sitting on a Scrooge McDuck vault of money. Where your line of reasoning really falls apart is that you never know in advance when you're going to decide to trade a player. Most people don't know when that will happen until it happens. You could draft a player like Julio Jones with the intention of keeping him for his entire career, but you might wake up one day and decide that he's overvalued, that he's destined for a decline in production, that you need to trade him for a starting RB, or that you'd rather have Marqise Lee. The fact that you can't predict if and when this might happen means you have a vested interest in acquiring players with a durable trade value so that you have maximum flexibility when other needs or opportunities arise.
How do you know what the resale value will be when you decide to sell?
You don't. You make a guess.Going back to the Richardson vs. Peterson example, those two players have similar trade value right this moment. But Peterson's will continue to drop steadily over the next couple years while Richardson's has a much better chance to hold steady. That's part of the reason why Trent is so much more valuable in dynasty.For me, you'd have to give up almost two Adrian Petersons to get Trent Richardson. That's because Richardson has a realistic chance to outscore him next year and has probably 200-300% more longevity potential. I understand why someone who isn't sold on Richardson would disagree, but if you think a young player has comparable talent and a similar ppg outlook to an old player, you have to believe he is worth a lot more.
Nice Sig Henry. Try a little humility and less pride.
Sorry for being proud of my accomplishments
When you win $100k playing FF, I will be perfectly fine with you putting it in your sig and I'd congratulate you to boot.
1st & 4th -- worth crowing about.
It's pretty straightforward. Peterson is 27. Trent is 21. Trent probably has 6-10 years of his peak left. Peterson probably has 1-4. So if you believe that they're similar talents and that they'll score a similar number of points in each of their future seasons moving forward, what's left of Trent's career is worth 2-3x what's left of Peterson's career. A lot of people don't think Trent is that caliber of back, so I'd understand why they would disagree, but I've always been a big believer in his skill set. I see this as a redux of 2007 in many ways. In 2006, Tomlinson rushed for 1800 yards and 28 TDs as a 27 year old. Going into 2007, he would've been the unquestioned "I'll take the points" choice with the 21 year old Peterson playing the role of unproven phenom. A year later Peterson had surpassed Tomlinson on most boards and two years later the thought of trading Peterson for Tomlinson would've been completely laughable. I'm not a VBD guy, but I'm sure the overall value of Peterson from 2007 onward dwarfs the overall value that Tomlinson has provided over that same stretch. It's not even close.I know you have a tendency for hyperbole, but this a little much even for you.
I understand that you feel that way, but we're naturally biased towards overconfidence in our own beliefs. For instance, you talk about only doing it for guy's you're "99% certain about", but I guarantee you that your success rate on guys you're "99% certain about" is a lot less than 99%. Hell, Reggie Bush was once one of your 99% guys, and you haven't made 99 more correct calls since then to offset that miss. Stewart's another example. I know, unprecedented situation, unanticipated circumstances, no way you could have predicted it. I agree, I'm just pointing out there are a lot of ways for a pick to go wrong even if you nail the talent evaluation. I can't even list all of them, because some of them are undoubtedly "unanticipated" or "unprecedented". The reality is even "sure things" like Richardson are maybe 75% plays at best. Even if you're extremely confident in him, his EV will never be double Peterson's. his upside is, sure, but not his EV. I think his upside makes him worth the risk, and I'd trade Peterson for him in a heartbeat, but I also temper my rankings enough that I don't think the gap is all that colossal. Richardson is a top 5 pick, but I've still got Peterson in the top 15.
While it's great that you talked about all the championships you win, not everything works out the same and perhaps you found some gullible owners. Doesn't really matter. I don't see AP being a top rb for the next several years. In my mind he has 1 to 2 years of top rb performance left. Value is value.
Of course sometimes the percentage play is not the correct play. Sometimes in poker, the best thing you could have possibly done was fold those pocket rockets pre-flop, because the other guy was destined to hit that inside straight draw. The term "percentage play" makes it pretty explicit that it's no guarantee. Of course, as any poker player will tell you, playing the percentages is the only way to win in the long run. Sure, sometimes you might want to just take a shot, but if you stray too far from the percentage plays, you'll soon find yourself broke. To translate into dynasty terms... you might love Crabtree, but you don't draft him in the first of a startup. You might be totally convinced on Richardson, but you don't trade two Adrian Peterson's worth of value to acquire him. Years from now, it might turn out that those two moves were, in fact, the right ones... but the percentages say you're better off playing it straight and just making a steady string of good, sound decisions.Edit: actually, that's one of the biggest rules of roster construction- don't be a hero. You're better off hitting a long string of singles than going for a single home run.
Wow, who's cherry picking. He's talking about trading for a young player you've seen play for a year in the NFL. Who traded a top player for Bush or Rodgers after their first years?
PPR:Saw many elite players dealt for a soon to be 22 year old Reggie Bush who just caught 88 balls with owners figuring his rush stats would improve. The guy was a Top 5-10 RB with 1300 total yards 8 TD's in Year 1.
Completely agree with this. The bust rate for rookies is very high. I'd certainly rather bust with the guy I was high on rather than some "expert" or the consensus.
I can't argue with the logic of that, but my reality is that I have not done as well when I have played it safe as when I have made an occasional reach for a player that I really wanted. I participate in at least one new start up each season and there are usually 2-3 players that intuitively I feel are going to do way better than their ADP and I have found that if I don't make a reach or two, I won't get any of them, because someone else who has also targeted them will jump up a round or two early and grab them ahead of me.
Yeah. He was 10th in the league in receptions. I think people forget there were those who rated Bush higher than AD.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=342693&st=0&p=7334520&hl=+bush%20+peterson&fromsearch=1entry7334520
By and large, I've almost never regretted it when I made a big preemptive move to get a top young talent before his value really blew up. I've actually made a lot of my best picks that way over the years. These are my five most recent startup drafts:2008 - Calvin Johnson with the 19th pick. http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2008/options?L=60795&O=17
Well, I called him on that (that it would take almost 2 ADPs to get Richardson from him) and suggested that he was using hyperbole. But he seemed to double down on his original assertion - his exact words were "It's pretty straightforward." Of course it is an easy claim for him to make since it can't really be disproven by any trade offer. What other player besides Peterson could you give who is of Peterson's age that almost equals Peterson in value?
