Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

Second chances and the ability to withstand a moderately poor situation is worth a ton to me, and I value the players I feel confident will survive those kinds of situations above those I'm not sure about.

That is the key point for me as well. Guys like Decker, Stevie, Torrey, and Mike Williams are good NFL players. They will have long careers. But they are not ideal #1 receivers in the NFL. When the stars align perfectly for them, they can have WR1 seasons, but they are not guys who can endure any situation and still produce top 15 FF stats. If you really want an edge on the teams in your league, I don't think you want a guy like this as anything more than your WR3. The idea of enduring assets is pretty important to me when building my dynasty teams. I want to bet on talent that will last. But it's not that simple. I think guys like Antonio Brown, Andre Roberts, Nate Burleson, Steve Johnson, Santonio Holmes, and Kendall Wright have the talent to be useful FF players for a long time. They are very good NFL players and they will cash a lot of paychecks before their time is up. However, they are a level (or two) below guys like Demaryius Thomas and Julio Jones. They simply don't have the upside to ever become one of the top 5-6 receivers in the NFL. When I'm ranking players, I try to approach it roughly like this:Group 1: Elite young playersGroup 2: Elite old playersGroup 3: Good young playersGroup 4: Good old playersAnd that mostly explains why I have guys like Brown, Johnson, Nelson, Decker, and Williams where I do. They are good players. Not great players. Useful as complementary pieces. Not necessarily "core" players that are going to carry your team to a lot of wins without a good group around them. If you have them in a supporting role, as a RB2-RB3 or WR2-WR4, they can help you win games. But you shouldn't mistake them for frontline players. I think good FF owners have a similar mindset. I know that most of the horrendous trade offers I receive in my leagues are transparent attempts by other owners to jump up a level. The "Antonio Brown + three minor assets for Julio Jones" type of offers. Or, to use a real example of something that came through my inbox a couple days ago, Roethlisberger, Hardesty, B Gibson, and the 1.09 rookie pick (dev league) for Andrew Luck. :rolleyes: I think building great dynasty teams is largely about getting as many level one players as you can. If you start with an empty roster, you should be stoked to get a guy like Decker or Nelson who has a good chance to give you useful production for several years. But as you continue to accumulate value and as other teams in your league continue to pull away from the pack, you will want to relegate those guys to supporting roles or package them to jump up a level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really taking Shorts over all those WR's below him ? Can't see it.

IMO, there aren't that many guys who are younger and better.
It seems the only player you are abnormally high on is Shorts (and looking deeper Floyd and Givens). There are more players you are abnormally low on, like Nelson, Britt, Garcon, Decker, Jeffery, could go on. Do you think that's accurate?
And no Stevie Johnson on the list.
An oversight. Not a deliberate omission. I think I might have forgotten Maclin as well.I'm not especially high on either player, but they definitely belong on the list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Group 1: Elite young playersGroup 2: Elite old playersGroup 3: Good young playersGroup 4: Good old players

Funny. I just sat down and did my first full ranking ever -- on the RBs.Here's where I stopped:Prime of career guys I'd buy at the right price Richardson, Trent CLE RB Martin, Doug TBB RB Rice, Ray BAL RB Charles, Jamaal KCC RB Peterson, Adrian MIN RB Lynch, Marshawn SEA RB McCoy, LeSean PHI RB Spiller, C.J. BUF RB Morris, Alfred WAS RB Leshoure, Mikel DET RB Stewart, Jonathan CAR RB Mendenhall, Rashard PIT RB McFadden, Darren OAK RB Mathews, Ryan SDC RB Murray, DeMarco DAL RB Ridley, Stevan NEP RB Prospects and speculative buys I like Wilson, David NYG RB Pierce, Bernard BAL RB Ballard, Vick IND RB Jones, Felix DAL RB Ingram, Mark NOS RB Miller, Lamar MIA RB Turbin, Robert SEA RB Harris, DuJuan GBP RB Bolden, Brandon NEP RB Williams, Ryan ARI RB Hunter, Kendall SFO RB James, LaMichael SFO RB Blount, LeGarrette TBB RB Veteran players I like (1?-3 more years) Jones-Drew, Maurice JAC RB Foster, Arian HOU RB Forte, Matt CHI RB Johnson, Chris TEN RB Bush, Reggie MIA RB Gore, Frank SFO RB Sproles, Darren NOS RB Bradshaw, Ahmad NYG RB Jackson, Steven STL RB Williams, DeAngelo CAR RB Green-Ellis, BenJarvus CIN RB Moreno, Knowshon DEN RB Turner, Michael ATL RB McGahee, Willis DEN RB Jackson, Fred BUF RBProspects I don't like Tate, Ben HOU RB Brown, Bryce PHI RB Hillman, Ronnie DEN RB Richardson, Daryl STL RB Vereen, Shane NEP RB Pead, Isaiah STL RB Dwyer, Jonathan PIT RB Ivory, Christopher NOS RB Brown, Andre NYG RB Green, Alex GBP RB Helu, Roy WAS RB Polk, Chris PHI RBGuys I won't own Rodgers, Jacquizz ATL RB Greene, Shonn NYJ RB Wells, Beanie ARI RB Snelling, Jason ATL RB Powell, Bilal NYJ RB Jones, Taiwan OAK RB Thomas, Daniel MIA RB Bell, Joique DET RB Scott, Bernard CIN RB Carter, Delone IND RB Reece, Marcel OAK RB Bush, Michael CHI RB Tolbert, Mike CAR RB Thomas, Pierre NOS RB Woodhead, Danny NEP RB Brown, Donald IND RB Choice, Tashard BUF RB Best, Jahvid DET RB Stephens-Howling, LaRod ARI RB Goodson, Mike OAK RB Gerhart, Toby MIN RB Benson, Cedric GBP RB Jennings, Rashad JAC RB Tanner, Phillip DAL RB Hillis, Peyton KCC RB Redman, Isaac PIT RB Lewis, Dion PHI RB Hardesty, Montario CLE RB Gray, Cyrus KCC RB Cadet, Travaris NOS RB Royster, Evan WAS RB Draughn, Shaun KCC RB Owens, Montell JAC RB Peerman, Cedric CIN RB Parmele, Jalen JAC RB Stewart, Jeremy OAK RB Smith, Kevin DET RB I've never been able to mix those lists together -- there's no way to include everyone on one list in a way that does justice to the way I play dynasty.The guys on the bottom two lists have almost no value to me and I'd only pick them up off the WW long enough to flip them. And I don't really strive to do that. I'd rather have the roster spot for a guy I believe in.Conversely there are guys on the first three lists that have almost no market value that I own everywhere since they were WW available fairly recently (Bolden for example). Edited by wdcrob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several comments here.

1. This is where your passionate arguing in favor of Flacco officially jumped the shark for me.

2. Are we legitimizing QBR now for ranking QBs? I don't buy QBR as a useful metric.

3. Older players are much more than short-changed by your post. I went looking for all-time QBR stats when I saw this post and found only ESPN stats that go back only to 2008. So he has the 18th best qualified QBR since 2008? Is that good?

4. Speaking of which, where is the all-time QBR ranking you are citing? I don't find it at ESPN or PFR. But ESPN does have a listing of all-time best QBR seasons and games... where all-time means since 2008. Is that what you mean by NFL history?

5. Flacco's 5 seasons rank as #63 (2010), #66 (2011), #78 (2009), #110 (2012), and #124 (2008) since 2008. Again, is that supposed to be impressive? Here is a PFR post that shows at least 40 all-time QBs with much higher QBR than Flacco's, which makes it appear he might not even be in the top 75-100 all-time.

:penalty:

Pretty sure #1 happened much earlier. I'm referring to the traditional QBR that tops off at 159, not ESPN's new one out of 100. Don't trust either/any QBR as end all be all of anything. The only point is if Flacco has been terrible for so long why is this overall metric so good. It is not an acceptable proof he is a good QB, it is just evidence he is not an average one.

All time QBR is available at Pro Football Reference. Otto Graham, Dan Mario, Joe Flacco. I accept the ridiculousness of that list; my only point is that Joe is better than the haters give him credit.

Ah, so you are talking about passer rating. I wish PFR had all-time leaders for the advanced passing metrics, like Rate+. I can't find the exact definition, but I assume Rate+ is adjusted for era, opponent, etc. Because there is no all-time listing, I can't tell for sure, but I'm pretty sure Flacco would be nowhere near the top 20 in that metric.

As for your last point, I don't see any posters in this thread saying he is terrible, not in the top 20 of NFL QBs, etc., so I'm not sure who you would classify as a hater in this discussion. But I think most have him pegged about right, somewhere in the 12-18 range or thereabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for your last point, I don't see any posters in this thread saying he is terrible, not in the top 20 of NFL QBs, etc., so I'm not sure who you would classify as a hater in this discussion. But I think most have him pegged about right, somewhere in the 12-18 range or thereabouts.

"12-18 range" is hating. You're a hater. :P That's essentially what Instinctive said. 12-18 means average. He's not average. I reject that analysis. I agree there's a lot of hot air. EBF and SSOG are both saying top 10 or fringe top 10, which is not much different than how I see it. The argument IMO was more about how responsible Flacco was for the Ravens' prior success and how to rate him going forward. You can state he is a top 10 QB but follow it up with saying someone like Stafford or Romo would have won more games for Baltimore, and I disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they fired they playcaller like Harbaugh did, yea.

Did you watch much Cowboy football this year? Not trying to be condescending, just want to make sure you understand the claim you're making. The offensive line was one of the worst in the NFL. Romo is a very elusive QB and made a lot out of nothing; not something I would say Flacco does very well.Essentially, you're suggesting Flacco could maintain his efficiency while GREATLY increasing his volume and responsibility, all while getting more pressure in his face. Most of this would have to come from shotgun and play-action isn't as effective. He won't be able to rely so much on the big play 9 route; his best WR will be getting more attention because the running game isn't as threatening. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it homerism, but the Cowboys only shot to win games, often, was when they decided, "Eff it. Let's go shotgun, abandon the run, hope Tony gets in a groove and can make a lot things happen." Unfortunately for Romo's numbers, and myself as a Cowboys fan, this came only after the team was down - hence the league high 4qt +/-, comeback wins. I'm willing to give him a bit of a break on the Ints this year. Early on he had Bryant running the wrong routes, always had pressure in his face, and was very often in desperation mode. As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it homerism, but the Cowboys only shot to win games, often, was when they decided, "Eff it. Let's go shotgun, abandon the run, hope Tony gets in a groove and can make a lot things happen." Unfortunately for Romo's numbers, and myself as a Cowboys fan, this came only after the team was down - hence the league high 4qt +/-, comeback wins. I'm willing to give him a bit of a break on the Ints this year. Early on he had Bryant running the wrong routes, always had pressure in his face, and was very often in desperation mode. As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

Isn't it possible that both of them would have done worse on the other's team. I believe it's not only possible, but the truth.Flacco grew a lot this year. He played LIGHTS OUT in the playoffs, and he's still a young QB with a bright future. It could have been a mere blip or flash in his career, and he'll merely be average here out, but I would tend to lean the other way. Flacco may or may not be great going forward...but he sure was great this last month.Romo is more athletic, more flashy. But I don't buy that he's better. He would certainly enjoy more success behind a bad line though. And unlike Flacco...Romo isn't going to get any better. We know what Romo is. Good, not great. Edited by renesauz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it homerism, but the Cowboys only shot to win games, often, was when they decided, "Eff it. Let's go shotgun, abandon the run, hope Tony gets in a groove and can make a lot things happen." Unfortunately for Romo's numbers, and myself as a Cowboys fan, this came only after the team was down - hence the league high 4qt +/-, comeback wins. I'm willing to give him a bit of a break on the Ints this year. Early on he had Bryant running the wrong routes, always had pressure in his face, and was very often in desperation mode. As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

Isn't it possible that both of them would have done worse on the other's team. I believe it's not only possible, but the truth.Flacco grew a lot this year. He played LIGHTS OUT in the playoffs, and he's still a young QB with a bright future. It could have been a mere blip or flash in his career, and he'll merely be average here out, but I would tend to lean the other way. Flacco may or may not be great going forward...but he sure was great this last month.Romo is more athletic, more flashy. But I don't buy that he's better. He would certainly enjoy more success behind a bad line though. And unlike Flacco...Romo isn't going to get any better. We know what Romo is. Good, not great.
Is it wise to place so much weight on the playoffs that we ignore the regular season? Is Flacco better because of 5 games? Because if we look at all of them, the stats are pretty clear - FLacco's not on Romo's level; he's a couple below.I know sports culture places so much value on what we decide "clutch" is. But Flacco wasn't clutch until he was, same with Peyton, same with Elway. We limit our sample sizes and almost throw everything else out the window. Going back to my NBA reference - LeBron isn't clutch...until he dominates in the NBA finals like less than 5 people have, ever. Not saying Romo is LeBron (nobody in the NFL is, including Calvin) - more just commenting on us as fans and our faulty logic when it comes to "clutch".Romo carries so much baggage, in regards to his situation. As a fan of his, I would love to see him be able to prove himself with a clean slate. Due to his age, it won't happen. But he's always had a circus to deal with around him, including poor coaching, penalties, and roster flaws, to name a few. Replace ROmo with Flacco, early in Flacco's career, and he's not the guy he is today. He would be a lesser version of Romo, who would act as a scapegoat for Jerry. I know this is way OT and have said about everything I had to. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they fired they playcaller like Harbaugh did, yea.

Did you watch much Cowboy football this year? Not trying to be condescending, just want to make sure you understand the claim you're making. The offensive line was one of the worst in the NFL. Romo is a very elusive QB and made a lot out of nothing; not something I would say Flacco does very well.Essentially, you're suggesting Flacco could maintain his efficiency while GREATLY increasing his volume and responsibility, all while getting more pressure in his face. Most of this would have to come from shotgun and play-action isn't as effective. He won't be able to rely so much on the big play 9 route; his best WR will be getting more attention because the running game isn't as threatening.
IMO you have been overstating the Cowboys' OL problems in your recent posts, at least a little bit. Consider:1. PFF rates the Dallas offense as the 8th worst pass blocking offense2. Per PFF, Romo was under pressure on 31.3% of his dropbacks among QBs who took at least 50% of their teams' snaps; 13 QBs were under pressure more often3. Per PFF, Romo's average time to attempt/sack/scramble was 12th highest in the league, meaning only 11 QBs had more time4. Per Football Outsiders, Dallas had the 11th best adjusted sack rateAll of those things can be influenced by Romo's ability to extend plays, but taken together they do not support the stance that he was operating behind one of the worst pass blocking offensive lines in the league. Below average, yes. But not bottom few in the league.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO you have been overstating the Cowboys' OL problems in your recent posts, at least a little bit. Consider:1. PFF rates the Dallas offense as the 8th worst pass blocking offense2. Per PFF, Romo was under pressure on 31.3% of his dropbacks among QBs who took at least 50% of their teams' snaps; 13 QBs were under pressure more often3. Per PFF, Romo's average time to attempt/sack/scramble was 12th highest in the league, meaning only 11 QBs had more time4. Per Football Outsiders, Dallas had the 11th best adjusted sack rateAll of those things can be influenced by Romo's ability to extend plays, but taken together they do not support the stance that he was operating behind one of the worst pass blocking offensive lines in the league. Below average, yes. But not bottom few in the league.

I could be, some. But I think a lot of this has to do with the adjustements that the Cowboys were forced to make, as well as Romo being elusive. The game against the Giants in which Witten caught close to 20 receptions was an example. And such adjustments were common. A lot of shotgun, a lot of 3 step drops, a lot of scrambling on Romo's part, etc.I certainly don't want to paint a picture to help my argument, everything is based on what I watched. It is very possible that other teams dealt with it at a higher rate than I thought, and that I just didn't watch enough of said teams. But thanks for the context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second chances and the ability to withstand a moderately poor situation is worth a ton to me, and I value the players I feel confident will survive those kinds of situations above those I'm not sure about.

That is the key point for me as well. Guys like Decker, Stevie, Torrey, and Mike Williams are good NFL players. They will have long careers.

But they are not ideal #1 receivers in the NFL. When the stars align perfectly for them, they can have WR1 seasons, but they are not guys who can endure any situation and still produce top 15 FF stats. If you really want an edge on the teams in your league, I don't think you want a guy like this as anything more than your WR3.

The idea of enduring assets is pretty important to me when building my dynasty teams. I want to bet on talent that will last. But it's not that simple. I think guys like Antonio Brown, Andre Roberts, Nate Burleson, Steve Johnson, Santonio Holmes, and Kendall Wright have the talent to be useful FF players for a long time. They are very good NFL players and they will cash a lot of paychecks before their time is up. However, they are a level (or two) below guys like Demaryius Thomas and Julio Jones. They simply don't have the upside to ever become one of the top 5-6 receivers in the NFL.

When I'm ranking players, I try to approach it roughly like this:

Group 1: Elite young players

Group 2: Elite old players

Group 3: Good young players

Group 4: Good old players

And that mostly explains why I have guys like Brown, Johnson, Nelson, Decker, and Williams where I do. They are good players. Not great players. Useful as complementary pieces. Not necessarily "core" players that are going to carry your team to a lot of wins without a good group around them. If you have them in a supporting role, as a RB2-RB3 or WR2-WR4, they can help you win games. But you shouldn't mistake them for frontline players.

I think good FF owners have a similar mindset. I know that most of the horrendous trade offers I receive in my leagues are transparent attempts by other owners to jump up a level. The "Antonio Brown + three minor assets for Julio Jones" type of offers. Or, to use a real example of something that came through my inbox a couple days ago, Roethlisberger, Hardesty, B Gibson, and the 1.09 rookie pick (dev league) for Andrew Luck. :rolleyes:

I think building great dynasty teams is largely about getting as many level one players as you can. If you start with an empty roster, you should be stoked to get a guy like Decker or Nelson who has a good chance to give you useful production for several years. But as you continue to accumulate value and as other teams in your league continue to pull away from the pack, you will want to relegate those guys to supporting roles or package them to jump up a level.

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

I think I disagree with you, here. I am a big Decker/Nelson guy; their production holds up to most WRs, so I would take them over some of the older guys scoring only slightly better. But Williams and Stevie are another story, in my opinion. I think 1-3 years of Welker/AJ will likely be worth more than Williams/Stevie from this point on. Stevie/Williams are simply too replaceable for me to overlook the massive difference in points over the next 1-3 years. Meaning, after my stud WR1 retires or falls off, all I need to do is find WR2 production, which can be cheap, in the form of guys like Hartline, J.Jones, L.Moore - or reasonable; M.Austin, J.Maclin, A.Brown, etc. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

Good players fall off the cliff too. They don't play up to their contract, get cut, and fail to latch on somewhere else. They get hurt and replaced. There's a coaching change which diminishes their role. Etc. It seems premature to wonder whether Roddy White or Andre Johnson only have one more year left. I think if you trade these guys for a younger player you better believe that young player will eventually be elite. If you feel strongly about Gordon or even Williams, fine. But if you think "oh they'll just be good for a long time," the NFL leaves a trail of corpses of only good players.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

Good players fall off the cliff too. They don't play up to their contract, get cut, and fail to latch on somewhere else. They get hurt and replaced. There's a coaching change which diminishes their role. Etc. It seems premature to wonder whether Roddy White or Andre Johnson only have one more year left. I think if you trade these guys for a younger player you better believe that young player will eventually be elite. If you feel strongly about Gordon or even Williams, fine. But if you think "oh they'll just be good for a long time," the NFL leaves a trail of corpses of only good players.
The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc. I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32. Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker. Look at your leagues RB and WR leaderboard. How many RBs 30 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 0, and only Willis McGahee (31 years old) had a chance. How many WRs 33 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 1. Reggie Wayne. (WR18)The list of HOF caliber WRs that hit the wall in their early 30s is extensive. IMO if you can deal a 32/33 year old WR for a guy that's 25 and very good, you should do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc.

Smith and Fitz are bad examples for (what I thought was) your argument. They're still in the league. They're still WR1s on their team. They're still capable of producing. I think the likelihood of Stevie Johnson or Mike Williams being a WR2 in 3 years is << than Roddy White. JMO. Granted White will not have much left after 3 years, but if the young player you would trade him for is done, who cares.

I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32.

White just turned 31 in Nov. Don't know if that changes your opinion much. I'm talking about enjoying the ride of the early 30s. Not hanging on for the last gasp of value in the mid 30s.

Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker.

RBs are a different story, for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

Good players fall off the cliff too. They don't play up to their contract, get cut, and fail to latch on somewhere else. They get hurt and replaced. There's a coaching change which diminishes their role. Etc. It seems premature to wonder whether Roddy White or Andre Johnson only have one more year left. I think if you trade these guys for a younger player you better believe that young player will eventually be elite. If you feel strongly about Gordon or even Williams, fine. But if you think "oh they'll just be good for a long time," the NFL leaves a trail of corpses of only good players.
The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc. I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32. Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker. Look at your leagues RB and WR leaderboard. How many RBs 30 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 0, and only Willis McGahee (31 years old) had a chance. How many WRs 33 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 1. Reggie Wayne. (WR18)The list of HOF caliber WRs that hit the wall in their early 30s is extensive. IMO if you can deal a 32/33 year old WR for a guy that's 25 and very good, you should do it.
I think the general argument is solid, but some of your player comps are a bit off. And in what league was Steve Smith "barely startable for 3 of 4 years?". Outside of his injured season, 2010 was the only year in the last 10 in which he finished outside of the top 20 WRs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc.

Smith and Fitz are bad examples for (what I thought was) your argument. They're still in the league. They're still WR1s on their team. They're still capable of producing. I think the likelihood of Stevie Johnson or Mike Williams being a WR2 in 3 years is << than Roddy White. JMO. Granted White will not have much left after 3 years, but if the young player you would trade him for is done, who cares.

I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32.

White just turned 31 in Nov. Don't know if that changes your opinion much. I'm talking about enjoying the ride of the early 30s. Not hanging on for the last gasp of value in the mid 30s.

Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker.

RBs are a different story, for sure.
I guess this is where we differ. 33 isn't quite as hard of a cutoff line for WRs as 30 is for RBs admittedly. However, theres an awful lot of HOF WR talent that stopped being fantasy useful between 31-33. The odds say that a year from now a least one, if not two of the Roddy/Welker/AJ trio will have fallen off the fantasy relevance map forever. I guess I'd just rather make that bet on the usefulness of a 25 year old guy who will be 26 next year. We all have different ways of playing it though, and that's actually a good thing.

BTW Roddy's b-day is 11/2/81. Puts him at 32 right now. Pro football reference has the right birthdate, wrong age. So he will be 33 next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is where we differ. 33 isn't quite as hard of a cutoff line for WRs as 30 is for RBs admittedly. However, theres an awful lot of HOF WR talent that stopped being fantasy useful between 31-33. The odds say that a year from now a least one, if not two of the Roddy/Welker/AJ trio will have fallen off the fantasy relevance map forever. I guess I'd just rather make that bet on the usefulness of a 25 year old guy who will be 26 next year. We all have different ways of playing it though, and that's actually a good thing. BTW Roddy's b-day is 11/2/81. Puts him at 32 right now. Pro football reference has the right birthdate, wrong age. So he will be 33 next season.

31 is the right age. I think the question is: Who is going to help you win more? How valuable is 1x top 6 season in relation to 3x top 20 seasons? Or 5 top 20 seasons, even?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

Good players fall off the cliff too. They don't play up to their contract, get cut, and fail to latch on somewhere else. They get hurt and replaced. There's a coaching change which diminishes their role. Etc. It seems premature to wonder whether Roddy White or Andre Johnson only have one more year left. I think if you trade these guys for a younger player you better believe that young player will eventually be elite. If you feel strongly about Gordon or even Williams, fine. But if you think "oh they'll just be good for a long time," the NFL leaves a trail of corpses of only good players.
The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc.

I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32.

Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker.

Look at your leagues RB and WR leaderboard. How many RBs 30 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 0, and only Willis McGahee (31 years old) had a chance. How many WRs 33 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 1. Reggie Wayne. (WR18)

The list of HOF caliber WRs that hit the wall in their early 30s is extensive. IMO if you can deal a 32/33 year old WR for a guy that's 25 and very good, you should do it.

I think the general argument is solid, but some of your player comps are a bit off.

And in what league was Steve Smith "barely startable for 3 of 4 years?". Outside of his injured season, 2010 was the only year in the last 10 in which he finished outside of the top 20 WRs.

As a long time Steve Smith dynasty owner I can tell you barely startable was the reality in 2007, 2009, 2010.

2007: He was good in 3 of the first 6 games. Then had 1 TD, and one 100 yard game the rest of the season. Both week 15.

2009: Had 2 games over 100 yards. Also finished his last 3 weeks strong, kind of backdooring his way into the top 20 if you will.

2010: Never had a game of more than 85 yards. Scored 2 TDs all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

Good players fall off the cliff too. They don't play up to their contract, get cut, and fail to latch on somewhere else. They get hurt and replaced. There's a coaching change which diminishes their role. Etc. It seems premature to wonder whether Roddy White or Andre Johnson only have one more year left. I think if you trade these guys for a younger player you better believe that young player will eventually be elite. If you feel strongly about Gordon or even Williams, fine. But if you think "oh they'll just be good for a long time," the NFL leaves a trail of corpses of only good players.
The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc.

I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32.

Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker.

Look at your leagues RB and WR leaderboard. How many RBs 30 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 0, and only Willis McGahee (31 years old) had a chance. How many WRs 33 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 1. Reggie Wayne. (WR18)

The list of HOF caliber WRs that hit the wall in their early 30s is extensive. IMO if you can deal a 32/33 year old WR for a guy that's 25 and very good, you should do it.

I think the general argument is solid, but some of your player comps are a bit off.

And in what league was Steve Smith "barely startable for 3 of 4 years?". Outside of his injured season, 2010 was the only year in the last 10 in which he finished outside of the top 20 WRs.

As a long time Steve Smith dynasty owner I can tell you barely startable was the reality in 2007, 2009, 2010.

2007: He was good in 3 of the first 6 games. Then had 1 TD, and one 100 yard game the rest of the season. Both week 15.

2009: Had 2 games over 100 yards. Also finished his last 3 weeks strong, kind of backdooring his way into the top 20 if you will.

2010: Never had a game of more than 85 yards. Scored 2 TDs all year.

Welcome to the life of owning a mid-level WR2 -- you will have games that will be disappointments. 2007 and 2009 he was absolutely startable in most leagues. You have too high expectations or a really shallow league if you can't find a way to get a 85-1000-7 season into your lineup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 years ago the best 30/31 year old WRs were Wayne, Smith, and Santana Moss. The best 25/26 "good" WRs were the other Smith, Mike Sims Walker, Meachem, and Holmes. There's likely another point in time you can point to providing the other conclusion, but IMO recent history is not good for good players.I mean, for sure you can believe Stevie is closer to Marshall than MSW and I might even believe you; I'm qualifying this whole discussion by saying yes if you believe in the guy get him. But sticking with older guys seems better than being content with "good".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is where we differ. 33 isn't quite as hard of a cutoff line for WRs as 30 is for RBs admittedly. However, theres an awful lot of HOF WR talent that stopped being fantasy useful between 31-33. The odds say that a year from now a least one, if not two of the Roddy/Welker/AJ trio will have fallen off the fantasy relevance map forever. I guess I'd just rather make that bet on the usefulness of a 25 year old guy who will be 26 next year. We all have different ways of playing it though, and that's actually a good thing. BTW Roddy's b-day is 11/2/81. Puts him at 32 right now. Pro football reference has the right birthdate, wrong age. So he will be 33 next season.

31 is the right age. I think the question is: Who is going to help you win more? How valuable is 1x top 6 season in relation to 3x top 20 seasons? Or 5 top 20 seasons, even?
If the top 6 season wins you a championship, then the top 6 season. Otherwise, it's the other. Because while the top 20 seasons may not help your specific team, the potential trade value coupled with the production helps your team in the long run to eventually win a championship.This is why you can't look at all trades in a vacuum. If you think adding that elite WR in the short term helps you win it all, then go for it. I've done that if I've got the value to burn and depth/youth to fill in. Otherwise, it's a losing proposition as you're investing in a lost cause if it doesn't put you over the top. Sure, you can't predict what will happen, but it's not very often that a team is one player away from winning it all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

I think Romo is the overall better player but I don't think the Ravens would have won the SB with him as the starter this year but at the same time the Cowboys might have had a worse regular season with Flacco than Romo. There is a trait guys like Flacco and Eli have that is forcing them into this elite QB conversation and it's not their play over the course of the 16 game regular season and it's not SB rings. The trait they have, which I think Romo lacks, is no matter how big the game, how big the moment, they are the same guy. They seem unflappable. They look no different in preseason game 3 or driving for the winning score for the Super Bowl. Teams need to win 3-4 games in a row to be SB champs and I think that's where this consistency of guys like Flacco and Eli really shine through and that's where I think Romo comes up short.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 years ago the best 30/31 year old WRs were Wayne, Smith, and Santana Moss. The best 25/26 "good" WRs were the other Smith, Mike Sims Walker, Meachem, and Holmes. There's likely another point in time you can point to providing the other conclusion, but IMO recent history is not good for good players.I mean, for sure you can believe Stevie is closer to Marshall than MSW and I might even believe you; I'm qualifying this whole discussion by saying yes if you believe in the guy get him. But sticking with older guys seems better than being content with "good".

You are cherry picking players a bit here...It would look a lot different if you added Chad Johnson to the 30/31 year olds and a mix of VJax, Marshall, Jennings, and/or Colston to the group of 25/26 year olds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is where we differ. 33 isn't quite as hard of a cutoff line for WRs as 30 is for RBs admittedly. However, theres an awful lot of HOF WR talent that stopped being fantasy useful between 31-33. The odds say that a year from now a least one, if not two of the Roddy/Welker/AJ trio will have fallen off the fantasy relevance map forever. I guess I'd just rather make that bet on the usefulness of a 25 year old guy who will be 26 next year. We all have different ways of playing it though, and that's actually a good thing. BTW Roddy's b-day is 11/2/81. Puts him at 32 right now. Pro football reference has the right birthdate, wrong age. So he will be 33 next season.

31 is the right age. I think the question is: Who is going to help you win more? How valuable is 1x top 6 season in relation to 3x top 20 seasons? Or 5 top 20 seasons, even?
This is the heart of the question IMO. Let's assume WR X has the talent for 1 top six season left in his career. Now, what are the odds he and his QB stay healthy? What are the odds the rest your team stays healthy enough to keep you in contention? Typically in my nonppr league, WR5/6 scores about 2ppg more than WR20. So you are trying to milk out about 30-35 extra fantasy points in one season. Could that be enough to put you over the top? Maybe. But its pretty narrow odds that all those factors come together for you. Basically you are putting your eggs in one basket. I'd rather be consistently good over the next 3-5 years. If I think I'm a little deficient at the trade deadline, then maybe I deal for the old WR or RB. But at that point, I've already dodged a number of the factors that derail a lot of fantasy seasons. I've played dynasty 9 years now. I've taken last place one year, then finished first the next, without any huge differences on my roster other than staying healthy. Fact is keeping your top players healthy is the most important thing. (assuming you have enough talent to at least be in the top half). For the record, I don't mind keeping elite players as they get old. I find you usually can't get value for the production. I've also likely prepared for their decline. If we're talking about a start up though, I'd rather have the 25 year old good player than the 33 year old elite one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 years ago the best 30/31 year old WRs were Wayne, Smith, and Santana Moss. The best 25/26 "good" WRs were the other Smith, Mike Sims Walker, Meachem, and Holmes. There's likely another point in time you can point to providing the other conclusion, but IMO recent history is not good for good players.I mean, for sure you can believe Stevie is closer to Marshall than MSW and I might even believe you; I'm qualifying this whole discussion by saying yes if you believe in the guy get him. But sticking with older guys seems better than being content with "good".

You are cherry picking players a bit here...It would look a lot different if you added Chad Johnson to the 30/31 year olds and a mix of VJax, Marshall, Jennings, and/or Colston to the group of 25/26 year olds.
If you consider your guy as elite as VJax, Marshall, etc., that's fine. Said that a couple of times. Do you? We're talking about guys we assume are only good. I assume Mike Williams and Stevie Johnson are at best good. Decker and Nelson maybe not.Yeah, you could include Randy and Ocho, but they were > 32.5. Which is a year+ older than all the guys we're talking about. What's a year you say? Well it's a third of the window we're talking about, so it's something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 years ago the best 30/31 year old WRs were Wayne, Smith, and Santana Moss. The best 25/26 "good" WRs were the other Smith, Mike Sims Walker, Meachem, and Holmes. There's likely another point in time you can point to providing the other conclusion, but IMO recent history is not good for good players.I mean, for sure you can believe Stevie is closer to Marshall than MSW and I might even believe you; I'm qualifying this whole discussion by saying yes if you believe in the guy get him. But sticking with older guys seems better than being content with "good".

You are cherry picking players a bit here...It would look a lot different if you added Chad Johnson to the 30/31 year olds and a mix of VJax, Marshall, Jennings, and/or Colston to the group of 25/26 year olds.
If you consider your guy as elite as VJax, Marshall, etc., that's fine. Said that a couple of times. Do you? We're talking about guys we assume are only good. I assume Mike Williams and Stevie Johnson are at best good. Decker and Nelson maybe not.Yeah, you could include Randy and Ocho, but they were > 32.5. Which is a year+ older than all the guys we're talking about. What's a year you say? Well it's a third of the window we're talking about, so it's something.
I have Nelson/Decker (despite Nelson's age) as a completely different class than Stevie/Williams. I'd much rather have Roddy/Welker/etc than Stevie/Williams, and I don't even think that is what we are debating, is it? I used 2009 for my reference, when Ocho was 31.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Nelson/Decker (despite Nelson's age) as a completely different class than Stevie/Williams. I'd much rather have Roddy/Welker/etc than Stevie/Williams, and I don't even think that is what we are debating, is it? I used 2009 for my reference, when Ocho was 31.

Working off Kitrick's quote where he listed those 4 players. So, Yes?

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the heart of the question IMO. Let's assume WR X has the talent for 1 top six season left in his career. Now, what are the odds he and his QB stay healthy? What are the odds the rest your team stays healthy enough to keep you in contention? Typically in my nonppr league, WR5/6 scores about 2ppg more than WR20. So you are trying to milk out about 30-35 extra fantasy points in one season. Could that be enough to put you over the top? Maybe. But its pretty narrow odds that all those factors come together for you. Basically you are putting your eggs in one basket. I'd rather be consistently good over the next 3-5 years. If I think I'm a little deficient at the trade deadline, then maybe I deal for the old WR or RB. But at that point, I've already dodged a number of the factors that derail a lot of fantasy seasons. I've played dynasty 9 years now. I've taken last place one year, then finished first the next, without any huge differences on my roster other than staying healthy. Fact is keeping your top players healthy is the most important thing. (assuming you have enough talent to at least be in the top half). For the record, I don't mind keeping elite players as they get old. I find you usually can't get value for the production. I've also likely prepared for their decline. If we're talking about a start up though, I'd rather have the 25 year old good player than the 33 year old elite one.

2012 VBD:Andre Johnson WR6 - 128 VBDMike Williams WR20 - 49 VBDIt's pretty close to 3:1 ratio, and that assumes that 100 VBD in 1 year is equal to 25 VBD/Year over 4 years, which it is not. 100 VBD/1 yr > 25 VBD/4 yrs.If Williams needs 3 years to provide the value of one of Andre's - what is more likely? Andre playing 1 at this pace, or Williams playing 3? If Andre were to play just 2 more years at this rate, Williams would need to have 6 productive seasons to provide that value.All the while you are getting renewable resources, as are your league mates. Every year out your prolong your value, the less control and ability to project you have. WR2s are fairly easy to acquire and are rarely very responsible for winning championships. Top 5-6 WR seasons are, often. For me - I would need quite a bit more than Stevie/Williams to give up Andre/Welker/Roddy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the heart of the question IMO. Let's assume WR X has the talent for 1 top six season left in his career. Now, what are the odds he and his QB stay healthy? What are the odds the rest your team stays healthy enough to keep you in contention? Typically in my nonppr league, WR5/6 scores about 2ppg more than WR20. So you are trying to milk out about 30-35 extra fantasy points in one season. Could that be enough to put you over the top? Maybe. But its pretty narrow odds that all those factors come together for you. Basically you are putting your eggs in one basket. I'd rather be consistently good over the next 3-5 years. If I think I'm a little deficient at the trade deadline, then maybe I deal for the old WR or RB. But at that point, I've already dodged a number of the factors that derail a lot of fantasy seasons. I've played dynasty 9 years now. I've taken last place one year, then finished first the next, without any huge differences on my roster other than staying healthy. Fact is keeping your top players healthy is the most important thing. (assuming you have enough talent to at least be in the top half). For the record, I don't mind keeping elite players as they get old. I find you usually can't get value for the production. I've also likely prepared for their decline. If we're talking about a start up though, I'd rather have the 25 year old good player than the 33 year old elite one.

2012 VBD:Andre Johnson WR6 - 128 VBDMike Williams WR20 - 49 VBDIt's pretty close to 3:1 ratio, and that assumes that 100 VBD in 1 year is equal to 25 VBD/Year over 4 years, which it is not. 100 VBD/1 yr > 25 VBD/4 yrs.If Williams needs 3 years to provide the value of one of Andre's - what is more likely? Andre playing 1 at this pace, or Williams playing 3? If Andre were to play just 2 more years at this rate, Williams would need to have 6 productive seasons to provide that value.All the while you are getting renewable resources, as are your league mates. Every year out your prolong your value, the less control and ability to project you have. WR2s are fairly easy to acquire and are rarely very responsible for winning championships. Top 5-6 WR seasons are, often. For me - I would need quite a bit more than Stevie/Williams to give up Andre/Welker/Roddy.
Good point, though we also have to be pretty confident that Andre/Roddy would be able to put up WR6 numbers in 2013. I'm not entirely confident in predicting this right now, though I expect both to still finish pretty comfortably in the 8-12 range.That being said, as the last few posts suggest, I think we are talking about two different scenarios -- Roddy/Andre vs Decker/Nelson, or vs. Stevie/Williams. I anticipate we'd get different results when comparing these groups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, though we also have to be pretty confident that Andre/Roddy would be able to put up WR6 numbers in 2013. I'm not entirely confident in predicting this right now, though I expect both to still finish pretty comfortably in the 8-12 range.That being said, as the last few posts suggest, I think we are talking about two different scenarios -- Roddy/Andre vs Decker/Nelson, or vs. Stevie/Williams. I anticipate we'd get different results when comparing these groups.

We would only need to be as sure that AJ/Roddy/Welker finish at 5-7 for 1 year, as we are that Stevie/Williams finish top 20 for 3 years. To win a championship in a dynasty league you have to have a lot of advantages. In a vacuum, WR 20 has value - it is a slightly below average starting WR2. But dynasty leagues usually create a pretty big devide between the haves and the have-nots. Not many teams starting Stevie Johnson at WR2 are going to be in the hunt for a championship. But I agree and have said that I consider Nelson and Decker on another tier than Stevie/Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the bolded here, and am in no way suggesting that Decker, Nelson, Williams, Stevie type guys are franchise level tier 1 players. What I am suggesting is that I think ranking elite old players over good young ones is a mistake. The players I singled out of your tier 4 ranks were Welker, Roddy, Andre Johnson and Jennings. I'd rather be looking ahead to 5 years of production by my good young player, than wondering if this is the year my elite old guy falls off the cliff. The upside and scoring difference now, if there is any at all, doesn't merit it.

Good players fall off the cliff too. They don't play up to their contract, get cut, and fail to latch on somewhere else. They get hurt and replaced. There's a coaching change which diminishes their role. Etc. It seems premature to wonder whether Roddy White or Andre Johnson only have one more year left. I think if you trade these guys for a younger player you better believe that young player will eventually be elite. If you feel strongly about Gordon or even Williams, fine. But if you think "oh they'll just be good for a long time," the NFL leaves a trail of corpses of only good players.
The NFL leaves a trail of corpses of all types of players. Steve Smith, who I have long considered elite, went through a period where he was barely startable for 3 out of 4 seasons. That was a long wait, and a lot of weeks where I was taking it on the chin by starting him. Larry Fitzgerald could very well be looking at the same thing right now. Every player carries risk. Yes, elite players have longer leashes. No doubt. But age or injury gets every NFL player eventually. The often go hand in hand as well, as older players don't heal as fast etc.

I believe its generally accepted that 33 years old is to WRs, as 30 is to RBs. Roddy and Welker will both be 33 next season. Andre Johnson 32.

Steven Jackson and Frank Gore will be 30 next year. I think of them as the RB equivalents to Roddy and Welker.

Look at your leagues RB and WR leaderboard. How many RBs 30 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 0, and only Willis McGahee (31 years old) had a chance. How many WRs 33 or older finished in the top 24? The answer is 1. Reggie Wayne. (WR18)

The list of HOF caliber WRs that hit the wall in their early 30s is extensive. IMO if you can deal a 32/33 year old WR for a guy that's 25 and very good, you should do it.

I think the general argument is solid, but some of your player comps are a bit off.

And in what league was Steve Smith "barely startable for 3 of 4 years?". Outside of his injured season, 2010 was the only year in the last 10 in which he finished outside of the top 20 WRs.

As a long time Steve Smith dynasty owner I can tell you barely startable was the reality in 2007, 2009, 2010.

2007: He was good in 3 of the first 6 games. Then had 1 TD, and one 100 yard game the rest of the season. Both week 15.

2009: Had 2 games over 100 yards. Also finished his last 3 weeks strong, kind of backdooring his way into the top 20 if you will.

2010: Never had a game of more than 85 yards. Scored 2 TDs all year.

Welcome to the life of owning a mid-level WR2 -- you will have games that will be disappointments. 2007 and 2009 he was absolutely startable in most leagues. You have too high expectations or a really shallow league if you can't find a way to get a 85-1000-7 season into your lineup.
Year end stats can be very misleading. Most WR1s and WR2s will give you between 7-10 very good weeks. The problem with the 2007 version of Steve Smith was they lost Jake Delhomme week 3. He was excellent up to that point. Then you get David Carr, Matt Moore and a 44 year old Vinny Testaverde at QB the rest of the season. Smitty had 15/271/4 after 2 weeks. 72/731/2 the last 14, including a 7 game stretch without 100 yards or a TD. Sum it up to say Steve Smith had 4 good weeks and 12 duds.

2009 Steve Smith ended up at 982/7. Problem was he had 682/4 through week 12. So for the vast majority of the season he was on pace for 900/5, or a middling WR3, barely startable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the heart of the question IMO. Let's assume WR X has the talent for 1 top six season left in his career. Now, what are the odds he and his QB stay healthy? What are the odds the rest your team stays healthy enough to keep you in contention? Typically in my nonppr league, WR5/6 scores about 2ppg more than WR20. So you are trying to milk out about 30-35 extra fantasy points in one season. Could that be enough to put you over the top? Maybe. But its pretty narrow odds that all those factors come together for you. Basically you are putting your eggs in one basket. I'd rather be consistently good over the next 3-5 years. If I think I'm a little deficient at the trade deadline, then maybe I deal for the old WR or RB. But at that point, I've already dodged a number of the factors that derail a lot of fantasy seasons. I've played dynasty 9 years now. I've taken last place one year, then finished first the next, without any huge differences on my roster other than staying healthy. Fact is keeping your top players healthy is the most important thing. (assuming you have enough talent to at least be in the top half). For the record, I don't mind keeping elite players as they get old. I find you usually can't get value for the production. I've also likely prepared for their decline. If we're talking about a start up though, I'd rather have the 25 year old good player than the 33 year old elite one.

2012 VBD:Andre Johnson WR6 - 128 VBDMike Williams WR20 - 49 VBDIt's pretty close to 3:1 ratio, and that assumes that 100 VBD in 1 year is equal to 25 VBD/Year over 4 years, which it is not. 100 VBD/1 yr > 25 VBD/4 yrs.If Williams needs 3 years to provide the value of one of Andre's - what is more likely? Andre playing 1 at this pace, or Williams playing 3? If Andre were to play just 2 more years at this rate, Williams would need to have 6 productive seasons to provide that value.All the while you are getting renewable resources, as are your league mates. Every year out your prolong your value, the less control and ability to project you have. WR2s are fairly easy to acquire and are rarely very responsible for winning championships. Top 5-6 WR seasons are, often. For me - I would need quite a bit more than Stevie/Williams to give up Andre/Welker/Roddy.
Pretty big difference when you are assuming PPR vs not here. Also just because the ratio is what it is in 2012, doesn't mean that will be the ratio in 2013. See the prior years as examples. 2012 NON PPR Andre Johnson WR7 - 71 VBDEric Decker WR7 - 71 VBDMike Williams WR18 - 31 VBDStevie Johnson WR22 - 26 VBDJordy Nelson WR28 - 9 VBD INJLooking back: 2011 Jordy Nelson WR2 - 108 VBDStevie Johnson WR21 - 35VBDEric Decker WR36 - 0 VBDMike Williams WR50 - (16 VBD)Andre Johnson WR69 - (44VBD) INJ2010 Andre Johnson WR8 - 63 VBD (13 games)Stevie Johnson WR10 - 59 VBDMike Williams WR12 - 52VBD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it homerism, but the Cowboys only shot to win games, often, was when they decided, "Eff it. Let's go shotgun, abandon the run, hope Tony gets in a groove and can make a lot things happen." Unfortunately for Romo's numbers, and myself as a Cowboys fan, this came only after the team was down - hence the league high 4qt +/-, comeback wins.

I'm willing to give him a bit of a break on the Ints this year. Early on he had Bryant running the wrong routes, always had pressure in his face, and was very often in desperation mode.

As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

Isn't it possible that both of them would have done worse on the other's team. I believe it's not only possible, but the truth.

Flacco grew a lot this year. He played LIGHTS OUT in the playoffs, and he's still a young QB with a bright future. It could have been a mere blip or flash in his career, and he'll merely be average here out, but I would tend to lean the other way. Flacco may or may not be great going forward...but he sure was great this last month.

Romo is more athletic, more flashy. But I don't buy that he's better. He would certainly enjoy more success behind a bad line though. And unlike Flacco...Romo isn't going to get any better. We know what Romo is. Good, not great.

Is it wise to place so much weight on the playoffs that we ignore the regular season? Is Flacco better because of 5 games? Because if we look at all of them, the stats are pretty clear - FLacco's not on Romo's level; he's a couple below.

I know sports culture places so much value on what we decide "clutch" is. But Flacco wasn't clutch until he was, same with Peyton, same with Elway. We limit our sample sizes and almost throw everything else out the window. Going back to my NBA reference - LeBron isn't clutch...until he dominates in the NBA finals like less than 5 people have, ever. Not saying Romo is LeBron (nobody in the NFL is, including Calvin) - more just commenting on us as fans and our faulty logic when it comes to "clutch".

Romo carries so much baggage, in regards to his situation. As a fan of his, I would love to see him be able to prove himself with a clean slate. Due to his age, it won't happen. But he's always had a circus to deal with around him, including poor coaching, penalties, and roster flaws, to name a few.

Replace ROmo with Flacco, early in Flacco's career, and he's not the guy he is today. He would be a lesser version of Romo, who would act as a scapegoat for Jerry.

I know this is way OT and have said about everything I had to.

Different offense and different weapons. It's dangerous to proclaim a player better simply because he puts up more stats. I stand by my statement on Romo: good, not great.

Flacco is tougher. Some are declaring him elite based on his playoff performance while others are poo-pooing it and calling it just a hot streak. I'm really not in either group. The playoffs were a hot streak, but they also represent an evolution not uncommon of a young QB. The offense had a shift in philosophy as well...THEY ASKED HIM TO DO MORE, and he responded positively. It's more likely that that (asking him to do more) continues next year than it is they revert to the more conservative play style they exhibited most of the past 5 years.

There were more than a few people calling for him to make the jump into an upper tier this past year. Based on regular season alone, he didn't make it...but he wasn't that far off either. The offense in Baltimore didn't ask him to throw all that much, it asked him to not make many mistakes...and he didn't. I agree it's going too far to declare him "elite", but he's as safe as it gets, and he certainly belongs at least in the bottom half of the top 12. Right now: good, not great, but with a better chance to attain greatness than Tony Romo, who has no chance at this stage in his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different offense and different weapons. It's dangerous to proclaim a player better simply because he puts up more stats. I stand by my statement on Romo: good, not great.

Flacco is tougher. Some are declaring him elite based on his playoff performance while others are poo-pooing it and calling it just a hot streak. I'm really not in either group. The playoffs were a hot streak, but they also represent an evolution not uncommon of a young QB. The offense had a shift in philosophy as well...THEY ASKED HIM TO DO MORE, and he responded positively. It's more likely that that (asking him to do more) continues next year than it is they revert to the more conservative play style they exhibited most of the past 5 years.

There were more than a few people calling for him to make the jump into an upper tier this past year. Based on regular season alone, he didn't make it...but he wasn't that far off either. The offense in Baltimore didn't ask him to throw all that much, it asked him to not make many mistakes...and he didn't. I agree it's going too far to declare him "elite", but he's as safe as it gets, and he certainly belongs at least in the bottom half of the top 12. Right now: good, not great, but with a better chance to attain greatness than Tony Romo, who has no chance at this stage in his career.

After looking at the last 6-8 QBs to win rings - this is a very good sign for Flacco. Nearly every QB who won a ring in the last year, came to be considered elite, if they weren't going into the game. I agree with you there; Flacco has more opportunity for progression.

I just don't agree that he is a better player right now. And the reason Romo has very little shot at a ring has more do with things beyond his control than him as a player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it homerism, but the Cowboys only shot to win games, often, was when they decided, "Eff it. Let's go shotgun, abandon the run, hope Tony gets in a groove and can make a lot things happen." Unfortunately for Romo's numbers, and myself as a Cowboys fan, this came only after the team was down - hence the league high 4qt +/-, comeback wins. I'm willing to give him a bit of a break on the Ints this year. Early on he had Bryant running the wrong routes, always had pressure in his face, and was very often in desperation mode. As I said, I do think Romo is the better football player. I can listen to the opposing argument, though. But I find it very hard to believe that Flacco could have done more than Romo did with the 2012 Dallas Cowboys.

Two things. First off, as a Broncos fan living in the Dallas metro (I.e. seeing a lot of Cowboys games) who is also a fan of Jeopardy (followed immediately by that asinine "fans' sports show" where idiots bloviate about the Cowboys for 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year), I would say I'm both objective and well-positioned to pass judgment. Romo had some short, brutal stretches, but was otherwise magnificent this year. Much better than Flacco, overall. Second off, you clearly are not suffering from homerism. True homers would be only too happy to tell you how Romo is a prancing choking pretty boy, one of the bottom 5 QBs in the league, and the Cowboys will never win so much as a church raffle with him at QB. Hating Romo is as necessary to Cowboys Homerism as hating McNabb is to Eagles Homerism. If I were comparing Romo Hatred to Oxygen in terms of which was more necessary to Cowboys fans, I'd call it a tie. Maybe push Romo Hatred to 1A and oxygen to 1B, but they're both pretty important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things. First off, as a Broncos fan living in the Dallas metro (I.e. seeing a lot of Cowboys games) who is also a fan of Jeopardy (followed immediately by that asinine "fans' sports show" where idiots bloviate about the Cowboys for 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year), I would say I'm both objective and well-positioned to pass judgment. Romo had some short, brutal stretches, but was otherwise magnificent this year. Much better than Flacco, overall. Second off, you clearly are not suffering from homerism. True homers would be only too happy to tell you how Romo is a prancing choking pretty boy, one of the bottom 5 QBs in the league, and the Cowboys will never win so much as a church raffle with him at QB. Hating Romo is as necessary to Cowboys Homerism as hating McNabb is to Eagles Homerism. If I were comparing Romo Hatred to Oxygen in terms of which was more necessary to Cowboys fans, I'd call it a tie. Maybe push Romo Hatred to 1A and oxygen to 1B, but they're both pretty important.

:yes: I can't believe how often I find myself arguing agaisnt the Cowboys brining in Alex Smith. :wall:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a random tangent, but I just have a few thoughts on Aaron Hernandez. By browsing dynasty-related threads around here, it's pretty clear that people are extremely high on him. This, certainly, is partly due to him as a player, and partly due to the dearth of fantasy talent at the position. He is slotted in at like a 1A tier, or, at the very least, alone in tier 2 behind Graham/Gronk.I think people are a little too high and a little too certain on him.1) First, the most obvious, but probably not the most important thing to point out, but he does seem to have a tendency to get hurt. Even when he doesn't miss games, he always seems to be questionable, limited in practice, etc.2) Injuries aside, he did not have a great year in 2012. After the whole story all pre-season was how he was going to be the "focus" of the offense, he regressed, in my opinion. He developed some dropsies, was alligator-arming some things, and just in general played inconsistently.3) It sounds weird, but I think he gets a little over-rated because he gets paired up with Gronkowski, being on the same team. Hernandez is a very nice player, he's got more mass than a WR, but can move like one, and is dangerous with the ball in his hands...but he is not in the same class as Gronkowski, who is pretty much just an impossible match up no matter what teams try to do with him. He can outrun LB's, out-physical DB's, tower over everyone, and he has hands that Hernandez can only dream about. And this isn't to talk about their blocking, which is not even worth comparing.I feel like I sound more down him than I meant to. I'll repeat that he is a very good player and does create a mismatch problem, but he's not a dominant player by any stretch. I don't think he'll ever outproduce Gronkowski as some were saying he might this past off-season, and if Welker stays, I'm not entirely certain he isn't the #3 option. Now, that's a #3 option on a very good offense, and TE is a light position, but still, people are a little too high on him. I just saw in a thread a well-respected poster saying he wouldn't kill someone for taking Hernandez in the 2nd round of a PPR startup, for example. I think that's pretty insane.Anyway just putting it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bit of a random tangent, but I just have a few thoughts on Aaron Hernandez. By browsing dynasty-related threads around here, it's pretty clear that people are extremely high on him. This, certainly, is partly due to him as a player, and partly due to the dearth of fantasy talent at the position. He is slotted in at like a 1A tier, or, at the very least, alone in tier 2 behind Graham/Gronk.I think people are a little too high and a little too certain on him.1) First, the most obvious, but probably not the most important thing to point out, but he does seem to have a tendency to get hurt. Even when he doesn't miss games, he always seems to be questionable, limited in practice, etc.2) Injuries aside, he did not have a great year in 2012. After the whole story all pre-season was how he was going to be the "focus" of the offense, he regressed, in my opinion. He developed some dropsies, was alligator-arming some things, and just in general played inconsistently.3) It sounds weird, but I think he gets a little over-rated because he gets paired up with Gronkowski, being on the same team. Hernandez is a very nice player, he's got more mass than a WR, but can move like one, and is dangerous with the ball in his hands...but he is not in the same class as Gronkowski, who is pretty much just an impossible match up no matter what teams try to do with him. He can outrun LB's, out-physical DB's, tower over everyone, and he has hands that Hernandez can only dream about. And this isn't to talk about their blocking, which is not even worth comparing.I feel like I sound more down him than I meant to. I'll repeat that he is a very good player and does create a mismatch problem, but he's not a dominant player by any stretch. I don't think he'll ever outproduce Gronkowski as some were saying he might this past off-season, and if Welker stays, I'm not entirely certain he isn't the #3 option. Now, that's a #3 option on a very good offense, and TE is a light position, but still, people are a little too high on him. I just saw in a thread a well-respected poster saying he wouldn't kill someone for taking Hernandez in the 2nd round of a PPR startup, for example. I think that's pretty insane.Anyway just putting it out there.

I agree that Hernandez is a clear step back from Gronk, but few players in the league are as dangerous with the ball in their hands. I like him a lot- he's basically a WR that you can start at TE. I wouldn't take him in the second, but I'd be happy to get him in the mid-to-late 3rd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the reason why's so valuable is for lack of other options. Players like Gresham and Rudolph are solid, but I don't really see them as having huge upside beyond what they did last season.There are only a few TEs who give you a real edge every week and Hernandez is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I obviously wouldn't count on Hernandez to be healthy for an entire season but when he is healthy he is the best swing TE in the game... Or at least the most dangerous because of the scheme and his overall fit within that scheme teamed with his athleticism.Because of those health concerns I think it would be wise to take some flyers in dynasty leagues on others whom, if they hit, could break into those 2 or 3 spots directly behind the likes of gronk graham Hernandez and witten... I'm not necessarily predicting this happens next yr but I think a few of these names could surprise by 2014. I think Rudolph is good but I don't trust ponder... Finley is ridiculously talented but inconsistent and maybe moving on for Rodgers next season... Gates is old and may never regain what he had before... Gonzo is gone, Jared cook is intriguing but I can't tell if his non production is a product of him just being inconsistent or the qb play in Tennessee or being under used in general...My targets for cheap tickets with potential to be much more valuable next season begins with Evan Rodriguez in Chicago. I realize it is just as likely that they will draft a tight end but I'm intrigued to see what trestman will bring from his cfl experience... Smaller hybrid slot type Wrs were prevelant it seems from some of the research I did about his work in the cfl... Does that type of role in the cfl equate to a hback or swing TE role for someone like Rodriguez?Throw in the fact that Chicago is in need of additional playmakers and with Jeffrey and Marshall on the outside there is room for somebody to do damage in the middle seams. Also Cutler has shown that when he is protected and when he isn't being a petulant child he has the skill set to be a very effective QBI'm also throwing David Ausberry into the mix as well... Raiders cap situation isn't the greatest and Myers may very well be moving on... Ausberry actually was used to block from time to time but I felt was severely underused in the passing game... That whole offense was a terrible mess most of the yr but I think I remember reading that al Saunders was working with the TEs last yr and he is still on that staff if I remember correctly... I know that he flashed some pretty nice after the catch ability in the preseason and I'm curious to see if he gets a shot to compete more this yr for playing time...Finally I am still holding out hope for Julius Thomas... Just seems like manning signing and his injury held him back... If he develops he was nearly unstoppable 2 camps ago... Teams don't normally keep 4 tight ends and even though Thomas may be 4th on the depth charts right now I still find it hard to cut bait or at least if I do I seem to always keep scouring the news for tidbits about him improving or making plays in practice... Oh yeah and Taylor Thompson is intriguing as well... Raw and maybe he never becomes a gronkowski but dang is it fun to watch him block!!

Edited by GoodLloydHaveMercy
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...