Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Dynasty Rankings


Recommended Posts

I know this draft is deep at WR. I'm looking at adding one of the 2012 rookie WRs (like Jenkins or Randle). Where would you all slot them in relation to this coming draft's WRs?

Based on where I'd rate them, something like this seems about right:BlackmonGordonFloydAllenWheatonWrightGivensDavisHunterWilsonRandleHiltonHopkinsWoodsPattonRogersAustinBaileyJenkinsHillJefferyPattersonQuickWilliamsI'm not sure the tiers are quite right, as there's not necessarily a clear and justified gap between the 2nd and 4th groups, but it's a decent starting point for me. Bear in mind that I rate players like Wheaton and Davis well above the current average.
EBF,In liight of the combine how would your list above change? Interested in particular on your thoughts on how Gordon and Blackmon compare to Patterson and Allen towards the top of the list
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this draft is deep at WR. I'm looking at adding one of the 2012 rookie WRs (like Jenkins or Randle). Where would you all slot them in relation to this coming draft's WRs?

Based on where I'd rate them, something like this seems about right:BlackmonGordonFloydAllenWheatonWrightGivensDavisHunterWilsonRandleHiltonHopkinsWoodsPattonRogersAustinBaileyJenkinsHillJefferyPattersonQuickWilliamsI'm not sure the tiers are quite right, as there's not necessarily a clear and justified gap between the 2nd and 4th groups, but it's a decent starting point for me. Bear in mind that I rate players like Wheaton and Davis well above the current average.
EBF,In liight of the combine how would your list above change? Interested in particular on your thoughts on how Gordon and Blackmon compare to Patterson and Allen towards the top of the list
A lot has changed since then. I've had to move guys like Hopkins and Patterson up, and I've dropped guys like Wheaton (a little) and Davis (a lot). In terms of how things stand today, I still take Blackmon over all of these guys. He had no major weaknesses. Looked the part in games. Adequate physical talent for a #1 NFL WR. Monster production. For me he was basically a can't-miss prospect. I'd put Patterson and Allen in with guys like Floyd and Wright. There is talent there, but I wouldn't quite feel comfortable mortgaging the farm to get them. Patterson has the explosive vertical ability to go along with good height and open field ability. I think he has the most upside of this group. I also think he's the most likely to be a bust. With him, you are gambling on stardom at the risk of being left with nothing. With Wright and Allen, I think they're safer investments with lower ceilings. We'll know a little more about Allen after he actually works out. He's not a special player in terms of speed/strength. I'd put Rogers/Hunter/Hopkins roughly on par with Gordon and Givens. Standout potential with some risk of disappointment. Off the top of my head, I'd have it:BlackmonPattersonWrightAllenFloydGordonRogersHunterRandleGivensWoodsPattonWheatonWilson AustinAnd then a slight dropoff to guys like Chris Harper and AJ Jenkins. The 2012 guys have shifted a bit as well, which is another story entirely. You could make a whole thread trying to crack the puzzle of how to rank Blackmon/Floyd/Wright/Jenkins/Gordon/Hilton/etc, and I don't think I've got it totally solved yet. I know that I like Blackmon/Wright/Randle. Not yet sure about the others.
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.

This is interesting, but there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered for it to be useful. We'd have to define end game, which is different for every owner. We'd have to weigh trade value and the potential to make trades. If I am not competing for 3 years, I am still taking Tom Brady over Jake Locker, and am then looking to move Tom Brady. That is just a couple of many.I like the idea, but I am skeptical of it every being useful.
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.

This is interesting, but there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered for it to be useful. We'd have to define end game, which is different for every owner. We'd have to weigh trade value and the potential to make trades. If I am not competing for 3 years, I am still taking Tom Brady over Jake Locker, and am then looking to move Tom Brady. That is just a couple of many.I like the idea, but I am skeptical of it every being useful.
I was hoping it would be clever enough to work out from your roster what you're trying to do but yeah I agree it's complex. That's the sort of stuff I'm looking for input on, you'd really need to use a career VBD projected out by seasons for it to be really effective though. Otherwise as you say you'd end up with "Tom Brady is now 35, discount him 4 places" or something arbitrary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where else to put this and considered maybe its own thread, but I found this article to be pretty interesting regarding WRs and statistical analysis of their success in the NFL based on combine numbers.

The NFL offseason is dead. It's far too easy when football isn't on to get fascinated with workouts and potential instead of on-the-field performance, and there's no greater proof of that than the NFL Combine, held annually in Indianapolis as the last chance for incoming rookies to impress any potential employers, with millions of dollars on the line.A few days ago, we took a look at what the offensive line workouts tell us about on-field performance, and today we'll look at wide receivers. Unlike the offensive line, a number of people have taken a look at how well receivers do after successful (or unsuccessful) days at the Combine.By now, Combine skeptics well know the wide receiver duo of Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, who both put up 1000 yards in 2008 on the way to a Super Bowl-and they both managed times in the 40-yard dash in the lowest ten percent of all current NFL wide receivers. They ran a 4.63 and 4.72, respectively.Moreover, a quick look at the quickest electronically-timed 40-yard dash times reveals a whose who of nobodies (and former Oakland Raiders) along with luminaries like Chris Johnson and Champ Bailey. For every star who ran a sub-4.3 40-yard dash, there are nearly three who don't make it. Once you'll find Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, another time, you could end up with Jerome Mathis (looking to find a job after the Hartford Colonials cut him, having failed to make a team).In fact, over the past five years, only 14 1000 yard seasons came from receivers who placed in the top ten percent of 40-yard times, while 11 1000 yard seasons came from those in the bottom ten percent. Over the past five years, qualifying receivers in the bottom ten percent of 40-yard dash speed averaged 100 yards more per season than receivers in the top ten percent.It seems that the 40-yard dash is useless, right?Well, it's not entirely useless, but neither is it extraordinarily useful. When taken in context, however, it can be revealing. More than that, some workouts are much more powerful than you might believe, given the media attention that they (and other, less important workouts) receive.The first step is to take a look at the work others have done and see how it performs. As always, DraftMetrics has been on the ball in figuring out whether or not Combine statistics provide any real value. Their measure of choice is the number of starts or seasons as a starter. Metrics are compared to their ability to predict one-year and three-year starters.They initially found that the marquee event, the 40-yard dash, had very little impact on predicting future NFL success. Of the top thirteen players to run the fastest 40-yard dashes (top-ten times, including ties), only seven became starters for one season.But, the event itself wasn't useless. The 20-yard split of that race did a pretty good job figuring out who was going to make it into the NFL. 74% of one-year starters ran the 20-yard split in 2.62 seconds or less, but that is a broad baseline. The average 20-yard spit of drafted players between 2006 and 2010 was 2.59 seconds, and 107 of 144 measured drafted rookies (74% exactly) in that time period posted a time equal to or less than 2.62 seconds.The 20-yard split isn't useless-knowing that 74% of those scoring above a certain baseline become starters in the NFL is valuable information, but neither is it the most useful split. More on that later.In their study, they saw that the vertical jump and the broad jump were moderately predictive of NFL success (as defined by the number of starts), but it didn't provide a lot of information. For them, the broad jump has a specific flag at 118, where 75% of all those who met that mark ended up starting in the NFL (defined as having eight or more starts in a season). In my sample, 72% of tested draftees bested a broad jump score of 118 and 33 of those (33%) started in their third season. Their sample is much larger and more holistic, so take the smaller sample done by me with a grain of salt.DraftMetrics didn't combine any of the combine measures, which is a bit of a shame, as there's good evidence that it can be useful. Bill Barnwell of Grantland, and formerly of Football Outsiders, developed a statistic from the Combine that he calls a "speed score," which by itself has a very strong correlation for predicting running back success in the NFL.When applied to receivers, the relationship isn't nearly as strong, but it is useful. Barnwell multipled weight by 200 before dividing that number by the 40 time taken to the power of the fourth, or simply this:With running backs, the correlation (a number that describes the strength of the relationship, which runs from -1 to 1) was .45, fairly astounding for a simplistic number (0 means the relationship is meaningless, while scores of -1 or 1 describe a perfect relationship). For context, an obviously related statistic, the relationship between a receiver's reception yards and their team's total passing yards, was .59 in 2012.What's really nice about the statistic, is that it averages at about 100, so it's easy to provide context. The best performances usually score a little above 120, while the worst performances end up with a total a little better than 80.For receivers, Bill Barnwell's speed score was weakly predictive, but definitely significant. When looking at seasons for receivers three years after they were drafted, qualifying receivers in the top ten percent averaged 802 yards, while those in the bottom ten percent averaged only 662. In this metric, neither Boldin nor Fitzgerald are in the bottom ten percent.That's not to say the statistic is perfect-productive receivers in the bottom ten percent include Danny Amendola,Brandon Lloyd and Wes Welker.Eight 1,000 yard seasons were to be had by receivers in the bottom ten percent between 2008-2012, but those at the top comprised 19 1,000 yard seasons.Aside from Barnwell, intelligent thinkers like those at Buffalo Bills Draft took a look at the combine numbers and found a distinct relationship for wide receivers. Instead of studying correlations, Tony Wiltshire applied a number of filters to see if there were indications of future success.He took all receivers with a speed score greater than 100, a 3-cone time less than 7.15 and a college production ratio of 80, then saw if they could meet a certain threshold on a metric he calls "Explosive Power," which combines weight, height, vertical jump and broad jump numbers into one score. Of those above that threshold, 11 of 13 turned out to be good investments, with two more still up for judgment (Stephen Hill and Rishard Matthews). There's something to be said about this success rate, although only finding 15 players who met all the filters in 13 years of combine numbers gives it limited usefulness.Still, it's a good read and I'll post an update on who fits in what category of prospect for his filters.For receivers I again found a difference between predictive and descriptive statistics. Finding out who will grab significant snaps or put up yards in the NFL is once again different than figuring out which combine statistics do a good job predicting solid NFL players among starters.Getting on to the field requires basic separation against top-tier competition, drive and impossible-to-ignore physical capability. In order to generate that separation, one would normally think of the agility drills as the best predictor. After all, movement in small spaces define how one can create passing windows out of nothing.That's not the case, as it's explosion gets a receiver time on the field. The vertical leap and 10-yard split are among the two most important combine measures that receivers can do well in in order to start getting snaps. After the initial burst, it doesn't seem as if additional quickness down the stretch correlates well to grabbing more snaps.The final equation for predicting NFL performance and participation from Combine numbers is easy enough to understand, if a little long: All of this indicates that height, weight and quickness are important. The most important of any measure, however, is the vertical leap. Leaps below 28.5 and above 41.5 don't provide any additional predictive value, so there is a ceiling and a floor to how much they help.Of the indicators used in the formula, height was least important, which implies one of two things. First, either NFL teams don't see a huge advantage in how high you can go-a receiver who is 5'10" with a vertical of 39" would typically and consistently see more snaps than a 6'4" receiver with a vertical of 37", despite the fact that the second receiver would have an advantage fighting for the ball.The second implication, which seems more likely, is that the vertical leap measures much more than simply how high a receiver can jump. That measure of leg explosion from a stand-still manifests itself all over the field in the form of exploding out of cuts, getting off the line, beating blocks and accelerating through the ball.This second implication is further confirmed by the fact that treating height and vertical leap as one variable (by adding them together to create a "jump ball score") is less predictive of how many snaps a player will take than vertical leap alone by a significant margin.Shuttle speed and three-cone speed are nice, and it seems that short-area quickness impresses coaches enough to put players on the field, but it's the 10-yard split time that matters the most. Like vertical leap, it will measure acceleration and smoothness out of a stance. Strong 10-yard split times come from receivers who don't take a false step at the combine when running the 40, and that ability to avoid inefficient movement translates well to NFL play in a variety of ways.In determining who takes snaps and who doesn't, the 40-yard dash is very weakly predictive, but the 20-yard split is very good, and the 10-yard split even more so-the relationship was twice as strong in the 10-yard split than the 40-yard dash.This runs counter to some other research DraftMetrics has done, which indicates that 40 times are the strongest indicator of future starts. Given that this research doesn't align with later work that they've done on the importance of Combine numbers and that they come to their conclusion with the number of "one-year starters" while my work looks at the number of snaps a player takes, I'm not too concerned. They merely looked at the top percentile of each combine measure and saw how many one-year starters were in each batch. That is not an indication, holistically, that the 40-yard dash predicts performance, just that it allows players to get a shot on the field (think Jacoby Ford).What's more interesting, however, is that among receivers who play a significant amount of snaps, completely different combine results matter, including one that might be the biggest surprise I've encountered so far. Out of every combine result, the single best predictor of success on the field (measured by total yards, yards weighted by receptions and touchdowns, yards per route run or any other reasonable measure) is the number of bench press reps a player took.It's not very close either-bench press reps nearly rival draft picks in their predictive capability. Unfortunately, receivers have only recently started doing the bench press at the Combine, so it's difficult to see how it holds up historically (although 30 of the 38 receivers at the Combine participated). Nevertheless, I have enough samples (160 individual player seasons) to be weakly confident of this fact, at least in the short run.When split into random samples, the correlation of bench press to performance remained equally strong, so it's not just the result of noise.This might be a result of a number of things. For players recruited to play receiver in college, speed comes fairly naturally, but strength doesn't always appear for players who show up to college weighing between 175-200 pounds. That means that they need to invest a significant amount of time in the weight room in order to maximize their upper body strength. That sort of work ethic translates well to performance in the NFL.Moreover, it takes a lot of strength to beat defensive backs off of press coverage and maintain timing, which is more critical in the NFL than in college-timing-based offenses are popular in the professional circuit, but can be easy to disrupt if receivers don't get off the line.Beating defensive backs to the ball, both in the air and when pushing off, requires strength that allows a receiver to get to the ball unimpeded.Still, it seems to be an outsized affect, but it is perhaps one of the few things that can't be covered with good instincts and technique. Receivers with poor speed can make up for their inability to fly across the field by using techniques to trick defensive backs or intelligence to sit in the spaces between zones. There are techniques to beat press coverage or get arms free for the catch (known as "creating real estate") but those can only get you so far without strength.Other than that, the results of other workouts are fairly fascinating. For example, 40-yard dash times have positive descriptive power for yards per reception-the faster you are, the higher your yards per reception. That's no surprise, but the interesting bit comes from the fact that it has nearly identical negative descriptive power when it comes to receptions or receptions per snap. It almost implies that the faster a player is, the less likely he is to catch the ball.The net correlation between 40-yard times and total yards is nearly 0, with a slight negative descriptive tendency.My guess is not that the 40-yard dash is a bad thing to do well in, just that more players receive opportunities to perform on the field as a result of straight-line speed than other players with different, but equal, characteristics. That results in an oversampling of receivers with fast 40-times.Another way to think of it is like this: when confronted with a choice to draft sixth-round receivers with generally equal grades (and therefore a theoretically equal chance to make a big impact in the NFL), NFL teams will generally choose the player with the better 40-time, perhaps in an attempt to grab "upside". This doesn't mean the 40 is bad, but that you might see a larger proportion of mediocre players play in the league with better times.The relationship is relatively weak, though, which suggests that NFL teams don't have much patience for players who don't perform, regardless of straight-line speed.The overall formula that projects success for receivers with significant snaps already in the NFL slightly exceeds the relationship between draft pick slot and performance (unlike the formula that attempts to project from the combine on). When combined with draft slot, the combine scores have a correlation that exceeds .5, which is very powerful indeed.The formula above works just as well predicting yards as it does a weighted score that gives points for receptions, yards and touchdowns—you may even use it as a tiebreaker for your fantasy league. Like all the formulas used so far, it ranks prospects generally from 0-10, except in extreme cases (T.Y. Hilton scored negative 0.4, for example).This unfortunately only works for 168 of the 550 people surveyed, given that few receivers participated in the bench press (which, like I said, correlated extremely well with success). Taking the bench press out weakens the formula, although it is still somewhat predictive. It just so happens that the bench press result by itself is more predictive than the rest of the formula. At any rate, the other important measures one can use to predict success are as follows (if bench press information isn't available).Weight has been an enormously powerful predictor along with the bench press, and features prominently as a predictor not just of yards, but yards after the catch and touchdowns. The vertical leap is likely important here because, combined with weight, it is a measure of explosiveness, not just the ability to get into the air. With leg strength and a big body, it's hard to move receivers to places they don't want to go.Height has been a surprisingly poor predictor, but it can make other measures more useful. By itself, it has a negative correlation with yards after the catch, and bears nearly no relationship to total yards. The fact that it has a negative correlation with receptions further speaks to how it doesn't provide as much of a benefit as one might think. Given that the separation between most receivers is about four inches, that's not a huge surprise.But when added to weight (which is likely here important because it is an indication of muscle strength) it becomes powerful by itself, particularly when predicting touchdowns.Not too different from Barnwell's speed score, it's more a measure of the ability to move a compactly formed body and less overall force. This predicts efficiency measures as well as total measures, and does a decent job figuring out whether or not a receiver's presence on the field is generally positive, even if he doesn't grab big yardage. It also generally correlates well with forcing missed tackles.The Combine might be overrated, but neither is it useless. Have fun seeing where your favorite receiving prospect stands.

http://www.dailynorseman.com/2013/2/25/4026096/2013-nfl-combine-can-the-combine-tests-predict-nfl-performance-forI am still taking this information in. I have placed more importance on the 3 cone drill for WR in the past than draftmetrics indicates I should. Some of these things seem hokey like the bench press for WR being not documented well enough to support the high correlation between bench press = WR success as so few have participated in the past.
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.

This is interesting, but there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered for it to be useful. We'd have to define end game, which is different for every owner. We'd have to weigh trade value and the potential to make trades. If I am not competing for 3 years, I am still taking Tom Brady over Jake Locker, and am then looking to move Tom Brady. That is just a couple of many.I like the idea, but I am skeptical of it every being useful.
I was hoping it would be clever enough to work out from your roster what you're trying to do but yeah I agree it's complex. That's the sort of stuff I'm looking for input on, you'd really need to use a career VBD projected out by seasons for it to be really effective though. Otherwise as you say you'd end up with "Tom Brady is now 35, discount him 4 places" or something arbitrary.
You can't change the value of players based on what your team looks like. All you can do is decide what their value is "to you".Basically, you can come up with your own rankings, compare that to actual rankings, and then use the lower ranked guys on "your rankings list" that you know are valued higher to the rest of the league, and go get your targets from that list.For example like you said if you are real young, and you KNOW you can't compete for a couple years.............and you have Peyton Manning on your roster. He is still going to be top 10-12 on the general rankings, but he might be like 25th on YOUR list. So let's say someone offers you Tannehill for Manning. You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade". So try something like this. Make your rankings based on what you think they would be at the start of the 2015 season (assuming you don't want to try to compete for 2013 or 2014). Then make equal value trades to try and use the lower guys on that list to get the higher guys on that list. You might have a guy like Roddy White who everyone else would love to have, but on your 2015 rankings White is way down the list, while a guy like Britt or Gordon is much higher. You can likely get multiple guys that you have ranked higher for a guy like White, or Andre, or Wayne, or Jennings.............So there is your formula. Look into your crystal ball and rank all the players based on what you think they will be that year, and then make decent value trades to get as many of the guys higher on the list as you possibly can. Edited by ghostguy123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

:no:You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill. Edited by gianmarco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

:no:You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.
Yup. It drives me nuts when people talk about whether someone else got "market value" for a player. The market is not every dynasty football owner in the entire universe. The market is the 11 (or 9, or 13, or however many) guys in your league with you. Actually, the market is much smaller than that- the Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers owners won't be looking to buy Peyton Manning. Maybe the Luck or Griffin owners will be, but they're looking at him more as a 1-year rental and will only pay accordingly. The Tony Romo owner might view Manning as an upgrade, but not a huge one. Maybe the other three teams in the market for a QB are all prospect-hounds who overvalue youth. Oftentimes, the market for a player is just one owner. Sometimes, the market is no owners at all. If that's the case, I don't care where Manning is ranked, you aren't going to get anything for him. That leaves you with a choice- you can either keep him, or you can trade him for below "market" value (with this "market" being the mythical market of all dynasty owners sitting around judging each other's teams). At the end of the day, if a trade is the best you can get for a player, and if the trade makes your team better in your estimation, then you make that trade every single time. That should be your only consideration- does this trade improve my team to a greater degree than any other trade I could possibly make? Is this trade the best use of my resources towards my goal of maximizing championships? If the answer is yes, you make the trade, "market" value be damned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timing is everything though. "The best you can get for a player" is based on this moment in time. Most teams are satisfied with their QB situation now. No one is looking to buy a 1-year rental now. In October or November that can change. I agree with taking below market value when it makes sense. If you really like Tannehill, do what it takes to get him. Otherwise, Manning is still going to have value. It's possible he'll have good value up til the trade deadline of the season he retires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I know that some people frown on links to rotoworld because they seem to like to throw their own slanted opinions on players into their stories but these links also "typically" provide you with a link to the original article where you can formulate your own opinion.

Im not sure I have seen a hotter offseason for potentially huge value swings for "sleeper" TEs who may or may not take advantage of the opportunities it appears that they will be getting for their teams. I for one am excited to see how some of these situations pan out.

Evan Rodriguez (looks like they will be giving him plenty of opportunities to see what he can do... maybe they go get Jermichael Finley if he becomes available but I guess we shall see)

Taylor Thompson (Looks like Cook will hit the open mkt... this could have big repercussions in yrs to come as it seems the Titans thought they would lose the TE vs WR franchise tag battle and they are willing to let Cook possibly walk. Maybe they sign another TE to step in and maybe they dont. Either way I think Thompsons value just jumped)

Adrien Robinson & also This (looks like Bennett may be hitting the open mkt as well and perhaps Robinson can carve out a role for himself... The Giants have made a habit of developing productive TEs... Kevin Boss, Jake Ballard, & now Martellus Bennett. Travis Beckum looks like a bust mostly because he couldn't stay healthy but even he flashed some potential at times)

James Hanna (he flashed some obvious downfield potential late last yr (just ask the Steelers) and even stepped into a slot WR role due to injuries in the last game of the season... Witten still probably holds on for 2 or maybe 3 more productive yrs but Hanna could create a lot of matchup problems and perhaps carves himself out a decent role as soon as this yr... one huge negative is with the restructuring of Austin and the emergence of Harris & most obviously Dez Bryant it could take until at least 2014 for him to make an impact)

David Ausberry (he has flashed quite a bit of talent in limited time & opportunities... the Raiders may not opt to tag Brandon Myers at 5+ million if they feel they can develop somebody like Ausberry or Richard Gordon... it's a situation I plan to monitor)

James Casey (Casey is 28 and I think he could see a huge upswing in value if he gets out of Houston... I believe that he will stay which would obviously cap his fantasy value because of the way they use him)

Delanie Walker (while intriguing I dont value Walker as all that much... especially since it seems the Niners would like to keep him around and Im not sure that another team would want him to come in and trust him to be their answer at TE as his hands were quite inconsistent)

Julius Thomas (I dont really have any links regarding Julius Thomas that are worth the effort of copying and pasting... I wish I knew how to quit you Julius... Long shot for sure but if in fact he starts to put it all together and gets healthy he could provide them with another weapon... most teams dont keep 4 TEs so when I see the Broncos doing that I at least am intrigued enough to see if he is able to generate any buzz during the offseason... maybe he works with Pey Pey during the offseason once again and maybe that is enough to at least get him an opportunity as a slot/move TE)

Edited by GoodLloydHaveMercy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

:no:You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.
Yup. It drives me nuts when people talk about whether someone else got "market value" for a player. The market is not every dynasty football owner in the entire universe. The market is the 11 (or 9, or 13, or however many) guys in your league with you. Actually, the market is much smaller than that- the Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers owners won't be looking to buy Peyton Manning. Maybe the Luck or Griffin owners will be, but they're looking at him more as a 1-year rental and will only pay accordingly. The Tony Romo owner might view Manning as an upgrade, but not a huge one. Maybe the other three teams in the market for a QB are all prospect-hounds who overvalue youth. Oftentimes, the market for a player is just one owner. Sometimes, the market is no owners at all. If that's the case, I don't care where Manning is ranked, you aren't going to get anything for him. That leaves you with a choice- you can either keep him, or you can trade him for below "market" value (with this "market" being the mythical market of all dynasty owners sitting around judging each other's teams). At the end of the day, if a trade is the best you can get for a player, and if the trade makes your team better in your estimation, then you make that trade every single time. That should be your only consideration- does this trade improve my team to a greater degree than any other trade I could possibly make? Is this trade the best use of my resources towards my goal of maximizing championships? If the answer is yes, you make the trade, "market" value be damned.
Yep. Market value means diddly when actually trying to get a deal done. I see Blackmon going 2-3 rounds later than guys like Marshall and Fitzgerald in startups that people have shared on here, but if I offer either of those two straight up for Blackmon in my leagues I guarantee you that I will be (and have been) rejected. Blackmon's startup ADP might be the 4th-5th round, but the people who own him seem to value him as a 2nd-3rd rounder. And since the type of owner who values him highly is generally also the type of owner who overrates youth and potential, good luck trading a 27+ year old player for him. One thing to remember is that whoever owns X player in your league probably valued him above the market in the first place. The reason why I have guys like Rueben Randle, Bernard Pierce, and Kendall Wright on a lot of my teams is because I valued them higher than most owners when we all had the chance to acquire them. So if you come to me expecting to pay market value for those players, you're doing it wrong. My idea of market value for "my guys" would seem like overpaying to an average owner. If you want to get them from me, you need to "overpay." You actually need to overpay the overpay. And it's the same for most owners. Just another reason why trading is often an exercise in frustration. Edited by EBF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

:no:You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.
Lack of patience will certainly lead to poor decisions and bad deals. If the best deal you could get right NOW for Manning is Tannehill, then no you do not take that deal. Before week 1, or before the deadline, or when someone has an injury you deal him. And since Manning will be worth more than Tannehill NEXT year also, there is no reason to do that deal. And absolutely NOT would I take a deal only because it is the "best deal I can get at that time". That is crazy talk. Maybe every great once in a while you will lose out because a player will lose all his value, but for every one time that happens you will get better value out of 5 other trades by waiting, and in the end you will be much better off for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of patience will certainly lead to poor decisions and bad deals. If the best deal you could get right NOW for Manning is Tannehill, then no you do not take that deal. Before week 1, or before the deadline, or when someone has an injury you deal him. And since Manning will be worth more than Tannehill NEXT year also, there is no reason to do that deal. And absolutely NOT would I take a deal only because it is the "best deal I can get at that time". That is crazy talk. Maybe every great once in a while you will lose out because a player will lose all his value, but for every one time that happens you will get better value out of 5 other trades by waiting, and in the end you will be much better off for it.

Have to agree with this. Can one really know the potential best deal for any collection of players? As Thrifty and GG123 said, a lot is in the timing. At what point is Manning worth holding to in order to test future value, over cashing in for a lesser player?At many points during the season his value could rise. Any number of teams could be more willing to invest in Manning once their playoff hopes depend on it. And I know injuries are more rare for QBs during the season, but plenty of Cam/Stafford/Eli owners found themselves getting less from their QB than that had planned before the season. That could be Wilson/Kaepernick/RG3 this year.I'd rather him "rot" on my bench while I continue testing the market than move him for a much lesser player. Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

:no:

You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.

I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.

Lack of patience will certainly lead to poor decisions and bad deals. If the best deal you could get right NOW for Manning is Tannehill, then no you do not take that deal. Before week 1, or before the deadline, or when someone has an injury you deal him.

And since Manning will be worth more than Tannehill NEXT year also, there is no reason to do that deal.

And absolutely NOT would I take a deal only because it is the "best deal I can get at that time". That is crazy talk. Maybe every great once in a while you will lose out because a player will lose all his value, but for every one time that happens you will get better value out of 5 other trades by waiting, and in the end you will be much better off for it.

I disagree with this. While it could go either way depending how Tannehill does I doubt someone is getting him for Peyton next year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might prefer to have Tannehill on your team because he will probably be more valuable in a few years when Manning dies, but there is no way you can make that trade. It's a "bad value trade".

:no:

You can (and should) make that trade. Not all leagues are the same and you can't look at it in a vacuum. If no one is going to buy Peyton at what you consider fair value, then you either say "fine, screw you all then" and keep him until he rots or you take "bad value" which, in the end, really just turns out to be good value based on your league and your team in the future.

I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.

Lack of patience will certainly lead to poor decisions and bad deals. If the best deal you could get right NOW for Manning is Tannehill, then no you do not take that deal. Before week 1, or before the deadline, or when someone has an injury you deal him.

And since Manning will be worth more than Tannehill NEXT year also, there is no reason to do that deal.

And absolutely NOT would I take a deal only because it is the "best deal I can get at that time". That is crazy talk. Maybe every great once in a while you will lose out because a player will lose all his value, but for every one time that happens you will get better value out of 5 other trades by waiting, and in the end you will be much better off for it.

I disagree with this. While it could go either way depending how Tannehill does I doubt someone is getting him for Peyton next year.
I would be more than happy to deal Tannehill for Manning if I needed an upgrade at QB scoring all the way up until the last year Manning ever plays. If Tanehill was my best QB and week 8 this season Manning says it is his last year, I would still make the deal.

Anyway, enough of the Manning for Tannehill example. There are a ZILLION variables in the art of fantasy football trading. There is no "one way" of going about things, and everything needs to be a case by case basis.

But as far as selling lower than market value (I don't mean your league value, I mean general market value), where is your cutoff point? If your team is terrible with no hopes of competing for like 3-4 years, would you trade Peyton Manning for a 2018 7th round rookie pick if it was the best offer you could get after shopping Manning to each owner? I mean, that 7th rounder has a better chance of helping your team in 4-5 years than Manning, right?

If I am going to give up in a particular season and look for the future, I might sell a bit lower for youth, but it will at least be pretty close in value or I will just wait it out until a deal that makes sense comes along. I would estimate that for every 10 times I do this, it works out for me 9 of those time, while 1 out of 10 I get stuck and get crap for the player, or he loses all value and I get nothing. Had I sold cheap all 10 times I would have far less to show for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julius Thomas (I dont really have any links regarding Julius Thomas that are worth the effort of copying and pasting... I wish I knew how to quit you Julius... Long shot for sure but if in fact he starts to put it all together and gets healthy he could provide them with another weapon... most teams dont keep 4 TEs so when I see the Broncos doing that I at least am intrigued enough to see if he is able to generate any buzz during the offseason... maybe he works with Pey Pey during the offseason once again and maybe that is enough to at least get him an opportunity as a slot/move TE)

Virgil Green > Orange Julius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julius Thomas (I dont really have any links regarding Julius Thomas that are worth the effort of copying and pasting... I wish I knew how to quit you Julius... Long shot for sure but if in fact he starts to put it all together and gets healthy he could provide them with another weapon... most teams dont keep 4 TEs so when I see the Broncos doing that I at least am intrigued enough to see if he is able to generate any buzz during the offseason... maybe he works with Pey Pey during the offseason once again and maybe that is enough to at least get him an opportunity as a slot/move TE)

Virgil Green > Orange Julius
Yes that is interesting as well... the ONLY thing that gives me pause is that they seemed content in only getting Virgil involved when they wanted a little more push on the line... Julius Thomas WAS going to be involved more during his rookie season but in his first extensive work he got hurt quickly. Does that mean they don't believe in his talent now since he didn't see the field? Or does the fact that despite him not even being on the field they STILL kept 4 TEs throughout the yr speak more to what they think of him for their future. He was raw coming out of college and although they seemed excited about allowing him to learn on the fly with Orton/Tebow things HAVE to change when Peyton Manning becomes your QB. You cant rely on a raw athlete with little to no REAL experience and a huge flaw in the blocking aspect of his game to handle a big role on a Peyton Manning led team, especially if Peyton's window is as short as it seems to be. So looking forward does Julius get a chance to show a little more of what he can do in the passing game or does he stay stashed away on the bench? I don't think any of us could say one way or another whether he has put in his time behind the scenes and has worked to really UNDERSTAND everything that Peyton requires of him on the field. Only time will tell but I will continue to feel that IF he is all the way back health wise & IF he has done his part behind the scenes and off the field then MAYBE he gets a chance to be a difference making player. I would hope at least we would be able to see enough of him to make a determination as to whether he is worth stashing on deep dynasty rosters or not. The fact that Virgil Green saw the field earlier in a MOSTLY blocking role doesn't really surprise me at all given that blocking has been pointed to as one of Julius's weaker aspects of his game.As far as Green goes I guess I can look at it in a few different ways.Either they aren't all that convinced he gives them what they will want as a pass catching TE so they only use him in the run game.Or maybe it can be seen as a positive that he is at least on the field even if it was almost exclusively as a blocker.I think it is hard to say who is better as a receiving option at this point... Do we give Julius a mulligan because of the injury and surgery that put him that far behind?I have Thomas ranked only SLIGHTLY higher than Green in my personal rankings but mostly because I feel Julius ceiling may be quite a bit higher as a receiving option. Perhaps his struggles blocking will keep him off of the field altogether but who knows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I might have buried another article like this in this thread somewhere that I was looking for when I found this one:

ROSEMONT, Ill., Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- The good news for NFL players

who sustain an injury to their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is that

they'll likely play again in the NFL. The bad news is, they'll return with

diminished performance on the field, concludes a study in the December

issue of The American Journal of Sports Medicine.

"Although there have been over 2000 articles on the ACL in the past 20

years, only a few have focused on the pro player," writes author James L.

Carey MD and colleagues from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pa. "Our study

is the first to objectively measure an NFL player's performance before and

after an ACL injury." (Dr. Carey is now affiliated with Vanderbilt Sports

Medicine, Nashville, Tenn.)

Brian J. Sennett MD, co-author and Chief of Sports Medicine at the

University of Pennsylvania, believes "this article will have significant

impact on setting appropriate expectations for the injured players, their

agents, team owners, and fans. It is the first article to establish that

injuries may have a significant negative impact on a player's performance

if they are able to return to action."

The researchers collected data on ACL injuries sustained by NFL running

backs (RBs) and wide receivers (WRs) during a five-year period (1998-2002).

This data came from NFL game summaries, play-by-play documents, weekly

injury reports, and player profiles. The injury group was compared to a

control group consisting of all NFL RBs and WRs without an identified ACL

injury who played during the 2000 season.

Carey, Sennett and colleagues devised a unique measurement of game

performance output in the professional athlete. They assigned a "power

rating" for every player in every season, defined as a weighted sum of

total yards and touchdowns, likely the most important statistics of RB and

WR performance. The power ratings for the 3 seasons prior to ACL injury

were compared to the power ratings for the 3 seasons following ACL injury.

Data were analyzed for 31 players with 33 ACL injuries. Of the injured

players, 21 percent (7 of 33 ACL injuries) never returned to play in

another regular season NFL game. Of the 79 percent that did return, most

players returned to action 9 to 12 months after an ACL injury.

For those players who returned to NFL action following an ACL injury,

performance fell by one-third, the researchers found. Power rating per game

played decreased from 9.9 pre-injury to 6.5 post-injury. This decline in

player production was statistically significant when compared to the 146

players in the control group.

Knee pain, stiffness, loss of strength, deconditioning and reduced

proprioception (the sense of knowing where your leg is) may be factors

explaining the loss of production in players after an ACL injury, the

authors theorize. Further, ACL reconstruction does not perfectly recreate

the complex anatomy and composition of a person's ACL before injury.

Interestingly, prior to their injury the ACL-injured players performed

better than did controls. "High-performance RBs and WRs are more likely to

be injured because they compete in more plays per game, carry the ball

longer on each play, and attract more defensive attention," the authors

say. "The same qualities of RBs and WRs that contribute to high performance

-- instantaneous decelerations as well as explosive pivoting and cutting

maneuvers -- may increase the risk for ACL injury."

The researchers cite a recent survey of all 31 NFL team physicians who

were asked to quantify "what percentage of players return to play in the

NFL after ACL reconstruction." Ninety percent of team physicians responded

"90 to 100 percent" of players (assuming not borderline talent) return to

the NFL. The current study found the number of players who return to play

after an ACL injury was actually less, at 79 percent.

"Most studies report good to excellent results in the majority of ACL

reconstructions regardless of technique or patient age, but the

professional football player presents unique demands on the reconstructed

knee," Carey concludes. "Our findings may be useful for athletes, coaches,

and team owners in anticipating the future contributions of a player who

has injured an ACL."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/most-nfl-players-return-to-competition-after-acl-injury-but-at-a-reduced-performance-level-56563987.html

I thought the bolded part was pretty interesting that they suggest a player with higher talent is more likely to have a acl injury than an average player for a combination of reasons. This kind of relates to the workload ideas and how coaches will talk about managing a players snaps.

Now I do think this is a small sample size and the data is pretty old. But I thought it was interesting to consider in regards to Lattimore or other players recovering from these types of injury. Almost 80% play again but most do not play at the same level again.

This is also before the more recent success players have had recovering from these types of injuries. The sports medicine being developed at the time of this article has improved a great deal since then.

I hope to find the other article I was looking for about this that shows that younger players have a higher success rate recovering from these injuries than older players.

Ah here it is-

Have you always wondered how likely it is for a running back to return to Top 10 Running Back Form after an ACL tear? The data linked to this article will finally answer all of those ACL-related questions!

View Data & Research

ACL tears are a serious matter for fantasy football running back success. While the data below shows that it is completely possible for runners to rebound after ACL tears, there are several factors that the savvy owner should be aware of. Comparing all seasons of RBs pre-ACL injury and a group of RBs who have never had ACL tears, you find that the fantasy success rate of these RBs is almost identical among the 88 total seasons studied. The rate of top-10 finishes among both groups is about 55%, while the top-20 finish rate among both groups is about 75-80%. This suggests we are studying and comparing relatively equal RB skill levels. The data shows that seasons during or post ACL injury, fantasy success rates go down dramatically. With a comparable set of 69 total “post-injury” seasons, the rate of top-10 fantasy finishes drops to only 28% while the rate of top-20 finishes drops to 49%. The effect of ACL injuries for RBs should not be ignored.

Age Matters

Another matter of importance is the age in which the injury occurred. Among the group studied, Edgerrin James was the only RB who experienced consistent post ACL tear success after an ACL injury sustained in the NFL. At time of his injury, Edge was only 23 years old.

Even more interesting, however, is that:

There was only ONE top-10 fantasy finish among RBs who tore an ACL after the age of 23, and that one top-10 finish was Adrian Peterson’s 2011 season, as he had enough yardage to stick to the top-10 during his injury season.

Out of the 16 other post-ACL seasons by RBs who tore their ACL after the age of 23, there were ZERO top-10 fantasy finishes.

Only two of those 16 seasons resulted in 1,000 total rushing yards (Deuce McAllister and Jamal Anderson), although, neither season was good enough for top-10 fantasy performance.

Conclusion

While the group studied obviously is not large enough to make a definitive statement, based on the findings, there is good news and bad news to take from this report. Many fantasy owners worry about collegiate injury history when drafting rookies…

College ACL Tears Can Absolutely Be Overcome

ACL tears suffered in college do not appear to have a debilitating effect on NFL success, and owners should not ignore players like Frank Gore or Willis McGahee in their rookie drafts, although, they should understand inconsistent play will result in a possible “boom or bust” dynasty player from season to season.

Did You Know?

Holy Garrison Hearst !

Note: Garrison Hearst tore his ACL way before the NFL, back in 1991, and never knew it; due to league-driven pressures, Hearst had surgery to repair the ACL prior to entering the NFL. Read more on this and why Hearst didn’t even need an ACL!

ACL Tears After 23: Approach With Extreme Caution!

On the flip side, ACL tears suffered after the age of 23 should be approached with extreme caution, regardless of prior success. As the body ages, its ability to heal itself and recover from serious injury to play at the elite athletic levels required in the NFL drops dramatically. The fact that these RBs who sustain injury late in their careers have trouble putting together elite fantasy seasons should temper fantasy owners’ expectations. There are still good buy-low opportunities for fantasy owners who can tolerate high levels of risk/reward, however these RBs should not be drafted as cornerstone players for a franchise, especially during dynasty start-ups.

More Runners To Study Moving Forward

In 2012, we will get to see these theories put to test. Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles sustained injuries after the age of 23 and will have to prove their return to elite performance before owners should justify giving 2nd and 3rd round dynasty start-up value. During dynasty start-ups, savvy owners should consider overall value before diving into RBs coming off injuries; fully understand the risk involved with all injuries before drafting!

http://draftcalc.com/fantasy-football-content/articles/dont-tear-your-acl-after-23-years-of-age/ Edited by Biabreakable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2012, we will get to see these theories put to test. Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles sustained injuries after the age of 23 and will have to prove their return to elite performance before owners should justify giving 2nd and 3rd round dynasty start-up value. During dynasty start-ups, savvy owners should consider overall value before diving into RBs coming off injuries; fully understand the risk involved with all injuries before drafting!

http://draftcalc.com/fantasy-football-content/articles/dont-tear-your-acl-after-23-years-of-age/
Thanks for the articles, but I strongly disagree with this last part. Well, I don't disagree that savvy owners should consider value and understand risk, but I feel like the implication is that savvy owners should apply a sizeable risk discount. In my experience, the general risk discount applied to dynasty players for any number of reasons (not the least of which is injury) is already inflated. Savvy owners shouldn't be looking to avoid risky assets, they should be looking to acquire them, because the market systematically undervalues them. Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles were just two more hits for a theory that could have landed you guys like Brady, Welker, Brees, McNabb, or Vincent Jackson for a fraction of their former cost. Personally, when I hear the words "ACL tear", the first thing I do is a queue up an offer. I don't send it right away, because I don't want the other guy to think I know something he doesn't. I'll wait a week or two, and then I try to buy to see if I can get a $10 talent for a $5 bill.Other guys whose owners might have given an inflated risk discount within the past season include Robert Griffin and Percy Harvin. The ship has sailed on Harvin now, with his trade to Seattle, but late in the season he probably could have been had for WR10 or WR12 prices. Bob Griffin's window for buying is still pretty open, though- I think we'll find that a year from now any concern about his knees was generally overblown, so if you valued him as a top-3 dynasty QB before the injury, see if you can't land him for QB5 prices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Does anyone know of a Dynasty auction value list? My season's RFA starts on April 1st, and everyone who's contract expired last season will be available for bids using our Free Agent Dollars. This year there's some notable players available, and curious to find what % of the FABB they should be worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know of a Dynasty auction value list? My season's RFA starts on April 1st, and everyone who's contract expired last season will be available for bids using our Free Agent Dollars. This year there's some notable players available, and curious to find what % of the FABB they should be worth.

Well if you match projected points scored to the amount of resources (Free Agent Dollars) available then you would be able to determine how much each player is projected to be worth. Then decide for yourself if you are willing to spend that or a little more for the player based on need.How much do owners usually spend during free agency? Do Free Agent Dollars reset every season? Do owners usually keep some cash in reserve? If you can figure out the average expected spending then that might help when matching dollar(s) to a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually owners spend a lot. We get 75 every year and what isn't spent rolls over into the next season. You also use these "snotes" to pick up free agents during the season and they're tradeable. The owner with the most has 142. The least is 39. I have the third most with 100 even. Im thinking of targeting Witten an,d plan to bid up to about 60. Just for reference last year CJ?k went for 75. Mike Wallace went for 60, Josh Freeman went for 56. (Can flex a qb).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually owners spend a lot. We get 75 every year and what isn't spent rolls over into the next season. You also use these "snotes" to pick up free agents during the season and they're tradeable. The owner with the most has 142. The least is 39. I have the third most with 100 even. Im thinking of targeting Witten an,d plan to bid up to about 60. Just for reference last year CJ?k went for 75. Mike Wallace went for 60, Josh Freeman went for 56. (Can flex a qb).

Ok so how much total is available to be spent? Divide that by the number of teams and you will know on average how much capital is available. If you have a 12 team league that means 900 FA $$ is added to the pool each season, so that is a good guideline I think for expected spending. The roll over would be used for in season free agency for the most part.Then using your projections with VBD baselines for your league to find the free agents you project to be above base line value. How many points are they worth? Then find a equivalency for FF points and free agency dollars. Edited by Biabreakable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With the draft on the horizon, a few situations are about to get complicated.

I think this is especially true at WR. This is such a deep draft class that a lot of the vulnerable "#1" receivers like Antonio Brown, Denarius Moore, Chris Givens, Torrey Smith, Malcom Floyd, Pierre Garcon, and Stevie Johnson could find themselves with some new competition very soon. I would expect all of their teams to look hard at receivers in the first four rounds. Other teams like Green Bay, Cleveland, Carolina, Minnesota, and Houston should also consider adding another WR early.

At RB players like Richardson/Pead, Dwyer, L Miller, Powell/Goodson, Moreno/Hillman, Ballard, BJGE, and Harris could see their stock swing significantly in either direction. I think all of their teams should strongly consider RB help in the first four rounds. And then there are some teams like San Diego, Oakland, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Arizona that could surprise people by adding a RB in the top 120 picks. With McFadden being constantly injured and a pending free agent, the Raiders are one of the best potential landing spots for a RB prospect to land. Dallas is heavily rumored to be looking at backs in the rounds 3-4 range and that could also be a decent landing spot with Murray (IMO) overrated and constantly injured.

With less than a week until the draft, it might be a good time to consider moving volatile pieces like Richardson/Pead, BJGE, Emmanuel Sanders, or Vick Ballard if you can find a believer. Players whose value derives from their situation will be under huge threat during the first several rounds of the draft.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard this from so many owners that want to sell off aging players. "I can't sell him for that". So they keep him, his value drops even lower, and then they can't even get what they initially could have gotten even if they wanted to. If you have an item that is worth $2000 but 11 other people are only willing to pay $1000, guess how much the item is really worth? Now, if you think you'll have use for the player, that's a different story and then you get to decide if that one guy makes the difference. Otherwise, you're better off taking the value you can get for a Peyton Manning, especially when it's an upside guy like Tannehill.

You need to distinguish between Exchange Value (what someone else in your league will pay) and Use Value (what he is actually worth to you now and going forward). Exchange value can vary from league to league because in fact all it takes is one person in your league to put a high value on a player and his Exchange Value is high; if no one puts a high value on him, it doesn't matter how valuable people in other leagues think he is. On the other hand, Exchange Value does not necessarily equate with Use Value (or Real Value). A player may objectively offer more value than anyone in the league is prepared to recognize. So, you have to decide what you can now in Exchange Value and measure that against your best evaluation of his Use Value to your team. It may be that one more year or two more years of what you think he is likely to produce is better than trading him for whatever his Exchange Value NOW is, even if that means in two years you won't be able to get anything for him. Edited by az_prof
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently moved Steven Jackson for a 2014 first in a salary cap league. Love his situation in Atlanta but after winning the league last year I realized my team got hot to sneak into the playoffs and pull out a trophy, but isn't yet built to be a dynasty. With a championship in the pocket (and poor contending situation) it makes sense to collect and move on.

In another league I am riding Jackson into the sunset as RB as I am built to challenge immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently moved Steven Jackson for a 2014 first in a salary cap league. Love his situation in Atlanta but after winning the league last year I realized my team got hot to sneak into the playoffs and pull out a trophy, but isn't yet built to be a dynasty. With a championship in the pocket (and poor contending situation) it makes sense to collect and move on. In another league I am riding Jackson into the sunset as RB as I am built to challenge immediately.

I think a 2014 first is a solid return for Jackson, especially if it's not from an elite team.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any thoughts going forward with terelle Pryor? I realize with Flynn coming in it may be a long shot for him to get a legit shot at starting but he intrigues me quite a bit... I was very impressed with the things he has said and the way he commanded that huddle in his only start last yr... I know he is not an ideal pocket passer and may never be anything close to that but if he gets some games and runs around a bit and looks decent in the fantasy stat line maybe I can squeeze some value out of him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any thoughts going forward with terelle Pryor? I realize with Flynn coming in it may be a long shot for him to get a legit shot at starting but he intrigues me quite a bit... I was very impressed with the things he has said and the way he commanded that huddle in his only start last yr... I know he is not an ideal pocket passer and may never be anything close to that but if he gets some games and runs around a bit and looks decent in the fantasy stat line maybe I can squeeze some value out of him?

Not if you are planning to trade him. He only has value in very deep leagues and that would be betting on the Flynn experiment being a failure or that somehow Pryor emerges due to a Flynn injury. I own him in two 24 roster leagues and will be cutting him in both. I am in a 30 roster league and if he is on the waiver wire would be a marginal consideration there. The bottom line it is hard to get that excited about his prospects when the Oakland coaching staff/management seems to have little confidence in his future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any thoughts going forward with terelle Pryor? I realize with Flynn coming in it may be a long shot for him to get a legit shot at starting but he intrigues me quite a bit... I was very impressed with the things he has said and the way he commanded that huddle in his only start last yr... I know he is not an ideal pocket passer and may never be anything close to that but if he gets some games and runs around a bit and looks decent in the fantasy stat line maybe I can squeeze some value out of him?

Not if you are planning to trade him. He only has value in very deep leagues and that would be betting on the Flynn experiment being a failure or that somehow Pryor emerges due to a Flynn injury. I own him in two 24 roster leagues and will be cutting him in both. I am in a 30 roster league and if he is on the waiver wire would be a marginal consideration there. The bottom line it is hard to get that excited about his prospects when the Oakland coaching staff/management seems to have little confidence in his future.

He's only going to really have trade high value if OAK wins those theoretical games he runs around in. If he does what he did in his only start so far - get some garbage stats - I think people will see through that. And that the eventual starter is from the 2014 draft. Otherwise he is Joe Webb.

I have Pryor in a few leagues just in case those running around games are useful for playoff runs. And I have both Pryor and Webb in a deeper superflex for similar reasons. But expecting him to look like a future longterm starter is kremenull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any thoughts going forward with terelle Pryor? I realize with Flynn coming in it may be a long shot for him to get a legit shot at starting but he intrigues me quite a bit... I was very impressed with the things he has said and the way he commanded that huddle in his only start last yr... I know he is not an ideal pocket passer and may never be anything close to that but if he gets some games and runs around a bit and looks decent in the fantasy stat line maybe I can squeeze some value out of him?

Not if you are planning to trade him. He only has value in very deep leagues and that would be betting on the Flynn experiment being a failure or that somehow Pryor emerges due to a Flynn injury. I own him in two 24 roster leagues and will be cutting him in both. I am in a 30 roster league and if he is on the waiver wire would be a marginal consideration there. The bottom line it is hard to get that excited about his prospects when the Oakland coaching staff/management seems to have little confidence in his future.

He's only going to really have trade high value if OAK wins those theoretical games he runs around in. If he does what he did in his only start so far - get some garbage stats - I think people will see through that. And that the eventual starter is from the 2014 draft. Otherwise he is Joe Webb.

I have Pryor in a few leagues just in case those running around games are useful for playoff runs. And I have both Pryor and Webb in a deeper superflex for similar reasons. But expecting him to look like a future longterm starter is kremenull.

darn... I was hoping for more but these last 2 posts have kinda confirmed what I had been trying to deny... the coaching staff just doesn't seem to want to give him a shot and at THIS POINT that is probably not going to change. Oh well...

thanks for the feed back fellas... my league is a 29 roster spot league with 1 starting QB... I imagine I will just throw him back into the pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sjax is a nice player to ride off into the sunset with right now.

On one of my teams I plan to ride him out. I have a pretty strong playoff caliber team and SJax will my #3 RB/Flex. If I didn't feel like I could contend I'd be interested in moving him for a 2014 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question. We've had the following team abandoned after 4 years in the league:

10 team start 1qb/2rb/3wr/1te/1flex(any)/idp

Bradford, Sam STL QB
Campbell, Jason CLE QB
Palmer, Carson ARI QB
Smith, Alex KCC QB
Benson, Cedric GBP RB (P)
Bradshaw, Ahmad FA* RB
Draughn, Shaun KCC RB
Greene, Shonn TEN RB
Helu, Roy WAS RB (Q)
Turner, Michael FA* RB
Avery, Donnie KCC WR
Boldin, Anquan SFO WR
Driver, Donald GBP WR
Gibson, Brandon MIA WR
Henderson, Devery NOS WR
Knox, Johnny FA WR
Moore, Lance NOS WR
Moss, Santana WAS WR
Ogletree, Kevin TBB WR
Rice, Sidney SEA WR
Simpson, Jerome MIN WR
Smith, Steve CAR WR
Stokley, Brandon DEN WR
Tate, Golden SEA WR
Wayne, Reggie IND WR
Clark, Dallas TBB TE
Fasano, Anthony KCC TE
Moeaki, Tony KCC TE (P)
Olsen, Greg CAR TE
Akers, David DET PK
Janikowski, Sebastian OAK PK
Jones, Jason DET DT
Babin, Jason JAC DE
Peppers, Julius CHI DE
Wake, Cameron MIA DE
Ware, Demarcus DAL DE (Q)
Ayers, Akeem TEN LB
Cushing, Brian HOU LB (Q)
Hali, Tamba KCC LB
Harris, David NYJ LB
Harrison, James CIN LB
Hawk, A.J. GBP LB
Maualuga, Rey CIN LB
Woodley, LaMarr PIT LB
Hall, Deangelo WAS CB
Marshall, Richard MIA CB (Q)
Peterson, Patrick ARI CB
Barber, Ronde TBB S
DeCoud, Thomas ATL S
Landry, LaRon IND S
McCourty, Devin NEP S (P)
Pretty much just terrible. Not only that, here's the draft picks this particular team has for this upcoming draft and the next:
2013:
3.10
5.07
6.03
7.03
7.11
2014:
Year 2014 Round 3 Draft Pick from Turd Ferguson
Year 2014 Round 4 Draft Pick from Turd Ferguson
Year 2014 Round 5 Draft Pick from Turd Ferguson
Year 2014 Round 6 Draft Pick from Turd Ferguson
Year 2014 Round 7 Draft Pick from Turd Ferguson
So this team literally has no assets. The new owner doesn't have to pay as we had a bylaw that you can't trade future picks without paying future dues but that won't help his team. So the question is, if you have a team this bad does your league just let it rot for a few years until the new owner makes it relevant again? Does anyone incorporate a supplemental draft? Me and the co-commish talked about letting each owner nominate 2-3 players and if the new owner of the bad team chose one of your players, you'd be eligible for a 1st/2nd/3rd round compensation based on how that player finished etc.
When the other owner was paying and just making bad decisions year in and year out I took the philosophy of "it's his team, let him manage the best way he sees fit while he's donating to the winners" but now that he's gone, what is a new owner supposed to do with a team like this? Especially considering he doesn't own any of his own picks, or even anything higher than a 2nd til 2015.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's about as bad as it gets when it comes to dynasty rosters.

The thing is, you need to have a plan in place for scenarios like this before they happen. Most of my leagues have rules where if you trade away your 1st round pick in a future season, you have to pay some or all of your dues. That takes the financial burden off of a prospective new owner who has to come in and babysit an awful roster for a couple years before it has any realistic chance of becoming competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's about as bad as it gets when it comes to dynasty rosters.

The thing is, you need to have a plan in place for scenarios like this before they happen. Most of my leagues have rules where if you trade away your 1st round pick in a future season, you have to pay some or all of your dues. That takes the financial burden off of a prospective new owner who has to come in and babysit an awful roster for a couple years before it has any realistic chance of becoming competitive.

Well, the owner had to pay 1/2 of 2013, and 1/2 of 2014 when he traded his picks. So we offered the new owner either half off for the next two years, or free 2013. He choose free 2013. But 2014 is going to be rough. I'm going to try to get it upp'd this off season to full dues when you trade future picks from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's about as bad as it gets when it comes to dynasty rosters.

The thing is, you need to have a plan in place for scenarios like this before they happen. Most of my leagues have rules where if you trade away your 1st round pick in a future season, you have to pay some or all of your dues. That takes the financial burden off of a prospective new owner who has to come in and babysit an awful roster for a couple years before it has any realistic chance of becoming competitive.

Well, the owner had to pay 1/2 of 2013, and 1/2 of 2014 when he traded his picks. So we offered the new owner either half off for the next two years, or free 2013. He choose free 2013. But 2014 is going to be rough. I'm going to try to get it upp'd this off season to full dues when you trade future picks from now on.

What happens when he bails after next year, when he has to pay full price for a joke of a roster? There should be something done, in my opinion. Maybe add a draft pick at the end of the 1st round each year(1.11?)? Something.

How does this happen in a 10 team league? This roster would be awful in a 16 team league.

ETA: Giving him the option of taking the team for free this year, really only delays the problem. Unless this owner stick around - and who could blame him if he didn't? - you just remove any discount when you have to replace him in 2014.

I'd get the league involved in the conversation. Hopefully they are open to fixing the problem longterm. It does nobody any good to have the roster rotting away while you have to find replacements year after year.

Good luck!

Edited by Concept Coop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...