Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

Everyone in the leagues I play in must frequent FBG often. None of them holds him in near the regard that EBF does, but every one of them wants to wait for free agency unless you offer up late-RB2 value.

Which means they don't have a shrine to him in their apartment :hophead:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups.

He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My link

So we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts.

What am I missing here?

Edited by Kitrick Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I think you're on to something, here. But I also think his rookie season was rather fluky and isn't likely to be repeated; he's no longer the #1 on his team and he won't have such a high goal line target ratio. But he is a talent, is young, does have a track record, and I think he is a good bet to repeat his WR2 numbers as long as he is in his current situation. There is a stigma - which is often off the mark - about owning players who are not the #1 option on their team. Some still bring it up when talking about Aaron Hernandez. Thrifty brought up a good point a couple days ago: There is very high "good" player turnover in the NFL. People feel better investing in greatness and potential, than established "good" players - right or wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
Thanks for the input guys. A few more thoughts.The Bucs have opened up contract extension talks with Williams a year early. Local speculation has the deal around 5 years 36 million. That should settle any job security issues for a while. Its also confirmation about his abilities and turnaround in character from the team that knows him best. (incidently, its almost double the deal Lance Moore signed in 2011) With his job being relatively secure, lets go with the aforementioned 60-925-5 as his healthy floor going forward. Those are the numbers of your typical low end WR2 or high end WR3.His two good years have averaged 64/980/10. Now lets say you were optimistic about his future, and added 12 catches to that. (using his pace from the two good years) His numbers would be 76/1165/12. That's borderline top 5 any year. How could he get 12 more catches in a season? How about Freeman just becoming more accurate, or Williams actually improving his game, or both....I guess what I'm saying is he doesn't necessarily need a bunch more targets in this offense to put up big numbers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
Thanks for the input guys. A few more thoughts.The Bucs have opened up contract extension talks with Williams a year early. Local speculation has the deal around 5 years 36 million. That should settle any job security issues for a while. Its also confirmation about his abilities and turnaround in character from the team that knows him best. (incidently, its almost double the deal Lance Moore signed in 2011) With his job being relatively secure, lets go with the aforementioned 60-925-5 as his healthy floor going forward. Those are the numbers of your typical low end WR2 or high end WR3.His two good years have averaged 64/980/10. Now lets say you were optimistic about his future, and added 12 catches to that. (using his pace from the two good years) His numbers would be 76/1165/12. That's borderline top 5 any year. How could he get 12 more catches in a season? How about Freeman just becoming more accurate, or Williams actually improving his game, or both....I guess what I'm saying is he doesn't necessarily need a bunch more targets in this offense to put up big numbers.
Freeman isn't exactly the pillar of job security. And as we saw in 2011, I don't think we can safely call 60-925-5 his floor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
Thanks for the input guys. A few more thoughts.The Bucs have opened up contract extension talks with Williams a year early. Local speculation has the deal around 5 years 36 million. That should settle any job security issues for a while. Its also confirmation about his abilities and turnaround in character from the team that knows him best. (incidently, its almost double the deal Lance Moore signed in 2011) With his job being relatively secure, lets go with the aforementioned 60-925-5 as his healthy floor going forward. Those are the numbers of your typical low end WR2 or high end WR3.His two good years have averaged 64/980/10. Now lets say you were optimistic about his future, and added 12 catches to that. (using his pace from the two good years) His numbers would be 76/1165/12. That's borderline top 5 any year. How could he get 12 more catches in a season? How about Freeman just becoming more accurate, or Williams actually improving his game, or both....I guess what I'm saying is he doesn't necessarily need a bunch more targets in this offense to put up big numbers.
Williams will get paid more than Lance Moore because Williams is a better receiver than Lance Moore. Unfortunately for Mike Williams owners, Drew Brees is a better QB than Josh Freeman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping to get a few opinions on Mike Williams. He came into the league in 2010, and fell to the 4th round because of some pretty sketchy behavior at Syracuse. Yet he tore up the Tampa Bay training camp, won the #1 WR position and finished as WR11 with 65/964/11. At that point, he was dismissed by many as a one trick pony. The character concerns came to the forefront in 2011, as the pretty much the whole Tampa team quit about half way through the season. Williams was reportedly one of the problems, and finished 65/771/3 or WR50. Written off by most, he entered 2012 as Tampa's #2 guy behind newly signed VJAX. Reports were that VJAX took Williams under his wings a bit and showed him how to be a pro. Williams finished with 63/996/9 or WR18. Yet at this point, I consistently see him going somewhere between WR36-47 in startups. He's got plenty of speed (4.53) for his size 6'2" 212. He's proven to be a very good red zone threat. (that's good in fantasy football right?) There doesn't seem to be concerns about his route running, or his ability to get off press coverage. Athletically, he tests out as a top notch prospect. My linkSo we've got a 25 year old WR that has seemingly overcome his biggest question mark coming into the NFL. (character). He's got a low end WR1 finish, and a mid WR2 finish in the two years he tried. Yet he's somehow falling into WR4 territory in drafts. What am I missing here?

I discount him a lot based on my (justified or not) concern that a lot of his value is tied to his high TD totals. I think next year you could very easily be looking at a 60-925-5 year.
This. I agree Williams is undervalued. I'll admit that every time I look at WR rankings for the past season I'm surprised by just how well he did- he generated practically no buzz. Still, his career high in receptions is 65. His career high in yards is under 1,000 (albeit barely). He's the clear-cut #2 on a passing offense I don't have tons of faith in. I'd rank him close to another perpetually underrated but consistent performer- Lance Moore.
Thanks for the input guys. A few more thoughts.The Bucs have opened up contract extension talks with Williams a year early. Local speculation has the deal around 5 years 36 million. That should settle any job security issues for a while. Its also confirmation about his abilities and turnaround in character from the team that knows him best. (incidently, its almost double the deal Lance Moore signed in 2011) With his job being relatively secure, lets go with the aforementioned 60-925-5 as his healthy floor going forward. Those are the numbers of your typical low end WR2 or high end WR3.His two good years have averaged 64/980/10. Now lets say you were optimistic about his future, and added 12 catches to that. (using his pace from the two good years) His numbers would be 76/1165/12. That's borderline top 5 any year. How could he get 12 more catches in a season? How about Freeman just becoming more accurate, or Williams actually improving his game, or both....I guess what I'm saying is he doesn't necessarily need a bunch more targets in this offense to put up big numbers.
Williams will get paid more than Lance Moore because Williams is a better receiver than Lance Moore. Unfortunately for Mike Williams owners, Drew Brees is a better QB than Josh Freeman.
You are correct. No question Williams would be better served by an All Pro QB.Look, I'm not trying to push an agenda here with Williams or Britt. I just like going through recent startups and searching for guys that I think are going far too low. I hit on a pretty good percentage of them last year at this time, and wanted to see why the consensus is so different than my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bears to Look into a Fullback Role

As I read through this article it sounds as though somebody with the skill set of Evan Rodriguez could get a shot to have a much more prominent role in an offense like this. Trestman may prefer to have a traditional banger Fullback and compliment them with somebody versatile enough to move around the formation and serve as either a blocking back or tight end or possibly even go to the slot from time to time to create mismatches. Is Rodriguez that guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happen to notice that Shonn Greene survived the big NY Jet purge today. Is it just a matter of time? Does it even matter?Edit: He's a 2013 FA so there is no need to cut him. Carry on ...

Edited by kwille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happen to notice that Shonn Greene survived the big NY Jet purge today. Is it just a matter of time? Does it even matter?

He's not nearly as bad as people would have you believe. I always liked him at Iowa. When he was a draft prospect, I predicted that his career would turn out exactly as it has. When people were talking up scrubs like Bilal Powell and Joe McKnight, I predicted that Greene would keep his job. FF fans want everybody to run a 4.2 in the 40, catch 60 passes every season, and average 5 YPC, but there simply aren't a lot of those backs walking around the planet. Some teams have to settle for a guy like Greene. He's not that explosive and he's not that versatile, but he's actually a pretty good running back. His career YPC is respectable and he can handle a lot of carries without breaking down. If you're looking to upgrade a terrible NFL team, there are more pressing needs. Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a philosophical question:If you have a crap team with a bunch of junk and one superstar young player, do you sell him for smaller pieces in order to make your team more competitive or do you stand pat and try to build around him? After participating in a bunch of leagues for years, I've noticed that they often play out pretty similarly. Most of the teams start out pretty even, but over the years a few teams separate from the pack. Weak owners punt away value until there's nothing left of their roster but a skeleton. Good owners accumulate value until a majority of the elite players become concentrated on a minority of rosters. In extreme cases, you can get situations where one owner has a total monopoly. As an owner, I think you have a vested interest in preventing that scenario (unless you're the team with the monopoly). You can't prevent other teams from making bad trades to help enable someone else's monopoly, but you can minimize your own contribution to that process by locking down your top 10-15 overall type of assets. The incentive to keep players like Doug Martin and Julio Jones isn't just that they're great players who are going to score a lot of points for you, but also that doing so prevents someone else in your league from getting those players. Going back to the question that I asked, if you have Julio and nothing else, should you be willing to trade him for an entire starting lineup of useful, but unspectacular players? Something like Tony Romo/Stevan Ridley/Dwayne Bowe/Steve Johnson/Jermaine Gresham? In theory, that trade makes you much more competitive. On the other hand, you've just lost your one golden asset and now it's floating around out there on someone else's roster, waiting to be snapped up by the resident monopoly. When someone in your league is starting Rice/Martin/Julio/Green/Calvin every week, your little Ridley/Bowe/Johnson team is going to be a major dog to win the championship. This is part of the reason why I've gradually become really opposed to the "trade a superstar for a bunch of small pieces" kind of deals. Provided that he still has a lot of his prime left, I think you're usually better off keeping the player. Not only because players of that caliber are hard to replace, but also as a means of playing keep-away from the super powers that will inevitably emerge in your league. All of the points that Calvin scores for your last place team are points that he isn't scoring for somebody else. Overall, my attitude is that you need to keep your superstars under lockdown and only trade them if you're absolutely sure that you're getting at least one superstar back. So I might trade Dez Bryant for AJ Green. But I wouldn't trade Dez Bryant for Antonio Brown, Steve Johnson, and Santonio Holmes even if it would theoretically improve my team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shonn Greene

He's not nearly as bad as people would have you believe. I always liked him at Iowa. When he was a draft prospect, I predicted that his career would turn out exactly as it has. When people were talking up scrubs like Bilal Powell and Joe McKnight, I predicted that Greene would keep his job.
I went back and read your 2009 rookie rankings (which I guess is the danger of making a rookie rankings every year) but you were too high on him. You valued him pretty highly, and he has done nothing to warrant that ranking. Yes he kept his job through 2012, but that's about it. (Well, actually he didn't even do that if you consider the LT years.)

There's a reason people don't like him. There haven't been many RBs worth anything with > 4.6 40 times. But if he moved the pile, got more yards after first contact, or just in general ran hard no one would care. His yards after first contact has been in the low 2s his whole career, which is "bottom of the league"-level stuff.

The alternate view is that a cash strapped team has better use for $ than a RB with negative VOA. I mean I liked him a little bit at Iowa too, but let's not pretend he's been good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a philosophical question:If you have a crap team with a bunch of junk and one superstar young player, do you sell him for smaller pieces in order to make your team more competitive or do you stand pat and try to build around him? After participating in a bunch of leagues for years, I've noticed that they often play out pretty similarly. Most of the teams start out pretty even, but over the years a few teams separate from the pack. Weak owners punt away value until there's nothing left of their roster but a skeleton. Good owners accumulate value until a majority of the elite players become concentrated on a minority of rosters. In extreme cases, you can get situations where one owner has a total monopoly. As an owner, I think you have a vested interest in preventing that scenario (unless you're the team with the monopoly). You can't prevent other teams from making bad trades to help enable someone else's monopoly, but you can minimize your own contribution to that process by locking down your top 10-15 overall type of assets. The incentive to keep players like Doug Martin and Julio Jones isn't just that they're great players who are going to score a lot of points for you, but also that doing so prevents someone else in your league from getting those players. Going back to the question that I asked, if you have Julio and nothing else, should you be willing to trade him for an entire starting lineup of useful, but unspectacular players? Something like Tony Romo/Stevan Ridley/Dwayne Bowe/Steve Johnson/Jermaine Gresham? In theory, that trade makes you much more competitive. On the other hand, you've just lost your one golden asset and now it's floating around out there on someone else's roster, waiting to be snapped up by the resident monopoly. When someone in your league is starting Rice/Martin/Julio/Green/Calvin every week, your little Ridley/Bowe/Johnson team is going to be a major dog to win the championship. This is part of the reason why I've gradually become really opposed to the "trade a superstar for a bunch of small pieces" kind of deals. Provided that he still has a lot of his prime left, I think you're usually better off keeping the player. Not only because players of that caliber are hard to replace, but also as a means of playing keep-away from the super powers that will inevitably emerge in your league. All of the points that Calvin scores for your last place team are points that he isn't scoring for somebody else. Overall, my attitude is that you need to keep your superstars under lockdown and only trade them if you're absolutely sure that you're getting at least one superstar back. So I might trade Dez Bryant for AJ Green. But I wouldn't trade Dez Bryant for Antonio Brown, Steve Johnson, and Santonio Holmes even if it would theoretically improve my team.

I agree with what you are saying. This is part of why trading in dynasty leagues gets hard after things have settled down. Core players just should not be traded for anything but other core players. The more experienced the owners in the league I think the more they will as a whole come around to this and therefore trading really slows down.It also does not help having that stacked team. People will look at your roster and see many players that they want but then realize that trading with such a team is against their best interest because that team really does not need any more help.One of the things about dynasty that I do not really like much are the king maker deals. I have seen people trade studs to teams just because those teams are facing the stacked team and they want to give the underdog a better chance. However they did not think about after the game that team will still own the stud they just traded to them and might become the next stacked team in the league in part because of this trade.Stop doing that. :mellow: If your roster only has one core player on it then I think you must trade that player and get the best possible deal you can in return, which should include a lot of draft picks. If your team has no stars this allows you to take more project players in the draft than you otherwise should with a pretty good roster already intact.I recall a team quite awhile back that had LT in his prime but nothing much else. Lots of people made offers for LT but he would not trade him. This owner did not have very good drafts and never added much more for core players besides LT. He even won some games that he likely would not have had a chance in if not for starting LT.I am not saying to fire sale here with the teams one asset. But I think the most likely way to turn the team around is by trading away your one core player and getting as many picks/projects you can for that player and then really start working the wire since a big chunk of your roster likely belongs there. Keep your own draft picks expecting them to be high until you add a few core pieces to your roster through the draft.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shonn Greene

He's not nearly as bad as people would have you believe. I always liked him at Iowa. When he was a draft prospect, I predicted that his career would turn out exactly as it has. When people were talking up scrubs like Bilal Powell and Joe McKnight, I predicted that Greene would keep his job.
I went back and read your 2009 rookie rankings (which I guess is the danger of making a rookie rankings every year) but you were too high on him. You valued him pretty highly, and he has done nothing to warrant that ranking. Yes he kept his job through 2012, but that's about it. (Well, actually he didn't even do that if you consider the LT years.)

There's a reason people don't like him. There haven't been many RBs worth anything with > 4.6 40 times. But if he moved the pile, got more yards after first contact, or just in general ran hard no one would care. His yards after first contact has been in the low 2s his whole career, which is "bottom of the league"-level stuff.

The alternate view is that a cash strapped team has better use for $ than a RB with negative VOA. I mean I liked him a little bit at Iowa too, but let's not pretend he's been good.

I think my take on him was pretty accurate overall.

4. RB Shonn Greene *, Iowa

Positives: Great frame. Built low and strong. Runs on a swivel with fluid hips and quick feet for a big man. Very productive.

Negatives: Lacks elite speed and explosiveness. Limited involvement in the passing game.

Overall: Greene doesn't have the flashy upside of some of the other backs in this draft, but he's a low risk prospect whose game should translate very well to the NFL level. I look for him to become a 300+ carry back at the next level and an ideal RB2 for FF teams.

NFL Comparison: Michael Turner, Rudi Johnson

Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KaN3ARrfiU

Not a bad assessment. Obviously he's been more Rudi than Turner. Some of that is probably related to the supporting cast. The Jets have had poor surrounding talent during Greene's entire tenure there. Stick him on the Patriots or Packers and his YPC would be higher. 4.1 is still a decent career average. In my leagues he's been a mid-level RB2 each of the past two seasons. He's had a better career than Wells and Moreno, who both had considerably more fanfare.

He's not terrible. He's just not dynamic. I don't think FF owners really appreciate players like this since we're always on the lookout for difference makers.

Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

I don't think that kind of thing is too common.I think most people make trades that they believe are in their best interest. I don't think there's a lot of consideration for helping other teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

Not that I have ever seen in a decade of playing in multiple Dynasty leagues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

I don't think that kind of thing is too common.I think most people make trades that they believe are in their best interest. I don't think there's a lot of consideration for helping other teams.
Agreed. The vibe I got from his post was that it was something he's seen a few times. I'm more inclined to believe that's just how he interpreted a bad trade at the time, when it was really just a bad trade (I assume).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

Not that I have ever seen in a decade of playing in multiple Dynasty leagues.
Thats been my experience as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also does not help having that stacked team. People will look at your roster and see many players that they want but then realize that trading with such a team is against their best interest because that team really does not need any more help.

I disagree with this. Most people look at a stacked team as an opportunity to gain talent rather than be afraid of making the team stronger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. RB Shonn Greene *, Iowa

Positives: Great frame. Built low and strong. Runs on a swivel with fluid hips and quick feet for a big man. Very productive.

Negatives: Lacks elite speed and explosiveness. Limited involvement in the passing game.

Overall: Greene doesn't have the flashy upside of some of the other backs in this draft, but he's a low risk prospect whose game should translate very well to the NFL level. I look for him to become a 300+ carry back at the next level and an ideal RB2 for FF teams.

NFL Comparison: Michael Turner, Rudi Johnson

Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KaN3ARrfiU

Not a bad assessment. Obviously he's been more Rudi than Turner.
He hasn't been Rudi (3 years of RB1). I'd argue his game didn't translate well (not strong enough to break tackles). And obviously that #4 should be red and flashing. If you want to cut yourself some slack that's fine, but IMO he's been more LenDale White than Rudi. White also had 2 ugly years of RB2 production.

Some of that is probably related to the supporting cast. The Jets have had poor surrounding talent during Greene's entire tenure there.

OL has been top 5-ish Greene's whole tenure in run blocking. You could argue with his meager YAC he's only getting what the OL gives him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. RB Shonn Greene *, Iowa

Positives: Great frame. Built low and strong. Runs on a swivel with fluid hips and quick feet for a big man. Very productive.

Negatives: Lacks elite speed and explosiveness. Limited involvement in the passing game.

Overall: Greene doesn't have the flashy upside of some of the other backs in this draft, but he's a low risk prospect whose game should translate very well to the NFL level. I look for him to become a 300+ carry back at the next level and an ideal RB2 for FF teams.

NFL Comparison: Michael Turner, Rudi Johnson

Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KaN3ARrfiU

Not a bad assessment. Obviously he's been more Rudi than Turner.
He hasn't been Rudi (3 years of RB1). I'd argue his game didn't translate well (not strong enough to break tackles). And obviously that #4 should be red and flashing. If you want to cut yourself some slack that's fine, but IMO he's been more LenDale White than Rudi. White also had 2 ugly years of RB2 production.

Some of that is probably related to the supporting cast. The Jets have had poor surrounding talent during Greene's entire tenure there.

OL has been top 5-ish Greene's whole tenure in run blocking. You could argue with his meager YAC he's only getting what the OL gives him.
Don't really want to turn this into a Greene thread, but I'd argue that he's basically a carbon copy of Rudi. Differences in FF production are a result of fewer carries. Rudi was an average starter who put in a couple serviceable years before fading out. That seems to be Greene's career arc as well. Their career YPC average is pretty similar. Greene is actually a bit ahead of him at this point.

As for the Jets, their OL might be good, but having a terrible QB and no threats in the receiving game makes it easy to sell out against the run. You put a RB from a good offense on this team and his YPC would be lower. Situation isn't everything, but it definitely counts for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Greene's YPC/yardage demonstrably better when Holmes/Edwards were providing semi-competent receiving threats?

Sanchez QB all 4 years2009 Cotchery, Braylon - YPC=5.0 DVOA=4.0% (COP to TJones)2010 Holmes 12gm, Braylon's best year in NY - YPC=4.1 DVOA=7.3% (50/50 with LT) 2011 Holmes 16gm, Burress - YPC=4.2 DVOA=2.2% (Starter) 2012 garbage - YPC=3.9 DVOA=-4.7% (Starter) Finished 30th in yards-after-contact among running backs in 2010 (2.2) and 30th in 2011 (2.0).Seems to me if they take the load off him, maybe he's more effective. He does turn 28 before the season starts though (was an old rookie).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quick answer is always get the best player in the deal. This translates to not trading said great player.

Quick rule of thumb: any quick rule of thumb that contains the words "always" or "never" is always wrong, and never right.As a general guideline, the whole "whoever gets the best player wins" guideline is a very useful heuristic, but to suggest that it's always the case is just wrong. To think of it in terms of startup value... if you could trade a top 5 startup pick for four late 2nds/early 3rds, you're certainly coming out ahead in that trade.In EBF's hypothetical, I think your goal must always be making your team better, not preventing your opposition from getting better. If your opponent improves, but you improve by a greater amount, you've gained an advantage on all 11 other teams in your league. If you improve, but your partner improves by a greater amount... well, you've still gained an advantage over the other 10 teams in the league. If you have a stud wasting away on a dead end roster, you're just wasting his production. Points do you no good unless you're competitive. I'm not saying sell your stud for a bunch of mediocre WR3s, because those won't make you a title contender either, but you owe it to yourself to try to get something of value for him, especially if it's someone like Arian Foster, Ray Rice, Larry Fitzgerald, Brandon Marshall, or Drew Brees, who won't still be viable by the time it takes you to get the rest of your house in order. Don't waste away his career and drain him of every ounce of market value just to spite the rest of your league.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

I found that statement very odd as well. So the team gives a way a stud, forever, to help an underdog win over a better team that season. Why would anyone do that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jets have had poor surrounding talent during Greene's entire tenure there.

That just isn't true. They had one of the better o-lines in the NFL for Greene's first couple of seasons. Thomas Jones and a "washed up" LT2 seemed to do ok behind that line. The last two season's it has regressed but still isn't terrible at run blocking and Greene's poor vision made it seem worse than it was.The receiving talent wasn't horrible with Holmes, Edwards and Keller among others and Sanchez was ok his first two seasons.You're right in that he's not as bad as the "group think" legend has built him up to be, but he really just isn't very good either. He's a straight ahead runner that doesn't break as many tackles as he should for his size. He does possess good straightline speed for a back his size which is why he was able to break some long runs at the end of his rookie season when he had fresh legs against tired teams. "Scrub" Powell looked far more explosive last season than Greene. Edited by Dr. Octopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drafted Greene in one start up that I royally effed up when I tried to draft 100% by the market and then trade what I didn't like after. Greene was one of my choices. Immediately after drafting him, as I watched more and more, I became sick to my stomach with what I had done. I felt dirty. Luckily I was able to dump that slime for what turned out to be the 1.1 before week 1 of his rookie year to a guy that believed in him. I, too, fell in to the trap of suggesting he was near Rudi. Rudi actually was a decent runner though. I understand being wrong on a player, I am wrong plenty of times, but trying to defend being wrong on the guy after what we know now is nothing short of stubborn and irrational. The thing with cats like Greene, if they turn a short-term profit quickly, it's all well and good. But as we get years in to the RBBC approach, these guys have less and less opportunity to turn the short-term profit (either in scoring or in trades), thus the market for these guys is relatively non-existent. Who wants a guy that will average 10-12 points per in PPR? I sure as hell do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quick answer is always get the best player in the deal. This translates to not trading said great player.

But what if the best player in the deal simply isn't viewed as such at that point in history? For instance, siding with Greg Jennings over Demaryius Thomas two years ago. Jennings was the ore valuable market piece, sure, and was certainly considered the better player, but playing dynasty robotic without the use of your own eyes and valuation system leads you to mediocrity. I've never competed with you so I do not suggest you are a mediocre owner, but this logic is flawed for dynasty and much more applicable to a redraft setting.ETA - The exception, of course, is if you rely on raping leaguemates with 50% of your trades and then playing by market with the other 50% of your trades. Once your teams are strong, the former is damn near impossible regardless of the relative strength/weakness of your leaguemates. Edited by JPeso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quick answer is always get the best player in the deal. This translates to not trading said great player.

But what if the best player in the deal simply isn't viewed as such at that point in history?
I think this is off topic. We're assuming the "best player" is a stable elite player, and the other side is a bunch of non-elite "stuff". It's a good point about staying ahead of the curve, but no one said follow market value religiously. I'm sure most have rejected offers with good market value just because it didn't fit their strategy or mood.

For instance, siding with Greg Jennings over Demaryius Thomas two years ago. Jennings was the ore valuable market piece, sure, and was certainly considered the better player,

I think that's a bad example. I had an orphan team I took over in 2010 and picked Jennings in a contraction draft 2 or 3 spots ahead of Thomas. Jennings 2010 and 2011 points mattered. While I'd love to have Thomas in that league now, I wouldn't give back the banners. Virtual as they may be. If you stick with Jennings, you know why you're making that choice. If someone offers you a top 4 pick for Roddy White or Andre Johnson (or perhaps Decker is a better example - still young but window of possible eliteness is small) it is still a reasonable strategy to turn it down. Really whether you should do a trade or not should be based on 1) team strategy, 2) personal dogma, and 3) market value. In that order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quick answer is always get the best player in the deal. This translates to not trading said great player.

But what if the best player in the deal simply isn't viewed as such at that point in history?
I think this is off topic. We're assuming the "best player" is a stable elite player, and the other side is a bunch of non-elite "stuff". It's a good point about staying ahead of the curve, but no one said follow market value religiously. I'm sure most have rejected offers with good market value just because it didn't fit their strategy or mood.

For instance, siding with Greg Jennings over Demaryius Thomas two years ago. Jennings was the ore valuable market piece, sure, and was certainly considered the better player,

I think that's a bad example. I had an orphan team I took over in 2010 and picked Jennings in a contraction draft 2 or 3 spots ahead of Thomas. Jennings 2010 and 2011 points mattered. While I'd love to have Thomas in that league now, I wouldn't give back the banners. Virtual as they may be. If you stick with Jennings, you know why you're making that choice. If someone offers you a top 4 pick for Roddy White or Andre Johnson (or perhaps Decker is a better example - still young but window of possible eliteness is small) it is still a reasonable strategy to turn it down. Really whether you should do a trade or not should be based on 1) team strategy, 2) personal dogma, and 3) market value. In that order.
First point - what you, me, and a third owner consider to be stable are probably all different. Predicting stability isn't something everyone is good at doing. If you think I'm off topic, by all means you are entitled to that opinion.Second point - let's say it was Greg Jennings and Dez Bryant who was providing more short-term. Hypothetically speaking...say you dealt Jennings + 1st for Dez when Jennings was marketed far higher than Dez, it didn't cost you a title and it sure isn't costing anything now. Similarly, the year before that, say you dealt Jennings + 2nd for Nicks, won the title that year, dealt Nicks in to Dez the next season. In both cases you dealt the best player with a high assumed stability. If you don't agree with the comparison, that is fine and I can find another others."Best player" and "stability" are relative terms. The deciphering of such terms, I'd argue, are fantastic indicators of pack separation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First point - what you, me, and a third owner consider to be stable are probably all different. Predicting stability isn't something everyone is good at doing. If you think I'm off topic, by all means you are entitled to that opinion.Second point - let's say it was Greg Jennings and Dez Bryant who was providing more short-term. Hypothetically speaking...say you dealt Jennings + 1st for Dez when Jennings was marketed far higher than Dez, it didn't cost you a title and it sure isn't costing anything now. Similarly, the year before that, say you dealt Jennings + 2nd for Nicks, won the title that year, dealt Nicks in to Dez the next season. In both cases you dealt the best player with a high assumed stability. If you don't agree with the comparison, that is fine and I can find another others."Best player" and "stability" are relative terms. The deciphering of such terms, I'd argue, are fantastic indicators of pack separation.

That's fair. There's definitely a scenario where you can both improve your window and not lose out on today. Certainly I saw overpays for Dez rookie picks (Andre + 2.2 comes to mind) that were laughable then but leave the team in a better place now. The question of when to sell a player like Jennings is more complex than "bad owners sold too late." The gamble on Jennings is more clear in trades today than 4 years ago. 4 years ago if you held him, you won. Sure there's a legit scenario where you could have improved your team, but he delivered stats for a long time so who cares. Reminds me of people recommending Cobb as a sell high. Difference between being overvalued and a sell high. Jennings was not a sell high even if you could have moved him for Dez. You don't have to make every optimal move in order to win. You just have to have the best team at the right time. And now that Jennings' elite years are spent, we're left with a scenario where you really have to bet on his talent. Jennings for mid 1st, Jennings for 2014 1st are going to happen a lot. A competitive team bailing on Jennings could regret it. A middle of the pack team betting on Jennings could regret it.Perhaps Jennings isn't the best player to base all this off of. Vick, Rivers. DeSean, Royal, Felix Jones, Best. There's a ton of guys who dropped in value based on legitimately being fool's gold instead of just having their window close (at approximately the same date people expected their window to close).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Jennings isn't the best player to base all this off of. Vick, Rivers. DeSean, Royal, Felix Jones, Best. There's a ton of guys who dropped in value based on legitimately being fool's gold instead of just having their window close (at approximately the same date people expected their window to close).

This actually makes Jennings all the more important to base this off of and why I specifically used him. He was viewed as uber-stable as he did it for more than a year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an owner, I think you have a vested interest in preventing that scenario (unless you're the team with the monopoly). You can't prevent other teams from making bad trades to help enable someone else's monopoly, but you can minimize your own contribution to that process by locking down your top 10-15 overall type of assets. The incentive to keep players like Doug Martin and Julio Jones isn't just that they're great players who are going to score a lot of points for you, but also that doing so prevents someone else in your league from getting those players.

I happen to be the guy with the monopoly in my main dynasty. Mainly because I just put way more time into it then everyone else, the other owners tend to undervalue future 1sts, and with the vast help of this thread and advice from people within. Halfway through this season, it was apparent my TE was my only weakness (thanks Vernon) and felt I would be assured a championship if I could get an elite player there. I offered Crabtree (around the time Kaep took over), a 2013 1st (it turned into 1.3) and 2 2014 fists (mine and another owner that is generally strong) for Gronk.The owner was in last place, and was starting a lineup of Brady, Spiller, Donald Brown, Mike Wallace, Andre Roberts, Andrew Hawkins and Gronk. With Harvin out, his WRs were dreadful. His reply was that if any other owner had offered that to him, he would have accepted, but didn't want to give me Gronk. That it would make my team almost unbeatable even if he fixed his wrs/rbs so that he was competitive. In hindsight, I'm glad he turned it down, and I rode Myers/Vernon to a championship, but at the time I thought for sure he'd accept. He would have still had a core to build around (Harvin/Spiller) plus 1.2/1.3 (he finished 2nd to last) and 3 2014 1sts. I guess I don't blame him for rejecting just because he thought it'd make my team too strong to contend with down the road, but I think his team would be in a much better place right now with that package then Gronk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had guys like Fitz and Jennings on my teams for years. I would've loved to have sold them before the value bottomed out, but it's not always easy. You need to successfully identify the right trade target and then find someone willing to make a deal. I think I am usually pretty good at #1, but elite players are rare by definition. Sometimes you have a pretty clear idea like with Dez Bryant, Trent Richardson, and Andrew Luck. But there are a lot of guys like Braylon Edwards, Roy Williams, Beanie Wells, and Kevin Jones who can fool you. A lot of people bought those guys thinking they were getting the next generation of core players. Obviously it didn't work out that way. The risk of going big on someone like Michael Floyd, David Wilson, or Josh Gordon right now is that he becomes this. The bigger concern is finding a willing partner. I sent out more offers this past season than ever before. In general, I found that it's very tough to get a deal done. You usually need to overpay to get something done. That decreases your margin for error. I only have Dez in one league and the only reason I got him is because I shipped out Randy Moss (still on the Patriots) and Dwayne Bowe. At the time it looked I overpaid a lot. I offered Fitz (and pieces?) for Dez before last season. No dice. I offered Fitz straight up for Blackmon before last season. No dice. I spent years trying to trade for Dez in a couple of my leagues for years to no avail. I've seen owners in my leagues punt away their best players for horrible prices, but I haven't had much luck finding deals for top players. The end result is that you sometimes end up arriving at the conclusion that you should just keep the guy and let him rot on your team. I still have Fitz in two leagues and I haven't even bothered sending out any offers this offseason. No point. No one wants him. And if they do, they don't want to give up anything to get him.

Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Jennings isn't the best player to base all this off of. Vick, Rivers. DeSean, Royal, Felix Jones, Best. There's a ton of guys who dropped in value based on legitimately being fool's gold instead of just having their window close (at approximately the same date people expected their window to close).

This actually makes Jennings all the more important to base this off of and why I specifically used him. He was viewed as uber-stable as he did it for more than a year.
He was viewed as über-stable because Rodgers was his QB. If Jennings gets a mediocre 3 yr deal to stay in GB, his value and decline get more Wayne-like. Or White-like. It's true the Jennings vs. Thomas decision in 2010 could have amounted to 120 remaining VBD vs. ~400 remaining VBD. It's tough to say that Thomas' expected remaining VBD was higher at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had guys like Fitz and Jennings on my teams for years. I would've loved to have sold them before the value bottomed out, but it's not always easy. You need to successfully identify the right trade target and then find someone willing to make a deal. I think I am usually pretty good at #1, but elite players are rare by definition. Sometimes you have a pretty clear idea like with Dez Bryant, Trent Richardson, and Andrew Luck. But there are a lot of guys like Braylon Edwards, Roy Williams, Beanie Wells, and Kevin Jones who can fool you. A lot of people bought those guys thinking they were getting the next generation of core players. Obviously it didn't work out that way. The risk of going big on someone like Michael Floyd, David Wilson, or Josh Gordon right now is that he becomes this. The bigger concern is finding a willing partner. I sent out more offers this past season than ever before. In general, I found that it's very tough to get a deal done. You usually need to overpay to get something done. That decreases your margin for error. I only have Dez in one league and the only reason I got him is because I shipped out Randy Moss (still on the Patriots) and Dwayne Bowe. At the time it looked I overpaid a lot. I offered Fitz (and pieces?) for Dez before last season. No dice. I offered Fitz straight up for Blackmon before last season. No dice. I spent years trying to trade for Dez in a couple of my leagues for years to no avail. I've seen owners in my leagues punt away their best players for horrible prices, but I haven't had much luck finding deals for top players. The end result is that you sometimes end up arriving at the conclusion that you should just keep the guy and let him rot on your team. I still have Fitz in two leagues and I haven't even bothered sending out any offers this offseason. No point. No one wants him. And if they do, they don't want to give up anything to get him.

I find this as well. Almost impossible to trade for top players. I've worked for Richardson, Harvin, Dez and D Thimas this offseason and the answers have been, "I'm not interested in trading them". That's it.Same on trading away older vets (who still produce). No one willing to even talk. Edited by Andrew74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this as well. Almost impossible to trade for top players. I've worked for Richardson, Harvin, Dez and D Thimas this offseason and the answers have been, "I'm not interested in trading them". That's it.

Good owners are all after the same small group of players. The list changes from year to year and everyone has their own slant on things, but right now I'd say these guys are the trendy buys in general:

Andrew Luck

Robert Griffin

Colin Kaepernick

Aaron Rodgers

Cam Newton

Trent Richardson

Doug Martin

CJ Spiller

Julio Jones

AJ Green

Demaryius Thomas

Percy Harvin

Dez Bryant

Rob Gronkowski

Jimmy Graham

There might be a few names missing. You can make a case that guys like Calvin, Peterson, Rice, McCoy, and Charles should still be on here. Someone like Blackmon or the Wilsons might be on the cusp. And if you're in dev leagues, a guy like Marqise Lee already qualifies IMO. These are the players that every owner in your league would like to have. It's not surprising that these players are expensive. They should be.

Smart owners are going to try to collect as many of these guys as they can. If you own players like this, they're going to try to pry them away from you using a combination of inferior players, aging stars, and draft picks. If they already own players like Julio and Green, they're not going to sell them unless they're getting another player of that caliber back. Meanwhile bad owners are going to punt these guys away for smaller pieces.

If you want to build a real monopoly, the goal is to get as many of these guys as you can. That can be easier said than done for reasons that I already mentioned. Often times, the players of this caliber are pretty apparent all along. With the hype that they had in college and in the draft, there never should have been a buy low window for Richardson, Luck, or Green. You could have gotten them for a slight discount before they played a down from someone who wanted them to "prove" their talent, but they were never cheap. And I don't blame anyone for not trading them.

The only way to get these guys is to look ahead and either take them when they're still in college (dev leagues), trade for the draft picks that become them, finish low enough in your league to get them in the rookie draft, or identify an unexpected mega star like Graham, Marshall, R Wilson, or Foster before the hype catches up. That goes back to some of the posts I made earlier this past season. Timing is a huge part of getting good value. You need to be on these guys before the jury is out. In most of the leagues where I have Doug Martin, Demaryius Thomas, and Andrew Luck, the reason I own them is because I paid above market value to get them before their profile really exploded. If I had waited, I would've been priced out. I only won one league this past year and the only reason I was successful is because I made a number of preemptive picks and trades that broke in my favor.

If you want to do well, you need to anticipate value trajectories and make proactive moves accordingly. That was my #1 lesson this past year. You need to be the guy buying Spiller after his disappointing rookie year, not the guy trying to buy him now. There aren't a lot of these guys out there. That's the hard part. You look at some of the trendy "next big thing" options right now like Josh Gordon, Kendall Wright, Justin Blackmon, David Wilson, Alshon Jeffery, Bernard Pierce, LaMichael James, Rueben Randle, Jon Baldwin, and Michael Floyd. Maybe 1-2 of those guys are legit. The rest will end up varying degrees of outright crap or mediocre like Maclin, Beanie, Torrey, McFadden, Felix, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not be in a league where I legitimately thought one owner was trading a stud to another owner specifically for the purpose of competing against one of the better teams in the league. Does that really happen in legit, established leagues?

I found that statement very odd as well. So the team gives a way a stud, forever, to help an underdog win over a better team that season. Why would anyone do that?
For everybody about my previous post.I was having a moment there and I do likely read that situation wrong. Sometimes bad trades happen.I guess I will try to put it like this. If a team in your league seems to constantly win trades, you know this owner constantly wins trades, please stop trading with this owner unless you are sober.I have been the guy always winning the trades too. Some owners are very irrational and will trade for all manner of reasons besides just wanting to make their teams better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had guys like Fitz and Jennings on my teams for years. I would've loved to have sold them before the value bottomed out, but it's not always easy. You need to successfully identify the right trade target and then find someone willing to make a deal. I think I am usually pretty good at #1, but elite players are rare by definition. Sometimes you have a pretty clear idea like with Dez Bryant, Trent Richardson, and Andrew Luck. But there are a lot of guys like Braylon Edwards, Roy Williams, Beanie Wells, and Kevin Jones who can fool you. A lot of people bought those guys thinking they were getting the next generation of core players. Obviously it didn't work out that way. The risk of going big on someone like Michael Floyd, David Wilson, or Josh Gordon right now is that he becomes this. The bigger concern is finding a willing partner. I sent out more offers this past season than ever before. In general, I found that it's very tough to get a deal done. You usually need to overpay to get something done. That decreases your margin for error. I only have Dez in one league and the only reason I got him is because I shipped out Randy Moss (still on the Patriots) and Dwayne Bowe. At the time it looked I overpaid a lot. I offered Fitz (and pieces?) for Dez before last season. No dice. I offered Fitz straight up for Blackmon before last season. No dice. I spent years trying to trade for Dez in a couple of my leagues for years to no avail. I've seen owners in my leagues punt away their best players for horrible prices, but I haven't had much luck finding deals for top players. The end result is that you sometimes end up arriving at the conclusion that you should just keep the guy and let him rot on your team. I still have Fitz in two leagues and I haven't even bothered sending out any offers this offseason. No point. No one wants him. And if they do, they don't want to give up anything to get him.

I find this as well. Almost impossible to trade for top players. I've worked for Richardson, Harvin, Dez and D Thimas this offseason and the answers have been, "I'm not interested in trading them". That's it.Same on trading away older vets (who still produce). No one willing to even talk.
When I drafted Percy Harvin during our league draft I gave every owner a few hours to make trade proposals for the pick I used to take him. At that time I said this would be the last opportunity for them to get Harvin as I would likely never trade him once drafted. This is how I view a lot of the players I get as rookies. Certainly not all of them. But the ones who perform are not going to be available in trade unless I can a player similar to them in return.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been the guy always winning the trades too. Some owners are very irrational and will trade for all manner of reasons besides just wanting to make their teams better.

Just because a trade is for a reason other than improving the team doesn't make it irrational. There are all sorts of fantasy owners with all sorts of goals. I have a non-competitive league with a bunch of college buddies, for instance. Everyone in the league knows that I take this more seriously, and that I'm probably going to whip them all (6 seasons, 6 years in the playoffs, 5 title game appearances, 2 titles), but nobody cares because the goal is just keeping in touch now that we've all moved across the country. The league is more about the good natured ribbing and the shared history than dominating face. In a league like that, it's perfectly rational for someone to draft nothing but rookies, or nothing but players from one particular college. One year, we were a member short, so we just created an extra team, had it draft from ESPN's consensus rankings, and never bothered to set its lineup (we named it after an old friend who was laughably bad at keeping his commitments). The team had the lowest point total in the league, but managed to ride the most amazing schedule ever to the second round of the playoffs. Which is just another thing that makes this one of my favorite leagues. In WCOFF, obviously that's irrational. For us, for that league, with those goals, it's the most rational possible solution to the problem. What I'm getting at is that when we're calling other owners irrational, what we're really saying is that their behavior makes no sense according to our goals, beliefs, and values. That's a mistake, because even in highly competitive leagues, everyone has their own goals, beliefs, and values. Some guys would rather lose with their own hand-picked guys than win by following someone else's rankings and loading up on someone else's favorites. Some guys live for the hero shot, the one call that will secure for them fantasy immortality, while others are grinders whose only goal is to keep trading two dimes for a quarter until they are millionaires. Some guys believe that the only goal each and every year should be winning the championship that year, while others focus on maximizing championships over a longer timeline, and will gladly take a short term value hit even when they're a heavy contender. For some guys, it's not even about championships, it's about rosterbation- creating the best, prettiest, youngest team on paper. For some, that's what makes them happiest. And, not to get too heavy into social psychology, the truth is that most guys cycle through several of these goals based on framing- time of year, team record, recent success rate on moves, and other contextual factors which have no bearing on player value but a lot of bearing on how we value players. In short, it's probably better not to think of league mates as irrational, but rather as rational actors following different values. The advantage that offers is that if we can decode those values, we can start making moves that wind up being rational for both teams according to their own values.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had guys like Fitz and Jennings on my teams for years. I would've loved to have sold them before the value bottomed out, but it's not always easy. You need to successfully identify the right trade target and then find someone willing to make a deal. I think I am usually pretty good at #1, but elite players are rare by definition. Sometimes you have a pretty clear idea like with Dez Bryant, Trent Richardson, and Andrew Luck. But there are a lot of guys like Braylon Edwards, Roy Williams, Beanie Wells, and Kevin Jones who can fool you. A lot of people bought those guys thinking they were getting the next generation of core players. Obviously it didn't work out that way. The risk of going big on someone like Michael Floyd, David Wilson, or Josh Gordon right now is that he becomes this. The bigger concern is finding a willing partner. I sent out more offers this past season than ever before. In general, I found that it's very tough to get a deal done. You usually need to overpay to get something done. That decreases your margin for error. I only have Dez in one league and the only reason I got him is because I shipped out Randy Moss (still on the Patriots) and Dwayne Bowe. At the time it looked I overpaid a lot. I offered Fitz (and pieces?) for Dez before last season. No dice. I offered Fitz straight up for Blackmon before last season. No dice. I spent years trying to trade for Dez in a couple of my leagues for years to no avail. I've seen owners in my leagues punt away their best players for horrible prices, but I haven't had much luck finding deals for top players. The end result is that you sometimes end up arriving at the conclusion that you should just keep the guy and let him rot on your team. I still have Fitz in two leagues and I haven't even bothered sending out any offers this offseason. No point. No one wants him. And if they do, they don't want to give up anything to get him.

I find this as well. Almost impossible to trade for top players. I've worked for Richardson, Harvin, Dez and D Thimas this offseason and the answers have been, "I'm not interested in trading them". That's it.Same on trading away older vets (who still produce). No one willing to even talk.
Too true... I tried to trade Vick early in the season in my main dynasty last yr... Because of some of the hype that Foles was getting and because of the pressure that Reid was dealing with early in the season I feared I wouldn't get anything of value for him. Late in the season I got in a huge bind at the KICKER position and at that pt Vick had already lost his job and it was my feeling that he would never get a shot to run the show again in the NFL. While that last statement MAY be true I can at least envision a scenario where Vick holds decent value through this season in Philly with Chip Kelly.Regardless I was REALLY struggling and I needed to make a quick decision so it was either drop Vick and pick up a waiver wire kicker or offer Vick *gasp* in a trade for a Matt Bryant... The guy I offered it too also had Blair Walsh and was going to miss the playoffs so it wasn't like he was going to miss Bryant too much. Still he drug his feet for 3 days going back and forth and FINALLY he accepted.Vick went from 1st rd pick in startups 2 yrs ago to debatable whether or not I could get a starting kicker.At least that's how it went in my league.Sometimes it just happens so fast that you get left behind!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been the guy always winning the trades too. Some owners are very irrational and will trade for all manner of reasons besides just wanting to make their teams better.

Just because a trade is for a reason other than improving the team doesn't make it irrational. There are all sorts of fantasy owners with all sorts of goals. I have a non-competitive league with a bunch of college buddies, for instance. Everyone in the league knows that I take this more seriously, and that I'm probably going to whip them all (6 seasons, 6 years in the playoffs, 5 title game appearances, 2 titles), but nobody cares because the goal is just keeping in touch now that we've all moved across the country. The league is more about the good natured ribbing and the shared history than dominating face. In a league like that, it's perfectly rational for someone to draft nothing but rookies, or nothing but players from one particular college. One year, we were a member short, so we just created an extra team, had it draft from ESPN's consensus rankings, and never bothered to set its lineup (we named it after an old friend who was laughably bad at keeping his commitments). The team had the lowest point total in the league, but managed to ride the most amazing schedule ever to the second round of the playoffs. Which is just another thing that makes this one of my favorite leagues. In WCOFF, obviously that's irrational. For us, for that league, with those goals, it's the most rational possible solution to the problem.

What I'm getting at is that when we're calling other owners irrational, what we're really saying is that their behavior makes no sense according to our goals, beliefs, and values. That's a mistake, because even in highly competitive leagues, everyone has their own goals, beliefs, and values. Some guys would rather lose with their own hand-picked guys than win by following someone else's rankings and loading up on someone else's favorites. Some guys live for the hero shot, the one call that will secure for them fantasy immortality, while others are grinders whose only goal is to keep trading two dimes for a quarter until they are millionaires. Some guys believe that the only goal each and every year should be winning the championship that year, while others focus on maximizing championships over a longer timeline, and will gladly take a short term value hit even when they're a heavy contender. For some guys, it's not even about championships, it's about rosterbation- creating the best, prettiest, youngest team on paper. For some, that's what makes them happiest. And, not to get too heavy into social psychology, the truth is that most guys cycle through several of these goals based on framing- time of year, team record, recent success rate on moves, and other contextual factors which have no bearing on player value but a lot of bearing on how we value players.

In short, it's probably better not to think of league mates as irrational, but rather as rational actors following different values. The advantage that offers is that if we can decode those values, we can start making moves that wind up being rational for both teams according to their own values.

Seriously :goodposting:

Not kidding... I think this might be the best summary or explanation that I've heard and I can look back over the years and put myself into just about every one of those roles from time to time. Bottom line is that everybody is different and they all bring their own personalities into how they manage their teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been the guy always winning the trades too. Some owners are very irrational and will trade for all manner of reasons besides just wanting to make their teams better.

Just because a trade is for a reason other than improving the team doesn't make it irrational. There are all sorts of fantasy owners with all sorts of goals. I have a non-competitive league with a bunch of college buddies, for instance. Everyone in the league knows that I take this more seriously, and that I'm probably going to whip them all (6 seasons, 6 years in the playoffs, 5 title game appearances, 2 titles), but nobody cares because the goal is just keeping in touch now that we've all moved across the country. The league is more about the good natured ribbing and the shared history than dominating face. In a league like that, it's perfectly rational for someone to draft nothing but rookies, or nothing but players from one particular college. One year, we were a member short, so we just created an extra team, had it draft from ESPN's consensus rankings, and never bothered to set its lineup (we named it after an old friend who was laughably bad at keeping his commitments). The team had the lowest point total in the league, but managed to ride the most amazing schedule ever to the second round of the playoffs. Which is just another thing that makes this one of my favorite leagues. In WCOFF, obviously that's irrational. For us, for that league, with those goals, it's the most rational possible solution to the problem.

What I'm getting at is that when we're calling other owners irrational, what we're really saying is that their behavior makes no sense according to our goals, beliefs, and values. That's a mistake, because even in highly competitive leagues, everyone has their own goals, beliefs, and values. Some guys would rather lose with their own hand-picked guys than win by following someone else's rankings and loading up on someone else's favorites. Some guys live for the hero shot, the one call that will secure for them fantasy immortality, while others are grinders whose only goal is to keep trading two dimes for a quarter until they are millionaires. Some guys believe that the only goal each and every year should be winning the championship that year, while others focus on maximizing championships over a longer timeline, and will gladly take a short term value hit even when they're a heavy contender. For some guys, it's not even about championships, it's about rosterbation- creating the best, prettiest, youngest team on paper. For some, that's what makes them happiest. And, not to get too heavy into social psychology, the truth is that most guys cycle through several of these goals based on framing- time of year, team record, recent success rate on moves, and other contextual factors which have no bearing on player value but a lot of bearing on how we value players.

In short, it's probably better not to think of league mates as irrational, but rather as rational actors following different values. The advantage that offers is that if we can decode those values, we can start making moves that wind up being rational for both teams according to their own values.

Seriously :goodposting:

Not kidding... I think this might be the best summary or explanation that I've heard and I can look back over the years and put myself into just about every one of those roles from time to time. Bottom line is that everybody is different and they all bring their own personalities into how they manage their teams.

Good stuff. Does anyone else find that they approach a new league differently based upon how their teams in other leagues look?

I have some teams that are setup as pretty strong contenders going forward and I know that I'm very likely to come out ahead financially overall no matter what I do with my new teams. Thus, in a recent startup, I felt a bit more freed up to go really young, take some chances and not worry about trying to finish in the money the first year or two. I kind of think that if I was losing money with my other teams, I'd have been more likely to play it straight and add guys like Witten, Welker, Brady, etc.

Kind of like with what SSOG was saying, the financial motivation maybe lessens a bit and it is more about the fun and challenge of building a team in a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, it's probably better not to think of league mates as irrational, but rather as rational actors following different values. The advantage that offers is that if we can decode those values, we can start making moves that wind up being rational for both teams according to their own values.

Wonderfully summarized. Everyone has reasons for what they do. I've always thought of it in terms of language. If you can learn to speak the dialects of other owners, you can make things happen. Too often, people get caught up in the "they must be stupid because they don't want to do this trade" trap, or stubbornly beat their head against the same wall again and again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread but it probably fits better here.I had an idea yesterday and quickly threw something together on my lunch break, it's not complete and I'm looking for some of the bright minds in here to help me come up with the final piece.Essentially it's a dynasty rankings tool that takes the current makeup of your team and adjusts rankings based on this. The bit I'm currently missing is what is the formula for discounting players, I know how I'd like it to work but can't quite come up with it.If your team is very young or not ranked highly overall it should discount older players as you're unlikely to see the benefit of them. If you're in a win now type scenario this discount wouldn't be applied.Have a look and let me know what you think, it's a work in progress but I'm curious to see how it could work.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar_3IVXZG6mJdDdQVGFsdmwwbGR4S3B4MkhidVUxdGc&usp=sharing

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...