Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

Interesting takes EBF...Yes, it's roughly akin to taking Tomlinson over Peterson years ago, but it's also akin to taking Tomlinson over Caddilac Williams or any number of high rookie draft picks who had big rookie years. I think you are making your case well, but cherry-picking a few examples that worked out a certain way doesn't prove much. Plenty of cases where owners tossed away 3 more years of elite production on a maybe and got burned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big difference, I think, is that I'm unwilling to value a guy in the uber-elite tier until I see it on an NFL field. I'll pay RB1 (as in top-12 RB) prices on prospects I love before they prove it to me (Stewart, Steven Jackson, Richardson himself, others) but won't pay #1 overall value on what I see as a roll of the dice.And seriously, did Richardson look like an ADP-class player to you this year? I think he's more in the damn good (Rice, Jackson, etc) group as opposed to the "HFS did he really just do that" group with Peterson, LT, etc.

Edited by Coeur de Lion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And seriously, did Richardson look like an ADP-class player to you this year?

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And seriously, did Richardson look like an ADP-class player to you this year?

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.
:goodposting: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. Edited by meyerj31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And seriously, did Richardson look like an ADP-class player to you this year?

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.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at the end of each of the dynasty seasons I like to do a personal ranking, helps me see where I can improve my team.

Interested to hear where people think I have players ranked too high/low. I generally just build this by taking every owned player and putting them in a rough spot, then ask, would I trade the lower for the higher right now? And if the answer is yes, I swap em. A lot of trash is owned considering we have deep rosters, and so I don't have every player owned listed, as I skimmed through a lot of the RB/WR list. So if there is a glaring error, I probably accidentally deleted them.

So here ya go, tear em apart.

QBS:

[*]Rodgers, Aaron

[*]Newton, Cam

[*]Luck, Andrew

[*]Brees, Drew

[*]Brady, Tom

[*]Griffin III, Robert

[*]Ryan, Matt

[*]Kaepernick, Colin

[*]Wilson, Russell

[*]Stafford, Matthew

[*]Romo, Tony

[*]Manning, Peyton

[*]Roethlisberger, Ben

[*]Bradford, Sam

[*]Manning, Eli

[*]Schaub, Matt

[*]Dalton, Andy

[*]Freeman, Josh

[*]Rivers, Philip

[*]Cutler, Jay

[*]Tannehill, Ryan

[*]Flacco, Joe

[*]Locker, Jake

[*]Vick, Michael

[*]Palmer, Carson

[*]Weeden, Brandon

[*]Fitzpatrick, Ryan

[*]Cousins, Kirk

[*]Ponder, Christian

[*]Foles, Nick

[*]Gabbert, Blaine

[*]Mallett, Ryan

[*]Pryor, Terrelle

[*]Lindley, Ryan

[*]Campbell, Jason

[*]Cassel, Matt

[*]Stanzi, Ricky

[*]Hasselbeck, Matt

[*]Osweiler, Brock

[*]Coleman, B.J.

[*]Flynn, Matt

[*]Yates, T.J.

[*]Hill, Shaun

[*]Tebow, Tim

WRs:

[*]Johnson, Calvin

[*]Green, A.J.

[*]Jones, Julio

[*]Marshall, Brandon

[*]Harvin, Percy

[*]Thomas, Demaryius

[*]Bryant, Dez

[*]Cruz, Victor

[*]Crabtree, Michael

[*]Cobb, Randall

[*]Johnson, Andre

[*]Blackmon, Justin

[*]White, Roddy

[*]Nicks, Hakeem

[*]Garcon, Pierre

[*]Shorts, Cecil

[*]Welker, Wes

[*]Fitzgerald, Larry

[*]Smith, Torrey

[*]Nelson, Jordy

[*]Decker, Eric

[*]Wayne, Reggie

[*]Jackson, Vincent

[*]Bowe, Dwayne

[*]Gordon, Josh

[*]Brown, Antonio

[*]Wallace, Mike

[*]Jennings, Greg

[*]Colston, Marques

[*]Maclin, Jeremy

[*]Wright, Kendall

[*]Johnson, Stevie

[*]Little, Greg

[*]Hill, Stephen

[*]Jenkins, A.J.

[*]Jeffery, Alshon

[*]Randle, Rueben

[*]Quick, Brian

[*]Hilton, T.Y.

[*]Baldwin, Jon

[*]Floyd, Michael

[*]Boldin, Anquan

[*]Sanders, Emmanuel

[*]Moore, Denarius

[*]Amendola, Danny

[*]Austin, Miles

[*]Holmes, Santonio

[*]Jackson, DeSean

[*]Broyles, Ryan

[*]Moore, Lance

[*]Smith, Steve, CAR

[*]Williams, Mike

[*]Hankerson, Leonard

[*]Britt, Kenny

[*]Alexander, Danario

[*]Meachem, Robert

[*]Jones, James

[*]Edelman, Julian

[*]Kerley, Jeremy

[*]Brown, Vincent

[*]Rice, Sidney

[*]Lloyd, Brandon

[*]Young, Titus

[*]Avery, Donnie

[*]Hartline, Brian

[*]Roberts, Andre

[*]McCluster, Dexter

[*]Moss, Santana

[*]Givens, Chris

[*]Sanu, Mohamed

[*]Heyward-Bey, Darrius

[*]Burleson, Nate

[*]Jones, Marvin

[*]Massaquoi, Mohamed

[*]Doucet, Early

[*]Streater, Rod

[*]Tate, Golden

[*]Brazill, LaVon

RBs:

[*]Rice, Ray

[*]Richardson, Trent

[*]Martin, Doug

[*]Peterson, Adrian

[*]Foster, Arian

[*]Charles, Jamaal

[*]Morris, Alfred

[*]Spiller, C.J.

[*]McCoy, LeSean

[*]Lynch, Marshawn

[*]Forte, Matt

[*]Johnson, Chris

[*]Jones-Drew, Maurice

[*]Gore, Frank

[*]Mathews, Ryan

[*]Wilson, David

[*]Murray, DeMarco

[*]McFadden, Darren

[*]Stewart, Jonathan

[*]Jackson, Steven

[*]Bradshaw, Ahmad

[*]Ridley, Stevan

[*]Bush, Reggie

[*]Miller, Lamar

[*]Mendenhall, Rashard

[*]Pierce, Bernard

[*]Turbin, Robert

[*]Hunter, Kendall

[*]James, LaMichael

[*]Hillman, Ronnie

[*]Ivory, Christopher

[*]Richardson, Daryl

[*]Leshoure, Mikel

[*]Ingram, Mark

[*]Brown, Bryce

[*]Tate, Ben

[*]Ballard, Vick

[*]Green-Ellis, BenJarvus

[*]Sproles, Darren

[*]Moreno, Knowshon

[*]Williams, Ryan

[*]Wells, Beanie

[*]Williams, DeAngelo

[*]Brown, Donald

[*]Vereen, Shane

[*]Thomas, Daniel

[*]Turner, Michael

[*]Rodgers, Jacquizz

[*]Bell, Joique

[*]Bush, Michael

[*]Pead, Isaiah

[*]Thomas, Pierre

[*]Jackson, Fred

[*]Hillis, Peyton

[*]Powell, Bilal

[*]Hardesty, Montario

[*]Dwyer, Jonathan

Tes:

[*]Graham, Jimmy

[*]Gronkowski, Rob

[*]Hernandez, Aaron

[*]Witten, Jason

[*]Rudolph, Kyle

[*]Davis, Vernon

[*]Daniels, Owen

[*]Olsen, Greg

[*]Bennett, Martellus

[*]Allen, Dwayne

[*]Fleener, Coby

[*]Gresham, Jermaine

[*]Miller, Heath

[*]Myers, Brandon

[*]Pettigrew, Brandon

[*]Davis, Fred

[*]Pitta, Dennis

[*]Housler, Robert

[*]Cameron, Jordan

[*]Dickson, Ed

[*]Chandler, Scott

[*]Gates, Antonio

[*]Finley, Jermichael

[*]Cook, Jared

[*]Celek, Brent

[*]Kendricks, Lance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at the end of each of the dynasty seasons I like to do a personal ranking, helps me see where I can improve my team.Interested to hear where people think I have players ranked too high/low. I generally just build this by taking every owned player and putting them in a rough spot, then ask, would I trade the lower for the higher right now? And if the answer is yes, I swap em. A lot of trash is owned considering we have deep rosters, and so I don't have every player owned listed, as I skimmed through a lot of the RB/WR list. So if there is a glaring error, I probably accidentally deleted them.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at the end of each of the dynasty seasons I like to do a personal ranking, helps me see where I can improve my team.Interested to hear where people think I have players ranked too high/low. I generally just build this by taking every owned player and putting them in a rough spot, then ask, would I trade the lower for the higher right now? And if the answer is yes, I swap em. A lot of trash is owned considering we have deep rosters, and so I don't have every player owned listed, as I skimmed through a lot of the RB/WR list. So if there is a glaring error, I probably accidentally deleted them.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]Rodgers, Aaron

[*]Newton, Cam

[*]Luck, Andrew

[*]Brees, Drew

[*]Brady, Tom

[*]Griffin III, Robert

[*]Ryan, Matt

[*]Kaepernick, Colin

[*]Wilson, Russell

[*]Stafford, Matthew

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.

Some other thoughts:

WRs:

[*]Brown, Antonio

[*]Hilton, T.Y.

[*]Floyd, Michael

[*]Jackson, DeSean

[*]Williams, Mike

[*]Rice, Sidney

[*]Roberts, Andre

[*]Givens, Chris

[*]Tate, Golden

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So at the end of each of the dynasty seasons I like to do a personal ranking, helps me see where I can improve my team.Interested to hear where people think I have players ranked too high/low. I generally just build this by taking every owned player and putting them in a rough spot, then ask, would I trade the lower for the higher right now? And if the answer is yes, I swap em. A lot of trash is owned considering we have deep rosters, and so I don't have every player owned listed, as I skimmed through a lot of the RB/WR list. So if there is a glaring error, I probably accidentally deleted them.

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.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wesseling threw some quick rankings up on Twitter. RodgersLuckCamBreesGriffinStaffordRyanBradyKaepWilsonPetersonRichardsonRiceMcCoyMartinSpillerFosterLynchCharlesMorrisCalvinGreenDezJulioDemaryiusHarvinFitzCruzMarshallCrabtreeNicksCobbGronkGrahamHernandezCrapshootHe also said the backs from Rice to Foster were "pretty much interchangeable", that Griffin would be #1 or 2 if not for the knee injury, and that Charles was lower before Reid arrived in KC.

How can Charles be lower before Reid? Crennel gave him a career high in carries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people worry too much about the top of their rankings and not enough about the bottom. Yes, in start-up's AD vs. Richardson may be a meaningful conversation. Current leagues? Probably not. Spend time and energy mining for gold instead.Speaking of which, Bruce Arians gushing about Ryan Williams today. Just bought him for two #3's and Jordan Cameron. Get him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning is about getting the most value.

No, winning is about winning.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morris isn't the 10th best rb in the league either

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.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do agree with EBF that obtaining value is a key to victory in FF there are different forms of value that not all owners perceive as the same.

There is value in being able to trade for or draft an older player at a discount because of other owners devaluing that player because of their age. This is as useful in terms of value as it is looking at a players long term potential that may or may not ever be achieved.

In the case of RBs there is more turnover at this position than there is at QB WR or TE. Rbs are hard pressed to sustain a high level of performance for more than 2-3 seasons in most cases. The few exceptions to this are usually produced by the few elite level RBs such as Emmitt Faulk, Edge. There are usually only 2 or 3 of these elite players available any given year, the rest while talented tend to fall out of top 10 performances for one reason or another and it is a rare RB that can maintain that level of performance longer than 2-3 seasons of their careers.

In case you are wondering Peterson is one of those rare elite RB. Richardson might be one also but as much as I like Richardson he has not proven enough for me to say with certainty that he is. Richardson still has not performed up to the level that I think he is capable of yet.

So given that almost all other RBs as a whole are not reliable performers in the long term it seems strange to me that one would apply such long term thinking to players from this position. QBs and WR? Sure I can see some value in looking at their long term potential but RB? Even top picks seem to be fighting for their jobs or fighting off injury or other issues that derail them from maintaining peak performance any longer than 2-3 years of their careers. So what is the real value in using long term evaluation/projections at the RB position? There are only a few elite RB that I would expect to play at that level longer than 2 years. Even LT (who I considered one of the elite)had to share targets/carries with Sproles and other RBs in his later years.

I know that EBF is very aware of the volatility at the RB position. We have discussed this in relation to dynasty before. This is largely the reason why one should build their team at the QB and WR positions that have greater longevity in the quality of their performance over their careers. So it is somewhat confusing to me why EBF would forget this when talking about the evaluation of value at the RB position.

I think Peterson is playing at such a high level that he may be in a 2-3 year peak of his career right now. That is something I value very highly working for me and not another team I am competing with. The value of Peterson compared to any other RB in the league right now is a huge gap to make up. Now this does get mitigated to some degree in PPR leagues as this is one of the few holes in Petersons game, that he does not catch a lot of passes. Peterson has improved in this regard however and there may be a 50 catch season for him in the next 2 seasons if that continues and the Vikings give him the opportunity.

At the same time the value of players in a start up draft are not the same as I would value players during a season.

In a start up I may intentionally pass some good value players that are older as I usually like to start very young, let my own draft picks do some work for me in the 1st couple seasons and have the core of my team hitting their prime years hopefully by the 3rd season of the league. This is the preferred plan anyways, what actually happens becomes a mix of this strategy and other opportunities. What I hear EBF and others saying is that they continue that strategy every season. I look at that differently as after the start up I will explore trades with my roster with most of the owners by the time the 2nd season comes around. I will know which players panned out and what players are tradable or will have been already traded away by that time. By the 3rd season I should be in a position to compete for a title every season. Having players like Peterson are keys to doing that. A young core from the start up ends up being 26-28 by the 3rd season and you have had 2 years to turn the roster and get the team ready to win every year while being able to maintain a younger core of replacement players that you do not need to start but can step in as starters if/when older players you keep do decline and need to be replaced.

As to Peterson he has a goal to beat Emmitt Smiths total rushing yards record. Peterson will have to play at a very high level for a long time to come close to that. Emmitt Smith was a terrific value for many seasons after he was past his peak level at age 28. Peterson is more talented than Emmitt is but not as durable. I like Petersons chances to still play at a high level after 30 years old because the bar is so high with him that even a 40% drop off from that peak is better than what the lower half of the top 12 RBs can do in any other than a career year. I think Peterson is good enough and has the desire to play at a high level late into his career. I like his chances to be successful doing that and ultimately give Emmitt a run for his money before it is all said and done.

Richardson is in a great situation right now and it is a difficult choice. I would be more likely to draft Richardson over Peterson in a start up draft than I would be to draft him over Peterson in a redraft/already established league. It would be very hard for me to pass up the opportunity to get either player however and I would move heaven and earth to get them on my roster if I could also keep most of the rest of my core players intact.

Edited by Biabreakable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peterson

Richardson

Rice

McCoy

Martin

Spiller

Foster

Lynch

Charles

Morris

:unsure:
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).

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning is about getting the most value.

No, winning is about winning.
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.
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. Miller
This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.

In 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winning is about getting the most value.

No, winning is about winning.
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.
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. Miller
This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.
You're in good shape now because your RBs were so young and lasted 5+ years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.

In 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.
So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works. :rolleyes: Edited by Christo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.

In 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.
So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works. :rolleyes:
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This team has gone 63-28-2 over six seasons making the playoffs every year, the championship game three times and winning it twice. No wheeling and dealing, no amassing picks, no searching for "value." Just drafting best player available.

In 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.
So we're at the point where your definition of "value" is anything that works. :rolleyes:
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.
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. Edited by SSOG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

:goodposting:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the beauty of dynasty. Everyone has their own way of looking at things and what they feel is the best way to build a team. Some prefer to win titles others prefer to maintain the most value possible. Some are willing to traded many guys and picks for a stud they know will help them win titles now while knowing in the future they will have to sacrifice part of their future. In 2006 I traded Gore, D-Williams and 3 future 1st round picks for Tomlinson and Gates. I won the title in 2006, 2009 and 2010 with the help of those 2 players. I also nearly won it both in 2007 and 2008 as well. I knew that I was going to lose valuable young future assets in Gore and Williams but at the time I was trading the future to try and win now. I remember hating this traded in 2008 when D-Williams broke out and scored 20 TD's and 1 of my draft picks I traded would have netted me Ray Rice.Obviously anyone who takes Peterson that high is taking the best player for the next few years. No one can say that is right or wrong. I rememeber in 1997 when I did my 1st dynasty startup my 1st pick was Emmitt Smith who alraedy was in the league several years but I wanted to win now and I did winning in 1998 and 1999 so to me it was worth it. A lot of the younger players (IE RYAN MATHEWS) you take over guys like Peterson last year in start ups and how did that work out ? The sure fire young stud turned into a dud while Peterson was king of the mountain.There is no right or wrong answer here to each their own the most important thing is picking the right players that fit your style and strategy and avoiding the minefields of busts which can be both old and young players a like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

So yes, I will take the house with a high resale value over the house that will be impossible to sell if and when I should decide to relocate, regardless of whether the experience of living in the two homes is identical. Who wouldn't?

Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

So yes, I will take the house with a high resale value over the house that will be impossible to sell if and when I should decide to relocate, regardless of whether the experience of living in the two homes is identical. Who wouldn't?

How do you know what the resale value will be when you decide to sell?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the beauty of dynasty. Everyone has their own way of looking at things and what they feel is the best way to build a team. Some prefer to win titles others prefer to maintain the most value possible. Some are willing to traded many guys and picks for a stud they know will help them win titles now while knowing in the future they will have to sacrifice part of their future. In 2006 I traded Gore, D-Williams and 3 future 1st round picks for Tomlinson and Gates. I won the title in 2006, 2009 and 2010 with the help of those 2 players. I also nearly won it both in 2007 and 2008 as well. I knew that I was going to lose valuable young future assets in Gore and Williams but at the time I was trading the future to try and win now. I remember hating this traded in 2008 when D-Williams broke out and scored 20 TD's and 1 of my draft picks I traded would have netted me Ray Rice.Obviously anyone who takes Peterson that high is taking the best player for the next few years. No one can say that is right or wrong. I rememeber in 1997 when I did my 1st dynasty startup my 1st pick was Emmitt Smith who alraedy was in the league several years but I wanted to win now and I did winning in 1998 and 1999 so to me it was worth it. A lot of the younger players (IE RYAN MATHEWS) you take over guys like Peterson last year in start ups and how did that work out ? The sure fire young stud turned into a dud while Peterson was king of the mountain.There is no right or wrong answer here to each their own the most important thing is picking the right players that fit your style and strategy and avoiding the minefields of busts which can be both old and young players a like.

Nice Sig Henry. Try a little humility and less pride.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the beauty of dynasty. Everyone has their own way of looking at things and what they feel is the best way to build a team. Some prefer to win titles others prefer to maintain the most value possible. Some are willing to traded many guys and picks for a stud they know will help them win titles now while knowing in the future they will have to sacrifice part of their future. In 2006 I traded Gore, D-Williams and 3 future 1st round picks for Tomlinson and Gates. I won the title in 2006, 2009 and 2010 with the help of those 2 players. I also nearly won it both in 2007 and 2008 as well. I knew that I was going to lose valuable young future assets in Gore and Williams but at the time I was trading the future to try and win now. I remember hating this traded in 2008 when D-Williams broke out and scored 20 TD's and 1 of my draft picks I traded would have netted me Ray Rice.Obviously anyone who takes Peterson that high is taking the best player for the next few years. No one can say that is right or wrong. I rememeber in 1997 when I did my 1st dynasty startup my 1st pick was Emmitt Smith who alraedy was in the league several years but I wanted to win now and I did winning in 1998 and 1999 so to me it was worth it. A lot of the younger players (IE RYAN MATHEWS) you take over guys like Peterson last year in start ups and how did that work out ? The sure fire young stud turned into a dud while Peterson was king of the mountain.There is no right or wrong answer here to each their own the most important thing is picking the right players that fit your style and strategy and avoiding the minefields of busts which can be both old and young players a like.

Nice Sig Henry. Try a little humility and less pride.
Sorry for being proud of my accomplishments
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:shock:

I know you have a tendency for hyperbole, but this a little much even for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the beauty of dynasty. Everyone has their own way of looking at things and what they feel is the best way to build a team. Some prefer to win titles others prefer to maintain the most value possible. Some are willing to traded many guys and picks for a stud they know will help them win titles now while knowing in the future they will have to sacrifice part of their future. In 2006 I traded Gore, D-Williams and 3 future 1st round picks for Tomlinson and Gates. I won the title in 2006, 2009 and 2010 with the help of those 2 players. I also nearly won it both in 2007 and 2008 as well. I knew that I was going to lose valuable young future assets in Gore and Williams but at the time I was trading the future to try and win now. I remember hating this traded in 2008 when D-Williams broke out and scored 20 TD's and 1 of my draft picks I traded would have netted me Ray Rice.Obviously anyone who takes Peterson that high is taking the best player for the next few years. No one can say that is right or wrong. I rememeber in 1997 when I did my 1st dynasty startup my 1st pick was Emmitt Smith who alraedy was in the league several years but I wanted to win now and I did winning in 1998 and 1999 so to me it was worth it. A lot of the younger players (IE RYAN MATHEWS) you take over guys like Peterson last year in start ups and how did that work out ? The sure fire young stud turned into a dud while Peterson was king of the mountain.There is no right or wrong answer here to each their own the most important thing is picking the right players that fit your style and strategy and avoiding the minefields of busts which can be both old and young players a like.

Nice Sig Henry. Try a little humility and less pride.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

:shock:

I know you have a tendency for hyperbole, but this a little much even for you.

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 think the same thing is happening here in 2013, except now Peterson is the aging superstar overvalued after a career year and Richardson is the up-and-comer. The analogy isn't perfect because Peterson was a rookie after LT's monster year whereas Richardson was a rookie during Peterson's rookie year. Also, Trent's rookie year doesn't compare to Peterson's. I totally get that some people are going to balk at the idea that Trent is worth 2x ADP under the reasoning that Trent isn't that talented and doesn't have as high a probability to score the points that ADP can be expected to yield. I just happen not to agree with that perspective. To me, he's a special prospect and a player with no risk besides injury. Considering that we're comparing him to a 27 year old with 1700+ carries and a reconstructed knee, I'd say the durability issues cancel out in this case.

I see Peterson as a bit of a poison pill in dynasty for a variety of reasons. His past production and his career year have people glossing over a lot of obvious risk factors, just as they did with LT after 2007 or Moss in 2008. Peterson is old for a RB, has a reconstructed knee, and topped his YPC average by a full yard in 2012. The 21.96 ppg he averaged this year is well above the 17.27 he put up in 2011 or the 18.55 he averaged in 2010. A slight regression to his usual career averages and he's suddenly not a huge difference-maker compared to the other RB1 options. And that's without even getting into the dramatically lower longevity potential he has compared to some of the other RB, WR, and QB options available in the first round of a startup.

I've got no problem with him as RB1 in a redraft league, but in a dynasty league I think taking him as a top 5 pick in a startup is a perfect example of living in the past. And that's not really an approach that I advocate in a format that puts so much weight on future seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep bringing up Tomlinson vs. Peterson. That's great. People who traded Tomlinson straight up for Peterson are no doubt thrilled. How about you ask the guys who traded Tomlinson for Reggie Bush. Or the guys who swapped Harrison, Moss, or Owens for Charles Rodgers. Again, I agree with you that there's no way I'd take Peterson in the top 5. I just think your cherry picked examples are absurd and non-representative of the full range of possible outcomes here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I've talked about this stuff, I've always acknowledged that there's risk. That's why I really only recommend this kind of deal when you're 99% certain about what you're getting. I've also pointed out on numerous occasions that the risk of getting a bust or disappointment is offset by the upside of getting a longer career. If you're right about Peterson, you get 3-4 years max of great production. If you're right about Richardson, you potentially get 6-10 years of great production. This illustrates why a team that is able to consistently identify the right young players to target can accumulate such a staggering amount of value. If you're always taking the young player and you're always right about your calls, you're going to crush a risk-averse team that plays it safe and pays full price for players who are 50-75% through their prime. The flipside is that if you're consistently wrong about your calls, you're going to get dominated by those same risk-averse teams. Managing a dynasty team is an endless series of decisions that test your ability to assess player value. The reason that I favor the Richardson side of the Richardson/Peterson debate is precisely because I'm completely sold on the player in question. Right or wrong, my personal opinion is that Richardson isn't Reggie Bush or Charles Rogers. You might not believe that Trent Richardson is a superstar, but anyone would have to concede that a 21 year old superstar is worth more than a 27 year old superstar. The general principles are beyond refutation even if people disagree about a specific application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I've talked about this stuff, I've always acknowledged that there's risk. That's why I really only recommend this kind of deal when you're 99% certain about what you're getting. I've also pointed out on numerous occasions that the risk of getting a bust or disappointment is offset by the upside of getting a longer career. If you're right about Peterson, you get 3-4 years max of great production. If you're right about Richardson, you potentially get 6-10 years of great production. This illustrates why a team that is able to consistently identify the right young players to target can accumulate such a staggering amount of value. If you're always taking the young player and you're always right about your calls, you're going to crush a risk-averse team that plays it safe and pays full price for players who are 50-75% through their prime. The flipside is that if you're consistently wrong about your calls, you're going to get dominated by those same risk-averse teams. Managing a dynasty team is an endless series of decisions that test your ability to assess player value. The reason that I favor the Richardson side of the Richardson/Peterson debate is precisely because I'm completely sold on the player in question. Right or wrong, my personal opinion is that Richardson isn't Reggie Bush or Charles Rogers. You might not believe that Trent Richardson is a superstar, but anyone would have to concede that a 21 year old superstar is worth more than a 27 year old superstar. The general principles are beyond refutation even if people disagree about a specific application.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the % play is not the correct play, sometimes you just have to trust your eyes and your gut. If you always do, yeah, you'll get into trouble, but if I feel that strongly about something I would rather be wrong with the player on my team than wrong with him dominating on someone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the beauty of dynasty. Everyone has their own way of looking at things and what they feel is the best way to build a team. Some prefer to win titles others prefer to maintain the most value possible. Some are willing to traded many guys and picks for a stud they know will help them win titles now while knowing in the future they will have to sacrifice part of their future. In 2006 I traded Gore, D-Williams and 3 future 1st round picks for Tomlinson and Gates. I won the title in 2006, 2009 and 2010 with the help of those 2 players. I also nearly won it both in 2007 and 2008 as well. I knew that I was going to lose valuable young future assets in Gore and Williams but at the time I was trading the future to try and win now. I remember hating this traded in 2008 when D-Williams broke out and scored 20 TD's and 1 of my draft picks I traded would have netted me Ray Rice.Obviously anyone who takes Peterson that high is taking the best player for the next few years. No one can say that is right or wrong. I rememeber in 1997 when I did my 1st dynasty startup my 1st pick was Emmitt Smith who alraedy was in the league several years but I wanted to win now and I did winning in 1998 and 1999 so to me it was worth it. A lot of the younger players (IE RYAN MATHEWS) you take over guys like Peterson last year in start ups and how did that work out ? The sure fire young stud turned into a dud while Peterson was king of the mountain.There is no right or wrong answer here to each their own the most important thing is picking the right players that fit your style and strategy and avoiding the minefields of busts which can be both old and young players a like.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the % play is not the correct play, sometimes you just have to trust your eyes and your gut. If you always do, yeah, you'll get into trouble, but if I feel that strongly about something I would rather be wrong with the player on my team than wrong with him dominating on someone else's.

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. Edited by SSOG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep bringing up Tomlinson vs. Peterson. That's great. People who traded Tomlinson straight up for Peterson are no doubt thrilled. How about you ask the guys who traded Tomlinson for Reggie Bush. Or the guys who swapped Harrison, Moss, or Owens for Charles Rodgers. Again, I agree with you that there's no way I'd take Peterson in the top 5. I just think your cherry picked examples are absurd and non-representative of the full range of possible outcomes here.

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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the % play is not the correct play, sometimes you just have to trust your eyes and your gut. If you always do, yeah, you'll get into trouble, but if I feel that strongly about something I would rather be wrong with the player on my team than wrong with him dominating on someone else's.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes the % play is not the correct play, sometimes you just have to trust your eyes and your gut. If you always do, yeah, you'll get into trouble, but if I feel that strongly about something I would rather be wrong with the player on my team than wrong with him dominating on someone else's.

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.

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.

From my experience, I have done a lot better with my "roll the dice" mentality than the conservative folks who are just "playing it straight and just making a steady string of good, sound decisions." Although people love to use a poker analogy, I really don't think the percentages from a deck of cards are comparable to the unknown variables that can come into play with FF. I think a better comparison might be horse racing, where the favorite wins about 33% of the time. If you always play the favorite statistically you will win more races than someone who does not. However, those who make money in that sport (and there are a few) are the less risk adverse types.

That said, no (using your example) I doubt I would take Crabtree in the 1st no matter how much I liked him. However, if he was on my target list and I projected him as (let's say) a early-to-mid 3rd round pick, I would probably take him at 2.07 (if that were my pick and I couldn't trade down) rather than wait until 3.08 where he might be gone. Would that be a good, smart percentage play? No, but I would get the player I really wanted and it would be worth to me to overpay and have him on my roster rather than watch him beat me over the next 5+ years on an opponents squad. Again not a strategy for everyone, but it has worked for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...