Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

Contrary to what his posts taken literally suggest, I don't think EBF is advocating that anyone should trade 2 28 year old Adrian Peterson equivalents for one Trent Richardson or that he himself would pay that price. For one, the trade value of 2 28 year old Adrian Petersons right now would be immense and could buy Trent Richardson and then some. This is tantamount to saying he would spend any amount to acquire Richardson (no matter how absurd), and I don't think that is the case. Reading between the lines, I think the point EBF is making (stated in terms of a trade) is that because he would need almost 2 Peterson equivalents in production to equal what he thinks Richardson will produce over his career, Richardson is worth much more than Peterson and should be ranked as such. SSOG seems to be saying the same thing (ranking Richardson top 5 vs top 15 for Peterson), putting both on the same side on the matter from what I can tell.That said, the hyperbole has set off a very interesting back and forth conceptual discussion on different/better ways to manage risk and to accumulate value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

2009 - Hakeem Nicks at 5.06 and Percy Harvin at 6.01. http://football22.myfantasyleague.com/2009/options?L=13679&O=17&DISPLAY=CONFERENCE01

2009 - Trent Richardson with the 73rd pick. Andrew Luck with the 152nd pick. http://football15.myfantasyleague.com/2009/options?L=42903&O=17

2010 - Demaryius Thomas with the 39th pick. http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2010/options?L=74815&O=17

2012 - Doug Martin with the 64th pick. http://football27.myfantasyleague.com/2011/options?L=74696&O=17

There are some duds in there too and some mediocre picks, but there would be busts even if I had only been drafting established veterans. Some times those guys inexplicably fall off a cliff too (as any Fitzgerald owner could tell you). The fact that Reggie Bush and Jonathan Stewart are used as the worst case scenario examples actually indicates why this strategy can be so solid. I took Bush at 1.03 in one league before he was drafted and while some of the other players taken in that round have clearly outshined him since then, he has given me quite a few good ppg seasons over the years and is still on my roster after all this time. And that's a guy who has definitely not lived up to his billing. I took Stewart high in a couple league and he's been a disappointment, but there's still plenty of time for him to repay my faith and he's sustained pretty decent trade value throughout his whole career even if the production hasn't warranted it.

I am not saying that I always get it right, but in general when I have an extremely high level of confidence in a draft prospect or young player, it's pretty rare that he becomes a major disappointment. One of the only reliable ways to acquire top talent at reasonable prices in dynasty leagues is to pounce before the player reveals the extent of his talent to the entire FF community. The fact that some owners need to wait and see before they make a big investment in a prospect is really exploitable IF you are able to consistently make good calls about which prospects are legit. I have some leaks as an FF player, but overconfidence in draft prospects or unproven young players is actually not something that has been a big problem in my drafts in recent years. In fact, getting in early on guys like Martin, Thomas, and Harvin is almost the sole reason why some of my teams have been competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to what his posts taken literally suggest, I don't think EBF is advocating that anyone should trade 2 28 year old Adrian Peterson equivalents for one Trent Richardson or that he himself would pay that price. For one, the trade value of 2 28 year old Adrian Petersons right now would be immense and could buy Trent Richardson and then some. This is tantamount to saying he would spend any amount to acquire Richardson (no matter how absurd), and I don't think that is the case.

Reading between the lines, I think the point EBF is making (stated in terms of a trade) is that because he would need almost 2 Peterson equivalents in production to equal what he thinks Richardson will produce over his career, Richardson is worth much more than Peterson and should be ranked as such. SSOG seems to be saying the same thing (ranking Richardson top 5 vs top 15 for Peterson), putting both on the same side on the matter from what I can tell.

That said, the hyperbole has set off a very interesting back and forth conceptual discussion on different/better ways to manage risk and to accumulate value.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's only one guy who is the same age and of same skill level as Adrian, so the question becomes "is Trent worth Adrian and Calvin?"NoBut like ebf I'm on board with overpaying for Trent. I'd give Doug Martin and a mid/late 1st for him. Most people would expect the 1st on the other side of the ledger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin is a WR, which is a bit different. A better example might be someone like Arian Foster. It might be a stretch to say Trent is worth Foster + ADP, but probably not as huge as you'd first think.

Oh, it'd be huge. I'll take 2-3 years of what I think AD and Foster will do over the best case scenario for Richardson without blinking an eye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin is a WR, which is a bit different. A better example might be someone like Arian Foster. It might be a stretch to say Trent is worth Foster + ADP, but probably not as huge as you'd first think.

Oh, it'd be huge. I'll take 2-3 years of what I think AD and Foster will do over the best case scenario for Richardson without blinking an eye.
Don't really want to go down this road again, but this is what people would've said in 2007 if you had said that Adrian Peterson is worth Tomlinson + Westbrook.What you lose on the front end is made up on the back end. Basically, you're getting the same number of elite seasons, just at different times. Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calvin is a WR, which is a bit different. A better example might be someone like Arian Foster. It might be a stretch to say Trent is worth Foster + ADP, but probably not as huge as you'd first think.

Oh, it'd be huge. I'll take 2-3 years of what I think AD and Foster will do over the best case scenario for Richardson without blinking an eye.
Don't really want to go down this road again, but this is what people would've said in 2007 if you had said that Adrian Peterson is worth Tomlinson + Westbrook.What you lose on the front end is made up on the back end. Basically, you're getting the same number of elite seasons, just at different times. Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.
The front end is more valuable than the back end. I know I can win championships now with AD and Foster. I don't know if I can win championships now or in the future with Richardson. I will worry about years 4-6 two years from now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.

The front end is more valuable than the back end. I know I can win championships now with AD and Foster. I don't know if I can win championships now or in the future with Richardson. I will worry about years 4-6 two years from now.
(not sure if I am using multiquote correctly here, apologies if not)AGREED. I think the consolidation of talent at one time is a concept that is not addressed enough. Present value >>> future value when it comes to this concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not depend on the rest of your roster. You might know that you can't win titles now even with ADP and Foster

Maybe, maybe not, but I would sure like to be able to try.

For years I owned LT and not much else in a 6 keeper and he pretty much single handedly got me to the playoffs every year (I was in a rather weak division). Once in the playoffs I usually didn't advance beyond the first round but as we all know once you reach the playoffs anything can happen in a head-to-head matchup.

Personally I think with ADP and Foster and a half-assed QB, I could then probably get some marginal players at WR and TE and could probably win enough games to qualify for the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not depend on the rest of your roster. You might know that you can't win titles now even with ADP and Foster

I think I could get more for AD and Foster than just Richardson if I was in rebuild mode.
The difference is that you wouldn't be looking to get anything for Richardson if you were in rebuild mode.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not depend on the rest of your roster. You might know that you can't win titles now even with ADP and Foster

I think I could get more for AD and Foster than just Richardson if I was in rebuild mode.
The difference is that you wouldn't be looking to get anything for Richardson if you were in rebuild mode.
I don't necessarily agree. Whether I'm in win-now or rebuild mode, I think the AD/Foster side is more valuable. If I had Richardson and slop I would take AD/Foster for him and be confident I could flip them to be in a better position than I would be if I just sat on Richardson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.

I think the consolidation of talent at one time is a concept that is not addressed enough. Present value >>> future value when it comes to this concept.

Two concepts there sort of related..

Simply keeping the old players doesn't mean you lack a centerpiece in the future. During those years you have Peterson and Foster, it's not as if the rest of your roster is at a standstill. One can easily reap the benefits of having stars in their prime while simultaneously restocking from the draft or other trades.

I guess it's sort of an iceberg effect, for lack of a better term. You keep your starters/studs as long as you see no imminent signs of decline; meanwhile, everything you're always looking to turn over everything beneath the surface--your backups, roster stashes, draft picks--into their inevitable successors.

To me, that's what builds dynasties. It isn't whether you have a centerpiece at X point in time; it's one's ability to sustain that year after year by refreshing old talent with new while simultaneously benefiting from the old talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.

The front end is more valuable than the back end. I know I can win championships now with AD and Foster. I don't know if I can win championships now or in the future with Richardson. I will worry about years 4-6 two years from now.
(not sure if I am using multiquote correctly here, apologies if not)AGREED. I think the consolidation of talent at one time is a concept that is not addressed enough. Present value >>> future value when it comes to this concept.
I agree with this also.What gets lost it seems is that EBF evaluates the value of AD to TR in the long term as if AD will be putting up zero's years 4-6 (which considering the player AD is I think he will be good enough to still earn the carries to be a RB2 during that time frame like Emmit Smith did). There is no consideration for the value of the back up you may already have on your roster that will replace AD with in those years either. It also does not take into consideration that TR may not be putting up the numbers one expects from him next season 4-6 seasons from now. A lot of things could happen over that time frame that would change that expectation.Maybe it would be more useful to talk about this evaluation of relative value by comparing Adrian Peterson with Alfred Morris. Would anyone be saying that you need to trade AD+Foster for Morris because of how Morris will perform in years 4-6? :confused: I do think I understand EBF's perspective on this but Richardson is a special player I think who may be one of the elite players at the RB position like Peterson is now, like LT, Faulk, Edge were before. But honestly Richardson could have a career not quite at that level. I like his chances better than any of the other young Rbs right now because of what I have seen from him and how the coaching staff and organization coming together for Cleveland right now. But you put just about any other young RB into this conversation and I do not see FF owners going quite so overboard on the (percieved) value of their younger RB compared to Peterson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets lost it seems is that EBF evaluates the value of AD to TR in the long term as if AD will be putting up zero's years 4-6 (which considering the player AD is I think he will be good enough to still earn the carries to be a RB2 during that time frame like Emmit Smith did). There is no consideration for the value of the back up you may already have on your roster that will replace AD with in those years either.

There is no consideration of that because it cancels out. If you have Peterson, you can draft other RBs to groom for the future. However, if you have Richardson, you can still draft other RBs for the future. A big part of the reason why Richardson is more valuable than Peterson is because having him on your roster defers the need to find a replacement, allowing you to invest all of your draft and trade resources wherever you see fit instead of forcing you to invest them in finding a RB to take over for your declining star. Again, it's a really easy decision if you think the ppg outlook for these two is similar moving forward.The team that spends its early pick on Peterson will have to find another great back soon just to maintain its current level of performance. The team that spends its early pick on Richardson will not have that problem, and thus will gain a value advantage by being able to apply its resources to improving another aspect of the team. So instead of using your 1.01 draft pick to replace your crumbling RB1, you could use that on a QB1 or a WR1. And thus you can see how teams that are constantly stacking value instead of just maintaining their current level are able to gradually accumulate a huge advantage.

But you put just about any other young RB into this conversation and I do not see FF owners going quite so overboard on the (percieved) value of their younger RB compared to Peterson.

That's the whole point though. Nobody is saying that you should trade Peterson for any half-decent young RB. What I'm suggesting is that in the case of two players who have similar talent level and ppg expectancies, a player with 5-10 seasons left is worth far more than a player with 1-4 seasons left. You might not believe that Richardson is on par with Peterson, but the general principle is irrefutable even if you don't think it applies to this particular case. All of this has already been said within the last few pages. Just repeating myself at this point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.

The front end is more valuable than the back end. I know I can win championships now with AD and Foster. I don't know if I can win championships now or in the future with Richardson. I will worry about years 4-6 two years from now.
(not sure if I am using multiquote correctly here, apologies if not)

AGREED.

I think the consolidation of talent at one time is a concept that is not addressed enough. Present value >>> future value when it comes to this concept.

I agree with this also.

What gets lost it seems is that EBF evaluates the value of AD to TR in the long term as if AD will be putting up zero's years 4-6 (which considering the player AD is I think he will be good enough to still earn the carries to be a RB2 during that time frame like Emmit Smith did). There is no consideration for the value of the back up you may already have on your roster that will replace AD with in those years either. It also does not take into consideration that TR may not be putting up the numbers one expects from him next season 4-6 seasons from now. A lot of things could happen over that time frame that would change that expectation.

Maybe it would be more useful to talk about this evaluation of relative value by comparing Adrian Peterson with Alfred Morris. Would anyone be saying that you need to trade AD+Foster for Morris because of how Morris will perform in years 4-6? :confused:

I do think I understand EBF's perspective on this but Richardson is a special player I think who may be one of the elite players at the RB position like Peterson is now, like LT, Faulk, Edge were before. But honestly Richardson could have a career not quite at that level. I like his chances better than any of the other young Rbs right now because of what I have seen from him and how the coaching staff and organization coming together for Cleveland right now. But you put just about any other young RB into this conversation and I do not see FF owners going quite so overboard on the (percieved) value of their younger RB compared to Peterson.

Richardson shouldn't be mentioned with the other backs cause nothing about his game and his measurables compare to the other players. The only thing elite is the play of his o-line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, I'd probably be inclined to take two awesome old players over one awesome young player just because having them both at the same time would make you such an overwhelming title favorite, although the downside is that you'd be missing a centerpiece a couple years down the line when your old guys have become useless.

The front end is more valuable than the back end. I know I can win championships now with AD and Foster. I don't know if I can win championships now or in the future with Richardson. I will worry about years 4-6 two years from now.
(not sure if I am using multiquote correctly here, apologies if not)

AGREED.

I think the consolidation of talent at one time is a concept that is not addressed enough. Present value >>> future value when it comes to this concept.

I agree with this also.

What gets lost it seems is that EBF evaluates the value of AD to TR in the long term as if AD will be putting up zero's years 4-6 (which considering the player AD is I think he will be good enough to still earn the carries to be a RB2 during that time frame like Emmit Smith did). There is no consideration for the value of the back up you may already have on your roster that will replace AD with in those years either. It also does not take into consideration that TR may not be putting up the numbers one expects from him next season 4-6 seasons from now. A lot of things could happen over that time frame that would change that expectation.

Maybe it would be more useful to talk about this evaluation of relative value by comparing Adrian Peterson with Alfred Morris. Would anyone be saying that you need to trade AD+Foster for Morris because of how Morris will perform in years 4-6? :confused:

I do think I understand EBF's perspective on this but Richardson is a special player I think who may be one of the elite players at the RB position like Peterson is now, like LT, Faulk, Edge were before. But honestly Richardson could have a career not quite at that level. I like his chances better than any of the other young Rbs right now because of what I have seen from him and how the coaching staff and organization coming together for Cleveland right now. But you put just about any other young RB into this conversation and I do not see FF owners going quite so overboard on the (percieved) value of their younger RB compared to Peterson.

Richardson shouldn't be mentioned with the other backs cause nothing about his game and his measurables compare to the other players. The only thing elite is the play of his o-line.

Richardson played with out much practice preseason and he didn't play in preseason at all. He injured his ribs and that certainly limited his performance. I think most people are expecting him to perform better statistically in his 2nd season as most will not project him to have further injuries.

If you do not think he is of a talent level similar to those RB you certainly could be right about that. However he was drafted as high as he was for a reason and that puts him in the same company. However I could also say that Ricky Williams, Carnell Williams, Cedric Benson and others have been drafted this high also and did not have careers that I would call elite for a sustained period of time (Ricky did have a couple monster years before early retirement.

A lot of this evaluation is very subjective. For me Richardson has the draft pedigree, I liked what I saw from him as a player in games prior to the rib injury, I really like how the team is building around Richardson based on their recent coaching hires. To me that is a powerful combination that I want to be a part of. However Doug Martin is also in a good situation and I can see Martin performing at a similarly high level without the same percieved value cost that comes with Richardson.

If you are just looking at raw numbers then no Richardson has not earned the right to be discussed as a elite player compared to the others I mentioned. We have not seen what he can do if healthy for a full season yet to know what the ceiling might be like statistically.

This was my projection for Richardson before he had to have surgery that caused him to miss all of preseason 1624-1974 combined yards 9-16 TDs. I will likely have him at this level or slightly higher because of the recent coaching changes.

Edited by Biabreakable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets lost it seems is that EBF evaluates the value of AD to TR in the long term as if AD will be putting up zero's years 4-6 (which considering the player AD is I think he will be good enough to still earn the carries to be a RB2 during that time frame like Emmit Smith did). There is no consideration for the value of the back up you may already have on your roster that will replace AD with in those years either.

There is no consideration of that because it cancels out. If you have Peterson, you can draft other RBs to groom for the future. However, if you have Richardson, you can still draft other RBs for the future. A big part of the reason why Richardson is more valuable than Peterson is because having him on your roster defers the need to find a replacement, allowing you to invest all of your draft and trade resources wherever you see fit instead of forcing you to invest them in finding a RB to take over for your declining star. Again, it's a really easy decision if you think the ppg outlook for these two is similar moving forward.The team that spends its early pick on Peterson will have to find another great back soon just to maintain its current level of performance. The team that spends its early pick on Richardson will not have that problem, and thus will gain a value advantage by being able to apply its resources to improving another aspect of the team. So instead of using your 1.01 draft pick to replace your crumbling RB1, you could use that on a QB1 or a WR1. And thus you can see how teams that are constantly stacking value instead of just maintaining their current level are able to gradually accumulate a huge advantage.

But you put just about any other young RB into this conversation and I do not see FF owners going quite so overboard on the (percieved) value of their younger RB compared to Peterson.

That's the whole point though. Nobody is saying that you should trade Peterson for any half-decent young RB. What I'm suggesting is that in the case of two players who have similar talent level and ppg expectancies, a player with 5-10 seasons left is worth far more than a player with 1-4 seasons left. You might not believe that Richardson is on par with Peterson, but the general principle is irrefutable even if you don't think it applies to this particular case. All of this has already been said within the last few pages. Just repeating myself at this point.
Well I have Peterson breaking Eric Dickersons record for rushing yards in a season in 2013. So because I value the next season over any season to follow it I have Peterson as the #1 RB in 2013 and I also see Peterson offering a significant VBD/PPG advantage to any other RB including Richardson for 2013. Considering that Peterson has a career average of something like 1800 combined yards a season I consider that his floor. Peterson had 2314 combined yards last season. He had 40 catches which seems like a number to expect if he plays all year. Peterson had 43 and 36 catches with Favre in 2009 2010 2011 was shortened by the injury and a team and offense which was all around inept. I do not see Ponder being worse in 2013 or moving forward so I think Peterson has 35-50 catches a year over the next 2-3 seasons. The thing that is most glaring about Petersons receiving yards are only 50% of what they were with Favre. Defenses are so focused on Peterson that he does not get as open as he would against a defense actually worried about the QB. So for the next 2 seasons I have Peterson at 1800-2400 yards. In 2015 I would expect some fall off to 1600-2000 yards. I do not evaluate based on PPR either. So the way we look at that is diffrent.I definitely need to put more work in on my Richardson projection but I had him at 1624-1974 combined yards 9-16 TDs as a rookie and that is pretty much what I expect until he proves his ceiling to be higher than that. I am very optimistic about the coaching situation being an upgrade but I still need to see that in action as Richardson had 1317 in an injured and poorly managed rookie season. The 51 catches on 70 targets is good proof of Richardsons ability as a receiver and I could see him having some 70-80 catch years with Norv Turner. That is where I see Richardson getting to possibly 2k combined yards because of a lot of catches and hopefully more effective runs. Obviously 30-40 receptions would be a huge difference making up 300-400 yards on the PPR alone.So from my perspective the gap is higher between Peterson and Richardson over the next 2 seasons than it would be in a PPR scoring system. I am guessing this is part of why SSOG has Rice so high relative to Peterson because of the PPR. In non PPR Peterson has a 3-6 PPG advantage over every other RB because of the yardage that is otherwise mitigated by the 20-30 more receptions.As far as the years 2016-2020 are concerned I see Peterson falling off after age 30 much like most RBs have but I still think he has the talent to maintain a 200-300 carry season even in RBBC of sorts and be useful as a RB3 and flex option in those years like LT Thomas Jones and others have done in their later years. The replacement RB1 would be someone the team needed to already have or aquire within the next 2-3 seasons. How good the replacement is would be compared to Richardson in those seasons but Peterson would still have value to the roster. Edited by Biabreakable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am guessing this is part of why SSOG has Rice so high relative to Peterson because of the PPR. In non PPR Peterson has a 3-6 PPG advantage over every other RB because of the yardage that is otherwise mitigated by the 20-30 more receptions.

I actually don't play ppr. I'd even go so far as to say I am hugely ANTI-ppr. I do play yardage-heavy, though. I don't have Rice "so high" relative to Peterson, I have him a couple of spots ahead. This year was an outlier, but Rice usually scores just a hair behind Peterson- close enough for the 2 year age difference to come into play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

2009 - Hakeem Nicks at 5.06 and Percy Harvin at 6.01. http://football22.myfantasyleague.com/2009/options?L=13679&O=17&DISPLAY=CONFERENCE01

2009 - Trent Richardson with the 73rd pick. Andrew Luck with the 152nd pick. http://football15.myfantasyleague.com/2009/options?L=42903&O=17

2010 - Demaryius Thomas with the 39th pick. http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2010/options?L=74815&O=17

2012 - Doug Martin with the 64th pick. http://football27.myfantasyleague.com/2011/options?L=74696&O=17

There are some duds in there too and some mediocre picks, but there would be busts even if I had only been drafting established veterans. Some times those guys inexplicably fall off a cliff too (as any Fitzgerald owner could tell you). The fact that Reggie Bush and Jonathan Stewart are used as the worst case scenario examples actually indicates why this strategy can be so solid. I took Bush at 1.03 in one league before he was drafted and while some of the other players taken in that round have clearly outshined him since then, he has given me quite a few good ppg seasons over the years and is still on my roster after all this time. And that's a guy who has definitely not lived up to his billing. I took Stewart high in a couple league and he's been a disappointment, but there's still plenty of time for him to repay my faith and he's sustained pretty decent trade value throughout his whole career even if the production hasn't warranted it.

I am not saying that I always get it right, but in general when I have an extremely high level of confidence in a draft prospect or young player, it's pretty rare that he becomes a major disappointment. One of the only reliable ways to acquire top talent at reasonable prices in dynasty leagues is to pounce before the player reveals the extent of his talent to the entire FF community. The fact that some owners need to wait and see before they make a big investment in a prospect is really exploitable IF you are able to consistently make good calls about which prospects are legit. I have some leaks as an FF player, but overconfidence in draft prospects or unproven young players is actually not something that has been a big problem in my drafts in recent years. In fact, getting in early on guys like Martin, Thomas, and Harvin is almost the sole reason why some of my teams have been competitive.

We aren't talking about acquiring young talent at a reasonable price, though. We're talking about taking Richardson in the top 5. I think he's worth it, but it's not like you're getting him on the cheap. I'm a huge fan of spending 3rd or 4th round startup picks on "unproven" players, but the top 5 is a different animal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
:goodposting:

Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we really debating Peterson as the #1 dynasty RB? That's insane. The guy is a brilliant, once in a lifetime talent. I drafted him as a rookie and love watching him play. But no way is Adrian Peterson the #1 dynasty RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
:goodposting:

Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

Wayne outscored V Jax in 2010 and 2012 in PPR leagues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
:goodposting:

Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

Technically we were both wrong (neither 3 years in a row, nor 2 out of 3 for VJax). Wayne topped VJax in 2009 and 2010 but not 2011. Obviously 2011 in Indy was something unexpected. If Peyton is healthy I think I win that bet, but we're stuck with a push.

The bet did not include 2012. I know you want it to. So bad. But I clearly said "this year, next year, and the year after" in the year 2009.

Still that was adorable, and I thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
:goodposting:

Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

Wayne outscored V Jax in 2010 and 2012 in PPR leagues.
The original debate spanned several pages and several weeks, but I did specify that I was only talking about non-PPR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I guess you did say next. So you can take credit for non-PPR. But I still think it was close.

Of course it was close. It was always going to be close. I agreed at the time that I expected Wayne and VJax to score comparable points going forward, with Wayne having a slight edge in the short term (2009 and 2010) while Jackson would pull away later (2011 and 2012). I talked a lot about exit value, saying even if Wayne and VJax scored identically over the next 3 years (and they did, with VJax getting the edge in PPG but missing 11 games to holdout), at the end of that 3 year span, one of those guys would be 30 and the other would be 34 and they'd both be coming off of a comparably productive 3-year stretch.I agree that it's surprising how highly Wayne is still valued (and equally surprising how low VJax is valued). With that said, I wouldn't touch Wayne in a dynasty, while I'd still be grabbing VJax wherever I could.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun... cumulative VBD for 2010-2012, using actual ppg (standard) and pro-rated to 48 games. Obviously not everyone was even in the league for all three years, but I didn't try to clean that up. (Calvin is just such a beast.)Calvin Johnson 327Andre Johnson 189A.J. Green 188Roddy White 188Julio Jones 184Greg Jennings 163Wes Welker 159Terrell Owens 156Vincent Jackson 154Victor Cruz 151Brandon Marshal 151Marques Colston 148Percy Harvin 143Mike Wallace 140Dez Bryant 136Hakeem Nicks 123Dwayne Bowe 116Brandon Lloyd 94Reggie Wayne 91Steve Johnson 85Miles Austin 82Larry Fitzgeral 77Jeremy Maclin 75Jordy Nelson 74DeSean Jackson 70Malcom Floyd 68Kenny Britt 67Demaryius Thoma 55T.Y. Hilton 53Steve Smith 51Mike Williams 47Pierre Garcon 39Lance Moore 34Torrey Smith 31Michael Crabtre 30Santonio Holmes 27Denarius Moore 10Anquan Boldin 6Santana Moss 1James Jones 0

Edited by wdcrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious challenge: I want to hear some reasons from everyone else why VJax shouldn't be the #4 dynasty WR going forward. Who would you all rank #4 instead?

I would expect Reggie Wayne to score more points this year, next year, and the year after.
Wayne's only topped double-digit TDs twice (12 and 10). He's only topped 1200 yards three times (1210, 1310, 1510). Wayne's 12 TD season came in Manning's 800-TD year. He's got an incredibly high floor, and he might manage to top VJax this year, but no way does he top VJax in each of the next 3 seasons. In fact, I'd bet on VJax to top him in 2 of the next 3 seasons. After that, the fact that Jackson is 4 years younger, has radically more potential, and is more talented as of today gives him the edge for me.
:goodposting:

Sorry, discussion in the dynasty buy low thread inspired me to go back and revisit the Great VJax Debate of Aught Nine.

Wayne outscored V Jax in 2010 and 2012 in PPR leagues.
The original debate spanned several pages and several weeks, but I did specify that I was only talking about non-PPR.
I think sometimes in these threads, people end up simply talking past each other because they are playing in leagues with different scoring systems. VJax has only had 2 seasons of over 60 catches and never had more than 72. For people who play in PPR, it is a legitimate concern and reason to be down on him. Reggie Wayne has had 9 straight seasons of over 75 catches, including going over 100 catches 3 of the past 4 years.

This seems like one of those debates where both people are correct in their analysis based on their league of choice. Reggie has averaged probably something like 30-36 catches a year more than VJax, which is the equivalent of 5-6 extra TDs in comparison to VJax.

In standard scoring, I'd take VJax easily. It's much closer in PPR. I'd probably still take VJax because he's a couple years younger, but there is a good chance Wayne outperforms him again in PPR scoring in 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like one of those debates where both people are correct in their analysis based on their league of choice.

I do play in PPR more than standard but that's not what happened here. My proclamation broke apart when Manning got hurt, end of story. One of SSOG's arguments against Wayne was his TD high water mark came when Manning had 800 TDs, so my retort was I expected Manning to have at least 600 TDs each year going forward. Obviously that didn't happen. VJax never became that elite untouchable WR, which was a key reason to prefer him, but he was consistently WR1; equally consistent to Wayne. Trying to apply that to players now, it would make me feel a little better as a Roddy White owner, as the situation matches pretty well. May his decline be just as gradual. White vs. Nicks or Britt would be an interesting debate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what everyone's doing with guys like Rice, Mccoy, Chris Johnson - Is Chris Johnson worth dealing for say a David Wilson?

I have Pierce as well as Rice, and plan on riding Ray Rice into the ground. When that times comes, I'll have his replacement ready.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am guessing this is part of why SSOG has Rice so high relative to Peterson because of the PPR. In non PPR Peterson has a 3-6 PPG advantage over every other RB because of the yardage that is otherwise mitigated by the 20-30 more receptions.

I actually don't play ppr. I'd even go so far as to say I am hugely ANTI-ppr. I do play yardage-heavy, though. I don't have Rice "so high" relative to Peterson, I have him a couple of spots ahead. This year was an outlier, but Rice usually scores just a hair behind Peterson- close enough for the 2 year age difference to come into play.
I like Rice a lot as well and I think he is one of the RB I would consider in the elite tier, although for me he is still slightly lower than AD and Richardson based on pedigree. The 2 years of age are very significant, however not significant enough to have Rice ranked higher than AD because of age in the way I evaluate players. It certainly is in Rice's favor.Sorry if I misunderstood your reasoning on this. PPR would certainly favor Rice over AD.I am pretty against PPR scoring because I consider it to be a double dipping statistic. In the case of RB a reception is usually more yards on average for them than a rushing attempt is. To give each reception +10 yards on top of that really skews value towards the better receiving RB than it should in my opinion.As far as this season being an outlier for Peterson it certainly could be. Or the 2012 season was the new normal for Peterson coming back stronger after his injury. If you look at what he did after week 6 (where Peterson says he felt 100% healthy) that just may be the new normal for him over the next couple seasons. I will likely temper my expectations somewhat after things have settled in. Recently I realized that the Vikings team was the 2nd most healthy team in the league for example. Now that is an outlier as well. At the same time the medical staff of the Vikings may be one of the best in the league, so that ability to keep players healthy and speed their recovery may be something that is somewhat reliable and consistent as well. Not sure would have to look back at more seasons than 2012 to get a better idea about that.In any case as I already said I have Petersons floor at 1800 combined yards based on past performance and with the idea that this is the new normal for AD moving forward. That number would normally be the median instead of the floor in the way I do projections. But for AD I believe him when he says he will break Dickersons record in 2013 and I also believe the Vikings will give AD every opportunity to do so if he remains healthy.That being said I do like Rice a lot and think he deserves to be considered in the same company even though Rice will not likely every get close to AD in rushing yards, the receiving yards do make up a lot of ground. Just not as much as it would with PPR in play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what everyone's doing with guys like Rice, Mccoy, Chris Johnson - Is Chris Johnson worth dealing for say a David Wilson?

I have Pierce as well as Rice, and plan on riding Ray Rice into the ground. When that times comes, I'll have his replacement ready.
McCoy is like 24 and Rice turned 26 yesterday. I guess that's old now. Doug Martin is 24 BTW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what everyone's doing with guys like Rice, Mccoy, Chris Johnson - Is Chris Johnson worth dealing for say a David Wilson?

I have Pierce as well as Rice, and plan on riding Ray Rice into the ground. When that times comes, I'll have his replacement ready.
McCoy is like 24 and Rice turned 26 yesterday. I guess that's old now. Doug Martin is 24 BTW.
rice: 1600 touchesmartin: 300 touchesthey are the same to you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious what everyone's doing with guys like Rice, Mccoy, Chris Johnson - Is Chris Johnson worth dealing for say a David Wilson?

I have Pierce as well as Rice, and plan on riding Ray Rice into the ground. When that times comes, I'll have his replacement ready.
McCoy is like 24 and Rice turned 26 yesterday. I guess that's old now. Doug Martin is 24 BTW.
rice: 1600 touchesmartin: 300 touchesthey are the same to you?
A few pages back, we had a discussion on how much workload matters when projecting decline (spoilers: little to nothing). You can read the discussion and draw your own conclusions if you like- it starts right here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a very interesting twitter discussion that reminded me why I don't have very interesting twitter discussions more often; my thought process does not distill down to 140 characters with any sort of grace.

Anyway, it was a discussion of Gronk vs. Green. I mentioned that a case could be made for Gronk at #1 overall as only Calvin has averaged more points over the last 3 years or over the last two years, and only Calvin and Marshall averaged more ppg this year. Which spawned a discussion of Gronk vs. AJ Green, and who was more valuable. Taking away the names, though, I think it makes a very interesting theory question: Imagine there are two players, both of whom are elite, both of whom are guaranteed to score the exact same number of points over the next 10 years (you have a crystal ball that told you the season-ending totals of these two- and only these two- players), and both of whom are the exact same age. One plays TE, and one plays WR. Which would you take first in a startup?

Points to consider-

*TE is a lower scoring position in general

* WR typically has a higher perceived value (trade value)

*leagues start more WRs than TEs

Would league settings affect your decision, and if so, how? Possible roster settings include 1/2/3/1, 1/2/2/1, 1/2/4/1, no flex, TE-eligible flex, superflex, etc. How would these settings change your decision, or would your decision be the same regardless of lineups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a very interesting twitter discussion that reminded me why I don't have very interesting twitter discussions more often; my thought process does not distill down to 140 characters with any sort of grace.

Anyway, it was a discussion of Gronk vs. Green. I mentioned that a case could be made for Gronk at #1 overall as only Calvin has averaged more points over the last 3 years or over the last two years, and only Calvin and Marshall averaged more ppg this year. Which spawned a discussion of Gronk vs. AJ Green, and who was more valuable. Taking away the names, though, I think it makes a very interesting theory question: Imagine there are two players, both of whom are elite, both of whom are guaranteed to score the exact same number of points over the next 10 years (you have a crystal ball that told you the season-ending totals of these two- and only these two- players), and both of whom are the exact same age. One plays TE, and one plays WR. Which would you take first in a startup?

Points to consider-

*TE is a lower scoring position in general

* WR typically has a higher perceived value (trade value)

*leagues start more WRs than TEs

Would league settings affect your decision, and if so, how? Possible roster settings include 1/2/3/1, 1/2/2/1, 1/2/4/1, no flex, TE-eligible flex, superflex, etc. How would these settings change your decision, or would your decision be the same regardless of lineups?

The biggest factor is whether TE is required. In any league where TE is required, in the situation that you described above, I would absolutely take Gronk over Green, if they were both projected to remain top at their respective positions. I consider Gronk a first round pick in virtually every format. I think he's going to be on a lot of my teams next year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you have 1.3 and are choosing between Gronk and Green. You will use pick 3.3 in a 12 team to take whatever position (WR/TE) you don't take at 1.3. Which team is better Gronk/Cruz or Green/Hern. According to DLF ADP Hern is the best TE at 3.3 and Cruz is the best WR. I understand how logic might dictate to take the TE, but you put faces to picks and I would rather have the Green side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you have 1.3 and are choosing between Gronk and Green. You will use pick 3.3 in a 12 team to take whatever position (WR/TE) you don't take at 1.3. Which team is better Gronk/Cruz or Green/Hern. According to DLF ADP Hern is the best TE at 3.3 and Cruz is the best WR. I understand how logic might dictate to take the TE, but you put faces to picks and I would rather have the Green side.

I don't think this is a very balanced situation, though. A 2 team, 4 player draft is very flawed.If you miss out on Hernandez and have to go TE at 3.3, you're screwed. If you miss out on Cruz at 3.3 and have to go WR - you have plenty of options; Jordy, Cobb, Nicks, etc.In other words, change it to rounds 1 and 4 (assuming Hern is gone) and answer that question. Edited by Concept Coop
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...